legal realism
Posted: June 27th, 2012, 5:23 am
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)
you cannot put the burden of proof on i.e.: the autistic society nor its membership / unless the present legal bodies are insufficient and incompetent
and therefore you would have to enter into a remunerative and liable relationship with these organizations to represent themselves
which is ... you know a law suit against the crown
point 3
this is the representation of a sokul 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
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!!!
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 !!
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)
you cannot put the burden of proof on i.e.: the autistic society nor its membership / unless the present legal bodies are insufficient and incompetent
and therefore you would have to enter into a remunerative and liable relationship with these organizations to represent themselves
which is ... you know a law suit against the crown
point 3
this is the representation of a sokul 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
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!!!
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 !!