The Human Being of Law - The Legal Duties of the Future

One should remember that the divide between right and wrong, is by some people considered the start of civilisation and that this effort stands on top of history that extends more than 2000 years of human thought and anguish for the missing steps up here. As this is noted, we start:
1. There should be no holes in a good system of legal practice/legislation system.

2. The laws are absolute and they can't be reasonably dodged. This point is supported by point 1.

3. (if nec.) The laws are complete and describe only objective circumstances (pertaining to HDM, of the science, and quality of evidence) and most certainly only real life.

4. Legislation is on top. The courts are nr. 2 and the Police are nr. 3. There are various security concerns to this. I think the Police need clear rules/procedures as they do their work. I think the Judges only need to set a precedent if the Legislative Assembly (National Parliament) feigns its duties. So I want/hold a theory for a sharp and pro-active Legislative Body and "Judges only to the rescue", acting secondarily so to speak.

Just in case of interest, I find Antonin Scalia's Originalist position compatible with a "Legislationist" position. Thus I pay respect to forming laws "in the spirit of the Book of Laws (fx. Norges Lover)". Or when you sit there writing, that you are "in a spirit of the Law". This should be the beginning bricks for securing best-practice legal work.

You should note my point on Gödel, the German logician, in Phil. Notes, that this text  leaves no room. There will be no excuses if the future is properly cared for.

Also take note on the meditative state for making laws. Legislation happens at most meditative state, down to the Judges (by the heat of the Trial and direct Justice down further to Police under fire, so to speak). Thus, this comes natural.

I must add that Europe can do well with its own Courts reporting (by example of Nancy Grace) and Justice section on CNN U.S. American edition and a Situation Room type of Legal Practice reporting (in media where there is "interest"). I welcome a more aware and active Legal Practice reporting in Europe. Also in the Pan-European sense (to close some holes for the dubious parts of the World)...

I believe it has been Clarence Thomas who has uttered the words on an interview with CBS 60 Minutes that "you need legislation to make verdicts". Consequently, I have the "Legislationist" position from him, but I'm uncertain if it is he who says the words or somebody else because a fair amount of time has passed since then.

When I write "Absolutist", I mean of course that there should be (normativity) little or no room for "interpretation". Burglary is thus burglary and rape, even for the sexist or crazy, is still the rape. The victim can never be the burglar oneself and the victim can't either be the rapist oneself. Some people are blind to this, they fail to make proper distinctions of words or situations or whatever. I also think that today's systems across the world seeks brevity of law as description of law on a rather unfounded basis. Therefore, I can imagine a more complete description to go with the law as it's delivered from the Legislative Assembly. Fx. in case it's needed, a better description can be given as a secondary compilation to the laws by corresponding documents to the collection of laws where these are needed. A law concerning The Protection of Private Information, by the privacy laws, as fx. one's private address can be given a better description until it reaches a level of descriptive completeness, possibly adding 1, 2 or 3 pages.

Even if we speak of filming for the press, there is still no valid objection to having this filmed by Court's Archiving Services. Thus, Courts would have the pressure to do the job right and appeals could become much more clear. Corruption could also get rooted out much faster and idiot judges would never be allowed. But corruption to the archiving system makes every problem return again. Extra efforts should be made to secure system for this, that doesn't fall to crime/corruption.

A possible interpretation by myself of the original 9th Amendment from the Constitution of USA:
How the laws are numbered/organised shall not be construed in such a way that people are denied or disparaged the protection of law, because they, secondarily, the people (or their representing lawyers, of old), fail to identify them, impliedly, of these laws that are, of course, represented by we, the people! Thus the protection by law is absolute.

This relates to the Science of Jurisdiction/Law and Philosophy of Law.
As soon as the letter of the Laws is broken, the rights for absolute privacy fall away by definition and the perpetrator(s) fall(s) into the category of possible persecution (by law enforcement, first and foremost).

Remember still, though, that Law Enforcement has to obtain evidence in a legal manner, that is, after reports have been filed... or after a sting operation we managed to... You know where this is going.

Judges, especially of the lower courts may be doing mistakes too. Therefore, the trust put in them by their colleagues higher up may be deeply misplaced. As the judges of the lower courts are seen as more or less error-free, expecting the system to accommodate for mistakes, that is, to correct them (by the appeal system), the whole system gets corrupted. This may be the cumulative effects we live with today! Not only the courts are a problem, but the police, special interests Laws by lobbying groups, by companies or else and so on! This makes it definite that there is room for a lot of improvement, by system and so on.

An inevitable list of modern notions to (every) Philosophy of Law, I introduce to you:

1. I've made a novel move in terms of describing the real and hard criminal nature of "monkey business", in conjunction with mSomatism, that is, "monkey business", of "energy problem", as fixation or modus operandi, from the lunatic is here addressed specifically.

2. I've suggested a national assembly approved official commentary that is to support the courts and reduce the amounts of precedents, so also as to diminish their mistaken authority throughout the World, even if they have served us to some good extent in the past. Germany is explicitly on the move in this respect.

3. I've described the definitive relations between the national assembly, the courts, and the police forces, so as to make the lines of duty more clear and to reduce any illusion of "self-made-policies" in that auto-generated sense. This is really /the/ policies killer, withholding the far more serious "police instructions", fx.

4. I've made Objective Ethics including the crucial 4 methods of lie-detection to be used, potentially, at the same time, inside the police "interrogation room"/"questioning room". These are, of course, (f)MRI, "a swim hat of sensors", voice-stress analyzer, mimicry, including eye-dialation, and polygraph-testing, the reaction of body to nervousness in exuding sweat, essentially.

5. I have, together with others, suggested to film all cases in the courts so as to heavily reduce poor judge performance in the long run and to definitely place the possibilities for democratic control well within the proper hands of democratic care-takers! So that the court-archives will take on the most definite character and leave no doubt how the case has run. Some set-ups may even contain one or more of these 4 methods above.

This should speak well for me in demolishing any legal Hilbert's program! (Hilbert for insiders.)

The difference between de jure legal person/human being of law is key in this text, as should be clear to all, i.e., the companies, like Coca-Cola, with the company registry numbers to go, in Norway given by www.brreg.no. On the contrary, with insights to go, I am establishing The Human Being of Law for everybody, that is, I establish the legal guarantee (in theory, stiffening the duties for lawyers and others considerably) for seeing through human beings as individuals and this is novel in legal theory, that of course, is subdued by my adversaries here and there on planet Earth, so plainly withholding the points by lying/"pro-active ignorance"!

The plain de jure human being of law, like the Coca-Cola company (Norw. comp. registry, www.brreg.no ): well, well, it relates to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_corporation_and_corporation_by_estoppel.
The Human Being of Law (that I'm writing about), leading up to the burning of "tons" of precedents in USA: http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/09/opinions-on-philosophy-of-law-maybe-bit.html.

Term: person
n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.
See also: corporation party - from http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1516.
I add the Norwegian terms just for the possibility of misinterpretation to become zero. There is also a slight development of language that I'd like to address:
Juridisk person.
Fysisk person.
(Issuing this comes from the Norwegian legal separation of "physical person" (NO: fysisk person), how an ordinary person is addressed in the Norwegian legal system. On the other hand, companies are addressed as "legal person" or "legal human being" and I happen to think that there's some convention for this "here or there" in Europe, perhaps also in USA, despite my lack of legal nomenclature.)

Given my position by mSomatism, I see no other choice than to commit all citizens to have a pistol/revolver for personal security so that human nature can continue to progress (faster/more steadily) in order to be better human beings, i.e., the biggest challenge in the World today is to make human kind a better human kind and it will probably also take more death penalties in order to happen.

There is no need for pause for when to make these politics to have effect, that is, please, get it into life as soon as possible.

For the legal systems to progress further from this year, 2013, as the weapons enter, so goes the death penalty in too, Worldwide, "because the advocates for the abolition of the death penalty have lied most blatantly!"

Most importantly: this text approves "weapons to all citizens" for the next 50 years most certainly, and minimally, under The Human Being of Law, that I hold as name, because I have created it, it belongs to my name as my contribution to the World (of intellectuality).

Practical example for the common societies:

On Copyrights and APIs (from some time ago),
I better make a comment on a verdict some time ago on copyrights and APIs.
First of all, I think there is a general note on novelty. A copyright is bought and sold on appeal, on attractiveness, on effort.
Secondly, there are formal requirements that demand that you have made it, you are the maker/creator of a particular copyright (other circumstances may obtain under reasonable agreement between some parties).
Thirdly, let the market test whether a person has been invited to make,

Start
Go www.google.com/search
Do

has something to show for or not. Either way, any person bringing something "to the market", has an undeniable right to say that this given person actually has accomplished this, no matter how small. A smaller consideration is whether this is an inside invitation from fx. Google to this person to make this come true, i.e., is this some kind of "fixed"/"hypothetical" problem? "Have they invited problems to the table?"

Conclusion must be that copyright is still, generally, impossible to question and that the copyright-creators need to show for the work they've completed and want to bring to the market. The buyers or users need to wait for (proper) availability.

Some practical implications for the highest legal matters, the military and the intelligence services:

A slight note on US story of surveillance by BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22820711. That the World outside USA should fiercely/openly report US demands for intel outside own legal domain and that we should demand that the US servers are to be protected for "outside-US citizens" as well as US citizens in having the same (business) rights as US citizens on *US soil*, that invokes/includes a long-standing tradition. USA has no evident rights to claim full invasion of privacy against foreigners on US soil! This destroys some military ill-founded conceptions with them!

Secondly, the "after-Echelon" efforts by Microsoft and others should be demanded to gain a new transparent status such that the business standards are well kept again outside sinister-idiot-(military)-scheming for "greed" and "power", by (former) Financial Radicalism.

Advice to the public: You can get good lessons from Court TV (Nancy Grace) and various interviews from your or U.S. American Supreme Court Members by 60 Minutes. General media awareness isn't so bad either...

Notes:
1. However, as a crime (letter of the Laws...) has taken place, everyone has either the duty or possibility to file a report to the police about their "suspicions"/sightings/what they've witnessed!
2. I'm inspired by Nancy Grace and we may share some "context" here.
3. This text is repeated so that it becomes more clear to people around the World. It also holds great importance to all of humanity and may imply a historical shift in near future.
4. On the (U. S.) American Constitution - The Ninth Amendment
That my work in it has effectuated: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage the full extent of these to the  people's benefits. See specific text for best wording (above, else).
5. I'm still the holder of "The Human Being of Law" and that I know this is worthy for the Nobel Prize of Literature or the Peace Prize in the extended sense, people relying on the future of humanity.
6. I insist on mathematical union between Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law as much as Philosophy of Mathematics and Mathematical Philosophy! You may add Physics Philosophy and Philosophy of Physics to this as well!

References:
The header of it says: Opinions on Gödel's Theorems of Incompleteness and Possibly Tarski and link is (one of them): http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2011/08/philosophical-notes-of-intellectual.html.

--------------------------

A sub-note to The Human Being of Law is this, as matter of underlying support, given the complexity of the nature of human being and much ground to improve on, legally:

[Text to the attacks on "The Stranger": ]

Additional Considerations to the "Perfect Lovers Slash Perfect Strangers", also known as "Perfect Strangers" by Deep Purple.

Under John Lennon's Imagine still, a sharing of story between two friends occur, of the dangers of the World and how to solve them, specifically the ones described by "The Stranger" by Camus. At the time of writing this could have been under "Hey Jude", Beatles, too, but this reference has been beyond me at the time.

The story we speak of is a loose version of the text to follow, Perfect Lovers / Perfect Strangers (not homosexual here, but rather in the sense of two male friends who may happen to double-date time and again, i.e., perfect lovers). With notions of "flow psychology", not entirely described as flow psychology at the time and feeling a great rush of history reading, "of flying on oceans of time", I write:

[No room (for them)/"instant"] Full organs, The Stranger isn't the Bible. Full guitars blow! [Maximum power.]

The text without the vocalisation of the above, but there by assumptions.

The text,
[Text, ending with vocal "end-signature": Perfect lovers slash perfect strangers]
After text, it should be noted that as a friend to friend "trick", in finding a friend to stay with, one is asked to consider "Perfect Lovers slash Perfect Strangers" as a slider that one seeks to improve, at least as a matter between oneself and the other person.

"Go!" ("The Stranger" no more?)

A note on psychology, with "Don't talk to strangers", Karl Marx forgets that estrangement from the means of production, fails the higher target of ensuring non-estrangement of human kind, that McCarthyism in ousting communism succeeds in three, 3, targets, the human rights, the democracy and the psychology to go, human being to human being. It's complex to be find the best line for human beings and the story of the human being, from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens extend some 200 000 years by loose memory. Check yourself, please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ_kez7WVUU.

Marked by Christianity, McCarthyism wins through: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy, USA withholding both Religion and personal weaponry while ousting Communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stranger_(novel).

The French are now up to the arms in Pierre Duhem and Christianity and Family, Monarchy and France, while "Abolition" has to leave the scene for the next 100 years at least, by my own estimate. Death penalty, by Payment Slips Laws (slip laws) and common-sense punishment of criminals, should be in everywhere, for the same 100 years, give or take some.

France going at its matters, USA and World (France incl.) may take on a new kind of corruption fighting by McCarthyism 2.0, a much more refined McCarthyism that has "the right people with it", like the broader, transparent set-ups of "Citizens' Commissions of Law and Order" and wide public coverage (avoiding hysteria and foul play at the same time).

The World is encumbered by many issues, but with USA at a headstart, I've encourage EU, China and Japan to rush the same way too, leaving the bug(g)s (as in sandbogs) of corruption behind.

This text only speaks for the rare or moderate uses of the death penalty.

There is no neck-over-head pro-death penalty from myself to this, The Human Being of Law, that also has to comply with "Accordance-Realism-Pragmatism-Utopianism" (ehhh... Utopianism in the scope of 200+ years) of Political Theory.

The Human Being of Law - Definition

The use of "The Human Being of Law" in this context refers to an ideal of the human being and the fact that this particular achievement does the following: it represents "The Theoretical Legal Guarantee for Being the Human Being" in such terms that now Rule of Law and the legal systems will always provide the reach for achieving the best of human kind in terms of the ideal of The Human Being, of Humanity, and that this is as big as it's possible to get in Science of Law, the Legal Sciences!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_the_Science_of_Law.
Doctor of law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jurisprudence: From the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study, knowledge, or science of law"; in the United States, more broadly associated with the philosophy of law.

Legal philosophy has many branches, with four types being the most common. The most prevalent form of jurisprudence seeks to analyze, explain, classify, and criticize entire bodies of law, ranging from contract to tort to Constitutional Law. Legal encyclopedias, law reviews, and law school textbooks frequently contain this type of jurisprudential scholarship.

The second type of jurisprudence compares and contrasts law with other fields of knowledge such as literature, economics, religion, and the social sciences. The purpose of this type of study is to enlighten each field of knowledge by sharing insights that have proven to be important in advancing essential features of the compared discipline.

The third type of jurisprudence raises fundamental questions about the law itself. These questions seek to reveal the historical, moral, and cultural underpinnings of a particular legal concept. The Common Law (1881), written by oliver wendell holmes jr., is a well-known example of this type of jurisprudence. It traces the evolution of civil and criminal responsibility from undeveloped societies where liability for injuries was based on subjective notions of revenge, to modern societies where liability is based on objective notions of reasonableness.

The fourth and fastest-growing body of jurisprudence focuses on even more abstract questions, including, What is law? How does a trial or appellate court judge decide a case? Is a judge similar to a mathematician or a scientist applying autonomous and determinate rules and principles? Or is a judge more like a legislator who simply decides a case in favor of the most politically preferable outcome? Must a judge base a decision only on the written rules and regulations that have been enacted by the government? Or may a judge also be influenced by unwritten principles derived from theology, moral philosophy, and historical practice?

Four schools of jurisprudence have attempted to answer these questions: formalism proposes that law is a science; realism holds that law is just another name for politics; Positivism suggests that law must be confined to the written rules and regulations enacted or recognized by the government; and naturalism maintains that the law must reflect eternal principles of justice and morality that exist independent of governmental recognition.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

Mine: Formalist!

Formalism is by this realised by conventions of linguistic science and the Conventionalism of Poincare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventionalism.

See for instance Formalism by Martin Stone in The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence & Philosophy of Law by J. Coleman and S. Shapiro, OUP, 2002, repr. 2004.

My "Human Being" presides over these notions from history describing human as animals. As a start for exposing this literature, I've chosen to start with Aristotle's Politics where humans are being described as political animals in what I see as the start of a plan to make a structure for the transition of humans from animalistic humans to human beings. Aristotle lives in 384 to 322 BCE in (Ancient) Greece.

Recommendation, The Human Being of Law:

I recommend that the people who go away "in" suicide can do so with legal silence, i.e., the laws concerning the suicide victims themselves must be erased/abolished for not being valid anymore (or enter legal sleep).

This follows the logic "after the Bible" so to speak, that a person is either admitted "in" to "herb" euthanasia/suicide or offered credible/definite protection against the attacks on this person's belief (in God) or adviced to seek suicide elsewhere "with blessings to go", so as to not condemn anyone "with a heart of malice or any else thereof".

The Legal Context:
The laws are abolished/erased by traditional approach as 1st step. Then the next steps are to make the case for more formal euthanasia/social code suicides, in dignity, by understanding the hardship some people go through and leaving life in escaping it all, as should be plain, death being the highest price to pay (and not for these "psychopaths" to seek torture in full before the last breath on Earth).

The Religious context:
In a sense, this above text provides a 3-Options respectful approach to people of (deep) despair, one of which is most desirable, to be able to protect the fellow human being of religious faith ...foremost.

Thus, at least for a start, this person of despair is requested to seek a person (inside Church) worth of trust.

Formalism as project toward book can be given this title:
Formalism - in Being Realist - Science Abiding
(inside book:) in tribulating the success of Formalism!

"Inner note": Formalism is to be known publicly:
Formalism - in Being Realist - Science Abiding
(inside book:) in tribulating the success of Formalism!

Formalism admits NO deficiencies to other aspects of Jurisprudence and Phil. of Law.

"In citing the Martin Stone article of Formalism by Oxford Handbook, as above/former."

The Human Being of Law
- Formalism (strongest - note) has formerly "won" the Human Rights, UDHR and ECHR alike, also to service globally! Please, see reference with the UN.

Philosophy of Law: Legal Reasoning Closure Principle Philosopher, legal reasoning, being valid, has to comply with logical entailment and that this is minimally the claim that it does, apart from the (many book) examples that it does. (This is only a formal note, not the text for lawyers to actually having to sit and make these logical texts themselves, i.e., to burden them with much extra work.)

(This is a new position to be known in the World, as with Accordance Realism-Pragmatism-Utopian.)

In addition, time in logics can be solved like this:
Predicate logic,
UoD
20:20 PM, 2013-09-09: Km (person m is suspected to have committed a murder)
20:20 [...]: Lm (person m after the time of murder)
20:20 [...]: Bm (person m before the time of the murder)
so on...
Sentential logic,
UoD
20:20 PM, 2013-09-09: K (person m is suspected to have committed a murder)
20:20 [...]: L (person m after the time of murder)
20:20 [...]: B (person m before the time of the murder)
so on...

(Again, predicate logic is a bit more powerful...)

Additionally, you can check up various time-logics yourself, sentential, predicate, modal...

Frame logics for time, doing it properly/by stiff structure, the logical schema is presented by the below,

UoD: Everything (by default) for all frames/both frames.
t(1):
t(2):
t(x, as many as needed...)
[The declared list, general/definite, i.e., by predicates x and singular r, s, t, u, all that's needed from a to u, as usual.]

Argument, Frame 1 - Code: Fx. the murder, time so and so, including year, possibly.
t(1): [time reiterated for orderliness]
[Under UoD from above, the deduction and worded outline proceed.]

Argument, Frame 2 - Code: Fx. time elapsing after, time so and so, including year, possibly.
t(2): [time reiterated for orderliness]
[Under UoD from above, the deduction and worded outline proceed.]

Argument, Frame X - Code: Fx. time all else, time so and so, including year, possibly, all legal reasoning entailed, physics reasoning for physics, etc. ["Heh-heh-heh", also for the political attempt]
t(X): [time reiterated for orderliness]
[Under UoD from above, the deduction and worded outline proceed.]

Warning!
To think that "any legal system walks", failing the Police Act and police instructions in rife manners, approving every state crime and every criminal, prompts this:
"The condition of our legal system has coerced me into these killings. I'm without guilt. You are the atrocity, preventing everyone their rightful life!"

To say that the use of the word "torture", people to people, makes this only worse because "in one sense or thousands", the use of torture, secretly, moving in the bling of academic title after is d*mn FACT, a mere rope "as passion with the twisted mind looking for perfect evil"!

There is a worsening fact too now that the Human Being of Law has been established, making these failures to duties and lawful behaviour most evident!

"That violations of my Human Rights, Articles [xyz], UDHR/ECHR..."

The Legal Systems of the World - The "Developed" Countries

The definition of a legal system that defeats itself is one that promotes crime as acceptable/"allows crime openly" among the general population.

Because states/nations are acting like this, suppressing various alarming statistics, one being the instances of torture, the law-abiding/lawfully behaving citizens are pushed into being logical dissidents to their states/nations.

Their "weapons" as straight facts or not, at the disposal:
Betrayal in return (because the state/nation isn't...)
The political attempt (with many targets now)
All other demonstrating acts (as d*mn objection)... Everything...

(Examples of big failures: China and the one-child policy and WWF, with parts of Greenpeace or not, and their promise to deliver leadership by "national parks" that has turned to... 7,1 Bn people... much insect-culture on the planet...)

The World has entered a dangerous condition! (Black laughter or not!)

PS: The two largest human rights organisations make this no better, HRW (with the personal weapons) and Amnesty International (with European peace and law ideals)... always with "calm down" as one of the loudest responses... psychology concerns...!

PS2: Logicians looking for fuzzy logic expressions, police state (unwanted = 0) and democracy (wanted, maximally as idea into reality = 1). How is yours? (Rather than one of the "glider" expressions, one from one of my original accounts (2 exactly) on (D)Arpanet as newsservers/discussion boards.

To add strength to the World more:
All national assemblies are bound too, as much as the highest level courts are bound to laws and regulations and truth on a "no-mistake-basis" (also by "overturning principle" by the properly qualified lawyers). We write:

The laws are to work deeper and simultaneously strengthen the already existing laws and regulations. Therefore, the notion that any law can pass is only brain-hypothesis-entertainment with no value as such other than to entertain fantasies of "this and that"! (I.e., taken out and shot in being shameful!)

Police too, checked from all angles, the 3 perfect parts form democracy! With media serving the public, being the 4th, crucial parts being, for the time being, legal system reporting and reports on weapons, lethal and non-lethal, outside World too.

However... By police state and fuzzy logic:

To gain a reading of the police state as degree into your life and your view of society, effectively, you only need to "factor in" your own personal unrest/uneasiness/worries in order to have a clue of where to set the fuzzy logic value! Good?

The Humanistic Oath for Leaders!

There is this suggestion to require ALL LEADERS to lay down a humanistic oath, committing them to proper leadership in accordance with laws and regulations, incl. the Human Rights (ECHR/UDHR)! This may make all these leaders liable to harder punishment or harder sentencing in the Court of Law!

The above is logically placed, also, with "100 % Society", as ...
- http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2012/05/100-society-matter-of-political-science.html - The 100% Society - A Matter of Political Science.
- http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/11/straight-addition-to-100-society.html - A Straight Addition to 100% Society - Philosophy of Politics.