The justice (and not only "if not guns then peace and ever so"):
It may very well be that the torture rates of USA are significantly lower because with guns people are able to revenge. In other parts of the World, one is in lack of this and therefore people commit the most awful acts against one another (more so than in USA, not an angel-country itself).
Therefore, I'd like you to consider
* guns equals less torture (less molestation and traumatizing of children)
* no guns equals more torture than if guns are present like in USA, the only country where guns are present to this degree.
Do not forget, please, that USA has become the most powerful nation based on its virtues and one of these virtues is the 2nd amendment right, the right to own arms (preferably only small arms).
One thing is to die from a gunshot, but a whole other thing is to die from torture, perhaps taken to the most extreme, both in terms of time and of mental pain. Torture must be seen as straight evil in today's World when even the military issue may be seen as excess due to overwhelming power from NATO and UN (UN Sec. Council).
Our legal systems worldwide aren't perfect, surely. But the system in USA edges more toward a desired system than in rest of the World.
Just think of where you want to live. Do you want to live in a poor country? One hears of no torture in South Africa, but is it really so beautiful? And so on for every other country...
The victims to gun violence must be seen as a sacrifice for keeping torture and widespread abuse of children to rather low levels. It could be European levels and they are not good at all!
From a citizen in Europe, a system much overrated in terms of legal systems.
The disturbing facts in terms of suicides, separating the "nature" of suicides in USA and everywhere else, purely due to selfdefence (guns being part):
It's stated that "Approximately one-half of suicides are committed by firearm, accounting for two-thirds of all firearms deaths. [21,334 of 33,599 in 2014]"[24-reference]
Those are decent suicides! In Europe we do all sorts of crazy things in order to (finally) die because either it's the corrupt authorities hunting the suicide candidates only to get more torture on them. A corruption we in Europe usually never can do anything about because the self-protection is outlawed, that is, guns, pepperspray, tazers and killer knives. And that's after the 20 times the suicide candidates "bounce" about before they die!
"The same article [USA Today] stated that there are far fewer homicides than suicides in the country; in fact, homicide rates have fallen by half in the U.S. since 1991."
So homicides are bad, but the numbers are improving and the victims have gotten the death by gun shot, not tortured a few times first as in Europe.
For the instances of torture in Europe, pick out the stats for murders, missing people and a good portion of the suicides who "failed" to die when tortured!
At spot no. 48 USA comes in with 12.6 per 100 000 people.
At spot no. 102 Norway comes in with 9.3 per 100 K people.
Hurray! At spot no. 123 United Kingdom comes in with 7.4 per 100 K people.
Now, from the above and given Europe's tendency to sodomy, corruption and lying for the facade, also for protection (because a wounded prey in Europe usually gets "taken" quickly).
You know, I happen to think that USA takes it (accepts the deaths, some also "beautiful"), all factors considered! (Don't say you're young, please, because then you have quite a bit of learning to do!)
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States
Some additional:
Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York The Problem of Evil. "...of the widespread practice of torture." and "...all examples of moral evil or cruelty: human beings inflicting suffering on other human beings..."
There's a further question for this 9-killer shooter. Should he see the death penalty or how long should he sit in prison because of this?
Information to the British public:
I have sent this text (the main text) to BBC Have your say and they should have strong duties in acting on this!
Also in terms of BBC World if not "BBC Europe" (I guess where they are). This is a serious matter in Europe, one that possibly propagates the most grievous torture throughout every day!
Concerning the gun debate, I'd like to question the experts/"experts" and how perverts handle guns.
Not only are perverts likely to shoot themselves in the head ("aaarrrgghh, this head must come OFF!"), but they also, generally, HATE guns, whether the thunder of it or that the shooting is "white"/good, that is, the fear to be shot by goodness, for one strange reason or other (I happen to think they hate justice, as this also is goodness.)
I find that the experts/"experts" hide the facts of perverts handling guns (poorly)!
New news: not that I let go of the corrupt (small) parts of USA, but we in Europe and elsewhere need to understand that Google, Facebook, Intel, AMD and others are purely due to US American character by respect to Human Rights and their own citizens by gun rights and other for self-defence, plus, plus, plus... This is the hard lesson for all places outside USA.
New deal in the gun debate and pro self-defence:
I think that abuse/severe abuse/torture is also about children, most certainly, and some men and women. The leader of the National Association for Victims of Violence is saying that they support lawful pepper spray and tear gas "where the police are unable to do the job". I think maybe pistols/revolvers may be appropriate and maybe, thus, avoid the debate about automatic rifles/submachine guns. As such, rifles should then be used for hunting, primarily. Pistols/revolvers only have this range of 50 m. Perhaps not the worst to control.
(What psychologists and others should have said is:) Perverts/sodomistic people/most hideous criminals handle pistols/revolvers and pepper spray poorly if not blowing their brains out directly, so there is an immediate duty to get self-defence with most people as soon as possible! Get it?!
Psychology - Relating to recent tv about Psychopaths (and other morally depraved people), they sure do know to pick a weaker opponent. Maybe they are the more likely abuser part of domestic violence, men beating their women and children.
For the military battlefield, also weak combatants?
Again, the self-defence speaks more for the good people than for the "moral deviants"/devious criminals. ("Professional") Criminals are always involved in criminal networks and therefore have an easy/easier access to self-defence (at least in Europe) as so often pointed out. Again, the self-defence can move mountains in terms of Human Rights (UDHR). Please, don't use Amnesty International as counter-argument...
It must be recognized that the weapon has always defended the faith of the religious and I am sure the religious has the toughness for the gunfight as well in such order that they usually win or get out of harms way, one of two!
You may say that you are peaceful when you are against the revolvers (or pistols), but if the World is that peaceful then the revolver is hung up on the office wall and becomes a symbol of that very peace!
(Don't try it, you "peace-lovers"!)
And don't you forget about the situation for the gun-less Jews upon the Kristallnacht! Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht
Message to NRA - National Rifle Association of America
I suggest that it may be useful to split up the 2nd Amendment into two parts.
1. that deals with militia aspects, securing the nation in face of despotism with considerations of Home Guard and Embedded Infantry and other military with the general population in such a fashion that no Despotism can take place. Also, the State by State considerations.
2. the one that deals with general security person by person. Thus I mention the removal of gun-free zones and importance of carry permit and concealed carry permit. The bump-stocks seem to be disappearing and the magazines may be regulated to proper sizes, eg. no more than 20 bullets or other. Camera-directed (automatic?) gun-turrets may also be considered. Other? You get my point.
By this, one can possibly remove some of the craziest set-ups for weapons of the military calm and also apply a more calm psychology to the population.
#DraintheSwamp #Corruptionmustdie #Evilmustdie #NRA #2A
[#TheWorld @UN] Evil gets educated in two ways. It gets free passes in the formal education system, to the very top, and goes up the road in "systematic" sadistic #sodomy. #EvilEducation #Evilmustdie #2A #2ADefenders #Religion #Ethics #Morality #AntiCorruption #UDHR #Education
#Justice #Law @FBI @INTERPOL_HQ #The4FactorsRPSL #The4Factors Step to "kill"/remove evil: #Revolvers to every home, 1-3, #Pepperspray, #LieDetectionArray, 5 methods+, Radio-based "airport" #scannerportals #NotKidding #Duty #Immediately #ASAP #Peace
To highlight the status of a legal system, USA vs. EU, for example:
Imagine to get tortured... Would you fear getting tortured? A week?
Imagine getting blasted in a bombing or shot to death... Would you fear getting blasted in a bombing or shot to death?
What would fear the most? What would prevent you from doing your daily business?
I, for one, find it impossible to take action when under the perceived threat of torture while not fearing to any particular degree getting shot to death or blasted to death by bombing.
As such, Media and or government is hiding something from the public, especially here in Norway, as the Breivik "terrorism" has done very little to scare the general public from conducting their lives.
So the silent terror of torture is recveiving very little publicity or attention in the Main Stream Media. I think this should speak louder for the case of guns as well as The 4 Factors. This is about creating a possible World of friends, not a World of "peaceful" monsters acting to your advantage.
The basic reasoning for guns to your aid, whether only for yourself or for your family:
The Bible
New International Version
"Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me."
You may think that guns are awful, but the invisible hand of torture (threats) is much, much worse!
In addition, those who are in desperate situations, on the average, gets a much easier way out of unbearable psychological/physical pains!
Suicides and guns in USA
I think it's short-sighted to ban guns from "suspected suicide candidates" because it removes a part of their escape from actual pains, mental and physical, as well as the fact that one obscures the real causes to their condition. Thus, in order to prevent suicides, one should rather work against the causes for suicides. Can one part of the causes be crime including the corruption? To worsen the ways for suicide in terms of pain and other anguish comes across as plain evil, IMO!
I am therefore compelled to see guns "to everyone" as one, fine virtue, as much as self-defence, in USA.
One solution...
I can think of, is the one to improve society by The 4 Factors. Now, USA has these guns "everywhere" and also pepper spray, but what about the other 2: lie detection array (5 methods +) and radio-based scanner portals ("against 500 conditions in human beings").
Clearly, lie detection array can be used by police internal affairs, by FBI, by common police and by the courts.
Radio-based scanner portals can reveal the abuse of science by detecting criminal implants put there by monster-physicians, including the monster-surgeons, etc. They can also make the job much easier for ordinary physicians in detecting a given condition.
So:
We have one shooting. The shooter has a history. Let's say bullying. So who failed this shooter? We use lie detection array to reveal and punish failing school services, failing police services, failing other services which may have received cries for help from the shooter before the person becomes the shooter.
One important point is to feed the aftermath to Media (MainStreamMedia and other) and local society of these steps to reveal these failing services and the punishing of them so that future failures to provide services will be stopped or deeply warned against. In this way, one can start to provide young people and others with ever-increasing quality of services so to prevent (all) abuse of people so that the thoughts of wanting to shoot other people never come to mind.
People must also be able to object to corruption in society hence The Political Attempt must be respected, Blogspot, The Political Attempt: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2017/07/the-definition-of-political-attempt.html .
See The Declaration of Independence and "train of abuse - Despotism" in it for justifying The Political Attempt.
The 3. point is of course that the sadistic perverts, torturers of children, who can't handle guns (pistols, revolvers) and pepper spray get extra protection if the population is denied this self-defence.
The other 2:
1. The unarmed Jews before Kristallnacht and Holocaust in Nazi-Germany.
2. The financial success, might of military forces and general character of person in USA by allowing the population their self-defence by pepper spray and guns and other.
(To be edited.)
Showing posts with label legal systems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal systems. Show all posts
Monday, 22 June 2015
Saturday, 16 November 2013
The World in Human Rights - UDHR - ECHR
The Human Rights, most explicitly, by UDHR, minimally, are now everywhere in the World with a possible exception of North Korea.
Russia is with the Council of Europe and USA has still New York state with UN as one of theirs.
EU is hosting the court of ECtHR in France. The idiots have fallen off the stairs to every university in the World, at least theoretically, such that absurd objections to evident, straight in the face truths and their cases are no longer "cool to utter", even if you have been a 10 people worth cannibal under police corruption or police states (huh, do they exist?)!
So here we are with a Worldscene, with some small exceptions, ALL HUMAN RIGHTS! Legal duties have become definite and absolute under the lie detector investigations and "police questioning rooms" on the good side, carrying out the work according to procedure.
For USA despite its "Onslow" speed (sorry for the Picket Fences reference from Britain) in reacting to New START Treaty and getting it through, here are some Human Rights references for them (also outside Scientology context, "so that they no longer need to feel that they have to present them, in a special way to some people"):
Government Organisation by http://www.humanrights.gov/contact-us/
To Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/HumanRightsgov
State Department by http://www.state.gov/j/drl/hr/
Organisation more by http://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/human_rights_in_the_united_states
Link 2, http://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/
Human Rights Watch by http://www.hrw.org/
By Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch
Their email: HumanRightsWebsite@state.gov.
Additional:
http://www.humanrights.gov/2013/11/12/ambassador-power-on-human-rights-council-elections/ if you bother to read it.
Note: There's nothing wrong with Scientology presenting Human Rights, but, please, can't they add the UDHR reference for "Christ's sake"?
This makes me certain that we in Europe have been entertaining idiot politicians for a very long time, "and with a larger portion of them failing to read primary literature" if not the Bible directly.
We need to get our legs together people!
(Try to pull that face in USA!)
Over lunacy work for Human Rights and more (Justice, the good causes):
To say that legislation is passed against human rights or to subvert people is to be crazy in the work to advocate Human Rights (UDHR by UN).
Legislation can never be passed to protect, defend or cover for crime because this constitutes crime/corruption against own population, violates much international convention and agreement and does not pass the very formulation requirements themselves in being general.
The pro-Human Rights combatting must take place by combatting corruption and crime in general, that ICCt is correctly used and supported.
So to add, "heh-heh-heh, also in Norway", corrupt lawyers are very much a problem, as much as a psychiatric corrupt-minds-issue, when they in fact are relied on and are vital in offering legal services to the public as well as leading the police forces through the daily work.
What's next or what's the standing on the legal systems throughout the World? I don't know. One plain example: is the torture, also in terms of estimates, correctly reported? Also by the most important news-places, also by the most important authorities.
"Fun fact": The lyrics of "living on the edge" should have read, We're living on the edge when everybody should go up and nobody down [in terms of justice...] - emphasis on use of "should".
Russia is with the Council of Europe and USA has still New York state with UN as one of theirs.
EU is hosting the court of ECtHR in France. The idiots have fallen off the stairs to every university in the World, at least theoretically, such that absurd objections to evident, straight in the face truths and their cases are no longer "cool to utter", even if you have been a 10 people worth cannibal under police corruption or police states (huh, do they exist?)!
So here we are with a Worldscene, with some small exceptions, ALL HUMAN RIGHTS! Legal duties have become definite and absolute under the lie detector investigations and "police questioning rooms" on the good side, carrying out the work according to procedure.
For USA despite its "Onslow" speed (sorry for the Picket Fences reference from Britain) in reacting to New START Treaty and getting it through, here are some Human Rights references for them (also outside Scientology context, "so that they no longer need to feel that they have to present them, in a special way to some people"):
Government Organisation by http://www.humanrights.gov/contact-us/
To Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/HumanRightsgov
State Department by http://www.state.gov/j/drl/hr/
Organisation more by http://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/human_rights_in_the_united_states
Link 2, http://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/
Human Rights Watch by http://www.hrw.org/
By Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch
Their email: HumanRightsWebsite@state.gov.
Additional:
http://www.humanrights.gov/2013/11/12/ambassador-power-on-human-rights-council-elections/ if you bother to read it.
Note: There's nothing wrong with Scientology presenting Human Rights, but, please, can't they add the UDHR reference for "Christ's sake"?
This makes me certain that we in Europe have been entertaining idiot politicians for a very long time, "and with a larger portion of them failing to read primary literature" if not the Bible directly.
We need to get our legs together people!
(Try to pull that face in USA!)
Over lunacy work for Human Rights and more (Justice, the good causes):
To say that legislation is passed against human rights or to subvert people is to be crazy in the work to advocate Human Rights (UDHR by UN).
Legislation can never be passed to protect, defend or cover for crime because this constitutes crime/corruption against own population, violates much international convention and agreement and does not pass the very formulation requirements themselves in being general.
The pro-Human Rights combatting must take place by combatting corruption and crime in general, that ICCt is correctly used and supported.
So to add, "heh-heh-heh, also in Norway", corrupt lawyers are very much a problem, as much as a psychiatric corrupt-minds-issue, when they in fact are relied on and are vital in offering legal services to the public as well as leading the police forces through the daily work.
What's next or what's the standing on the legal systems throughout the World? I don't know. One plain example: is the torture, also in terms of estimates, correctly reported? Also by the most important news-places, also by the most important authorities.
"Fun fact": The lyrics of "living on the edge" should have read, We're living on the edge when everybody should go up and nobody down [in terms of justice...] - emphasis on use of "should".
Sunday, 21 July 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)