A TIME FOR TRUTH AND A TIME FOR LIES
0 views
Skip to first unread message
NoEinstein
Jun 28, 2009, 12:11:50 AM6/28/09
to Views
SC Governor Mark Sanford is in the hot seat after revealing that he
had an affair with a woman from Argentina. But he seems more in the
hot seat because he… lied to his family, and to his staff and
friends. Lying, it seems, quickly bursts the bubble of the
unrealistic expectation that those we elect to public office are
saints. The issues here are governed not so much by laws, as they are
by the mores of society. Being “found out” to have lied has greater
consequences than the lie itself, which often was quite innocuous.
Two politicians among many who have lied are former presidential
candidate John Edwards, and now, Mark Sanford. Both have had their
prospects of ever becoming president lessened by their words and
deeds. John F. Kennedy purportedly had affairs while he was
president, including with Marilyn Monroe. But were his political
accomplishments any less because he… strayed? If the truth be known,
even honest men will lie at times to protect their privacy. I suspect
that there are more people who are secretive with their lies than
there are those who get caught. People with
long noses who look down on those who lie, are likely to be liars
themselves. Oh the hypocrisy of having unrealistic expectations of
those in public office. “Let he who is without sin cast the first
stone.”
Honesty is probably the greatest virtue. But does that ideal extend
to making candid revelations about every area of one’s life? Don’t
all individuals have a right to privacy? I certainly believe so! If
someone asks a trivial, yet prying or leading question, should a
person’s life suddenly become an open book simply because that person
is honest? I certainly believe not!
Being caught lying can have deadly consequences, especially when the
lie happens in a court of law. Juries are much more likely to convict
someone if it can be proved such person lied. Suppose that a person
who was seen in the vicinity of a crime tells police that he was just
walking to the store to buy a pack of cigarettes. However, an
investigation shows that the man wasn’t recognized by any of the
clerks working at that time in any of the nearby stores. Suddenly,
because he was “caught” lying, that man got forced to be a police
lineup. And because a witness sees a resemblance between that man and
the person seen fleeing the scene of a murder, that liar is charged
with the murder and is thus put in jeopardy for his life or his
future.
The above mentioned lie was real, but its motive had not been to cover-
up involvement in a murder, but to cover-up that man’s having an
affair while his wife slept. If he had given a truthful answer to
police, his wife could have found out, and his marriage and family
would be broken up. In a fundamental way, people should have the
right to lie to protect their own privacy, and no police or court
authority shall over-ride that right and make privacy protection
criminal. My New Constitution includes the following,
“Article III, Section 5 & 6: It is treason to foster corruption in
any arm of government, to levy war against the USA, adhere to her
enemies, or to give them aid and comfort. The former must show abuse
of power that subverts the New Constitution, such as by enlisting
subordinates into unlawfulness that violates the civil rights of any
Citizen or group. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on
the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or by confession
in court. The House sets punishment for treason, if the civil rights
of innocent relatives aren’t affected.
Witnesses in court shall be asked: “Do you promise that the
testimony you are about to give will be truthful to the best of your
knowledge?” No religious help or association shall be required during
the asking of such question. The truthfulness of a witness’s
testimony can be limited by the manner, sequence, and extent of
questioning, so witnesses always have the right to volunteer apt,
truthful testimony without fear of sanction by the court. Perjury
shall be punished commensurate with the level of negative effects
resulting there from. Judges shall have discretionary sentencing
power below the maximum, but felonies carry a min. 3-year sentence, or
as stated herein, and the accrued negative effects of any criminal
sentence shall not exceed the accrued negative effects of the crime.
Fines or monetary judgments shall not be used to allay government
costs. If the public isn’t injured, it’s not a crime to flee or hide
from injustice, nor to aid another, therewith. *** Nor is it a crime,
or proof of a crime, for an innocent person to lie to protect their
own privacy, or the privacy of an innocent person. *** The House or
states shall pass no law nor approve any regulation requiring that a
convicted person admit to guilt in order to get a fair sentence or to
be considered for parole. During incarceration, if a jailed person’s
behavior has been good, at the appointed time, parole shall be
granted. When a conviction is appealed, adjudication shall occur
within six months, without public pressure, bias, or a presumption of
the correctness of the conviction. A rightful decision in such shall
be based only on the facts in the case while respecting the continuing
constitutional rights of the one convicted. The appeal(s) of a
conviction shall never place the appealer in jeopardy of a worse
sentence. A reasonable daily frequency of unmonitored phone calls and
unopened mail (external sniffing and/or x-raying accepted) shall be
allowed for persons held against their will.”
Over the past fourteen years that it has taken to write the New
Constitution, news coverage in the media, and even such things as
fictionalized courtroom dramatizations have influenced the wording.
One of my objectives has been to make certain that no innocent person
ever gets jailed for a crime they didn’t commit. In the process,
police authorities, and the courts are made to be respectful of the
public. The present 5th Amendment guarantees against self
incrimination. I have taken that premise to its logical, fair
conclusion and eliminated the absurd “can and will be used against
you” Miranda Rights, by specifying:
“No statement(s) to law enforcement made by an accused person prior to
being formally charged with a crime shall be admissible in court.
Statements by an accused person, after being charged, are admissible
in court only if such are made voluntarily, are expertly videotaped
without editing, and are taken with the advice of and in the presence
of competent counsel. No confession obtained by lying, deprivation,
coercion, threat, or mental or physical abuse shall be admissible in
court. Law enforcement is motivated against crime, but shall not be
prejudiced against the presumption of innocence of any accused
person. Crux evidence in cases shall be shown expeditiously and
succinctly without trial delaying emotional diatribes or character
attacks. An accused person shall not be overcharged in a crime; the
prosecution shall present their evidence and their theories, from the
outset, that might support each level of crime that the jury
considers; a theory not presented by the prosecution may not be
proposed out of court by a jury member(s). The mere charging of an
accused person with a possible level of crime—in the absence of
specific plausible evidence and theories—shall not be sufficient to
allow juries to consider the charge even if such is of lower
seriousness.”
Michael Jackson’s superstar life justifies his being honored by his
many fans. However, his having been investigated for possible
criminality because of the sleeping accommodations at his ranch, never
should have happened. Those in government who supposedly represent us
are doing their share of shady, sexual things, and have no business
passing laws which make those same things crimes, when others do
them. The ultimate area of privacy should be one’s bedroom.
Contractual marriages, and/or gaygements, at no point should require
the sanction of government, nor the obtaining of licenses. Acceptable
civil liberties are determined by the mores of the people, not by
government prudes, bent on social engineering. “Judge not that you be
not judged.”
Respectfully submitted,
John A. Armistead
AKA NoEinstein on Google
Happy Days... 2
http://groups.google.com/group/views/browse_thread/thread/d63f04a059491122/579a48e380c75116?hl=en#579a48e380c75116
Campaigning is a Science, too.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a83e59ee6ca4d1f5/b29f39ee45684d85?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b29f39ee45684d85
OBAMA’S NOMINATION OF SOTOMAYOR BETRAYS DEMOCRACY
http://groups.google.com/group/views/browse_thread/thread/998870d93fd1a994?hl=en
USA IS BOTH SOOTHED AND BETRAYED BY RHETORIC
http://groups.google.com/group/views/browse_thread/thread/576e701e1d916343?hl=en
A Democracy Doesn’t Favor Media Figures and Celebrities
http://groups.google.com/group/views/browse_thread/thread/e6230d6402064fbd?hl=en
had an affair with a woman from Argentina. But he seems more in the
hot seat because he… lied to his family, and to his staff and
friends. Lying, it seems, quickly bursts the bubble of the
unrealistic expectation that those we elect to public office are
saints. The issues here are governed not so much by laws, as they are
by the mores of society. Being “found out” to have lied has greater
consequences than the lie itself, which often was quite innocuous.
Two politicians among many who have lied are former presidential
candidate John Edwards, and now, Mark Sanford. Both have had their
prospects of ever becoming president lessened by their words and
deeds. John F. Kennedy purportedly had affairs while he was
president, including with Marilyn Monroe. But were his political
accomplishments any less because he… strayed? If the truth be known,
even honest men will lie at times to protect their privacy. I suspect
that there are more people who are secretive with their lies than
there are those who get caught. People with
long noses who look down on those who lie, are likely to be liars
themselves. Oh the hypocrisy of having unrealistic expectations of
those in public office. “Let he who is without sin cast the first
stone.”
Honesty is probably the greatest virtue. But does that ideal extend
to making candid revelations about every area of one’s life? Don’t
all individuals have a right to privacy? I certainly believe so! If
someone asks a trivial, yet prying or leading question, should a
person’s life suddenly become an open book simply because that person
is honest? I certainly believe not!
Being caught lying can have deadly consequences, especially when the
lie happens in a court of law. Juries are much more likely to convict
someone if it can be proved such person lied. Suppose that a person
who was seen in the vicinity of a crime tells police that he was just
walking to the store to buy a pack of cigarettes. However, an
investigation shows that the man wasn’t recognized by any of the
clerks working at that time in any of the nearby stores. Suddenly,
because he was “caught” lying, that man got forced to be a police
lineup. And because a witness sees a resemblance between that man and
the person seen fleeing the scene of a murder, that liar is charged
with the murder and is thus put in jeopardy for his life or his
future.
The above mentioned lie was real, but its motive had not been to cover-
up involvement in a murder, but to cover-up that man’s having an
affair while his wife slept. If he had given a truthful answer to
police, his wife could have found out, and his marriage and family
would be broken up. In a fundamental way, people should have the
right to lie to protect their own privacy, and no police or court
authority shall over-ride that right and make privacy protection
criminal. My New Constitution includes the following,
“Article III, Section 5 & 6: It is treason to foster corruption in
any arm of government, to levy war against the USA, adhere to her
enemies, or to give them aid and comfort. The former must show abuse
of power that subverts the New Constitution, such as by enlisting
subordinates into unlawfulness that violates the civil rights of any
Citizen or group. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on
the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or by confession
in court. The House sets punishment for treason, if the civil rights
of innocent relatives aren’t affected.
Witnesses in court shall be asked: “Do you promise that the
testimony you are about to give will be truthful to the best of your
knowledge?” No religious help or association shall be required during
the asking of such question. The truthfulness of a witness’s
testimony can be limited by the manner, sequence, and extent of
questioning, so witnesses always have the right to volunteer apt,
truthful testimony without fear of sanction by the court. Perjury
shall be punished commensurate with the level of negative effects
resulting there from. Judges shall have discretionary sentencing
power below the maximum, but felonies carry a min. 3-year sentence, or
as stated herein, and the accrued negative effects of any criminal
sentence shall not exceed the accrued negative effects of the crime.
Fines or monetary judgments shall not be used to allay government
costs. If the public isn’t injured, it’s not a crime to flee or hide
from injustice, nor to aid another, therewith. *** Nor is it a crime,
or proof of a crime, for an innocent person to lie to protect their
own privacy, or the privacy of an innocent person. *** The House or
states shall pass no law nor approve any regulation requiring that a
convicted person admit to guilt in order to get a fair sentence or to
be considered for parole. During incarceration, if a jailed person’s
behavior has been good, at the appointed time, parole shall be
granted. When a conviction is appealed, adjudication shall occur
within six months, without public pressure, bias, or a presumption of
the correctness of the conviction. A rightful decision in such shall
be based only on the facts in the case while respecting the continuing
constitutional rights of the one convicted. The appeal(s) of a
conviction shall never place the appealer in jeopardy of a worse
sentence. A reasonable daily frequency of unmonitored phone calls and
unopened mail (external sniffing and/or x-raying accepted) shall be
allowed for persons held against their will.”
Over the past fourteen years that it has taken to write the New
Constitution, news coverage in the media, and even such things as
fictionalized courtroom dramatizations have influenced the wording.
One of my objectives has been to make certain that no innocent person
ever gets jailed for a crime they didn’t commit. In the process,
police authorities, and the courts are made to be respectful of the
public. The present 5th Amendment guarantees against self
incrimination. I have taken that premise to its logical, fair
conclusion and eliminated the absurd “can and will be used against
you” Miranda Rights, by specifying:
“No statement(s) to law enforcement made by an accused person prior to
being formally charged with a crime shall be admissible in court.
Statements by an accused person, after being charged, are admissible
in court only if such are made voluntarily, are expertly videotaped
without editing, and are taken with the advice of and in the presence
of competent counsel. No confession obtained by lying, deprivation,
coercion, threat, or mental or physical abuse shall be admissible in
court. Law enforcement is motivated against crime, but shall not be
prejudiced against the presumption of innocence of any accused
person. Crux evidence in cases shall be shown expeditiously and
succinctly without trial delaying emotional diatribes or character
attacks. An accused person shall not be overcharged in a crime; the
prosecution shall present their evidence and their theories, from the
outset, that might support each level of crime that the jury
considers; a theory not presented by the prosecution may not be
proposed out of court by a jury member(s). The mere charging of an
accused person with a possible level of crime—in the absence of
specific plausible evidence and theories—shall not be sufficient to
allow juries to consider the charge even if such is of lower
seriousness.”
Michael Jackson’s superstar life justifies his being honored by his
many fans. However, his having been investigated for possible
criminality because of the sleeping accommodations at his ranch, never
should have happened. Those in government who supposedly represent us
are doing their share of shady, sexual things, and have no business
passing laws which make those same things crimes, when others do
them. The ultimate area of privacy should be one’s bedroom.
Contractual marriages, and/or gaygements, at no point should require
the sanction of government, nor the obtaining of licenses. Acceptable
civil liberties are determined by the mores of the people, not by
government prudes, bent on social engineering. “Judge not that you be
not judged.”
Respectfully submitted,
John A. Armistead
AKA NoEinstein on Google
Happy Days... 2
http://groups.google.com/group/views/browse_thread/thread/d63f04a059491122/579a48e380c75116?hl=en#579a48e380c75116
Campaigning is a Science, too.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a83e59ee6ca4d1f5/b29f39ee45684d85?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b29f39ee45684d85
OBAMA’S NOMINATION OF SOTOMAYOR BETRAYS DEMOCRACY
http://groups.google.com/group/views/browse_thread/thread/998870d93fd1a994?hl=en
USA IS BOTH SOOTHED AND BETRAYED BY RHETORIC
http://groups.google.com/group/views/browse_thread/thread/576e701e1d916343?hl=en
A Democracy Doesn’t Favor Media Figures and Celebrities
http://groups.google.com/group/views/browse_thread/thread/e6230d6402064fbd?hl=en
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages