legal realism as poetry or more poetic than poetry

[sweetwater]

Legal realism can roughly be characterized by the following claims:

1. the class of available legal materials is insufficient to logically entail a unique legal outcome in most cases worth litigating at the appellate level (the Local Indeterminacy Thesis);

2. in such cases, judges make new law in deciding legal disputes through the exercise of a lawmaking discretion (the Discretion Thesis); and

3. judicial decisions in indeterminate cases are influenced by the judge’s political and moral convictions, not by legal considerations.

(point 3 is the argument against and context of error)

...

considerations of point 1

the class of burden of proof - in the denial of testimony !! ... where testimony is circumvented by the lies of two are greater than the truth of one

(the autistic society and epileptic society as societies - have evidence and history to rebut this logic - so point 1 no longer applies)

the truth of two - is greater than the lies of three ??? this is the internal debate issue !!!!!

issues such as indeterminacy seems only to circumvent the legal system into a financial game of representation which is the opposite of representation under the law

point 2

it is advocating the necessity of excersizing the need of representation - there is no need of new laws in this respect - we already live in the context of the model of representation -

though with respect to 'securities' arguments - issues such as

you cannot suspend representation as a life process (obviously)
you cannot argue burden of proof as position (obviously) placing the burden of liability waiting for Godot so to speak to disclose the context and content of association
you cannot put the burden of proof on i.e.: the autistic society nor its membership / unless present legal bodies are insufficient and incompetent ... which implies as much as demands review and suspension of association
and therefore you would have to enter into a remunerative and liable relationship with these organizations to represent themselves as a claim within the crown

point 3

this is the representation of a hoax

it is the denial of representation in light of a politicization ... which means representation is not afforded to legal organizations ... these legal organization have no legal right to exercise a politicization or marginalization of its constituency ... or to influence it's organization or community and society in the context that may be interpreted as subversive or even to say aversive ... the politicization itself is subversive to representation under and of the law

so

the address of point 3 is argued and rewritten

judicial decisions in indeterminate cases cannot be influenced by the judge’s political and moral convictions, but by legal considerations, called representation ... including representation of argument ... if one is failing or even arguing the right to not represent ... then it is in the context of discrimination under the law and restitution applies.

in this respect - restitution sides with indeterminancy ... for instance it sides with legal organizations such as the autistic society

rather than with the crown - because the crown has failed in the determinancy and we don't believe in capital punishment either !!
© 2015 Microsoft Terms Privacy & cookies Developers English (United States)