Post by Jim on Feb 1, 2010 17:50:09 GMT -5
In addition to Rules of Evidence and Rules of Procedure that all parties (including judges) must obey, there are Rules of Juridical Reasoning that you can use to control judges and force justice ... once you learn the rules!
Don't be thrown by the fancy word. "Juridical" simply means "having to do with judges and what judges do".
Good legal decisions obey reasonable, logical rules!
Or, as stated in a recent English case, "The common law is tolerant of much illogicality, but no system of law can be workable if it has not got logic at the root of it." Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd. v. Heller and Partners Ltd. (1964)
The "logic of law" and the rules of juridical reasoning aren't found in official books. You won't find them in the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of your state, or statutes state or federal. They're hard to find in appellate court decisions, but that is where you find them, and find them you must if you want to win your case.
Judicial decisions must follow logical rules!
Critically important for the future of human liberty and justice is the fact that the rules of juridical reasoning are slowly fading from history as more and more judges place themselves in the seat of God and ignore ancient rules! As a consequence, we see society's morality dissolving as a direct consequence of judicial stupidity and pride.
Those who know how to find and apply the rules of juridical reasoning are controlling judges and getting the justice they deserve.
Those who don't know these rules lose!
Put in the simplest of terms: Judges are forbidden to do whatever they wish whenever they wish!
Unless you foolishly allow them to!
#1: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one thing excludes the inclusion of others. This rule of juridical reasoning applies to the interpretation of statutes, constitutions, case law, contracts, wills, and other writings and statements. If a writing or statement specifically talks about one particular thing or set of things, this rule kicks in to require the judge to conclude an intention to specifically exclude the "other thing"s.
For example, if a statement specifically lists grapefruit, oranges, and tangerines without making mention of lemons and limes, this rule kicks in to prevent your opponent from applying the statement to lemons and limes. If that way of reading the statement is important to the outcome of your case, the application of this rule could mean the difference between winning and losing.
But!
This ancient rule (applied since the days of Cicero, the great Greek lawyer) is under attack in many courts where judges and appellate court justices seek to evade the wise constraints of common law rules of juridical reasoning for the sake of their own convenience or personal bias!
#2: Actori incumbit onus probandi. The burden of proof is on him who makes the claim. This rule is routinely ignored, so if you fail to learn this rule and how to use it to control the judge in your case, you unnecessarily put your case in peril, because the lawyer on the other side will invariably try to make you "disprove" what his client is saying. If you fall into this trap, your case is headed for the tubes.
But!
To enforce this rule, you must know how to compel the judge to enforce it.
It is not reasonable to allow one side to allege facts and then require the other side to "disprove" them. But, unless you know how to force the judge to apply this rule, you'll discover one more reason people hate lawyers, because it is commonplace for lawyers to take advantage of those who do not know this rule or do not know how to require the judge to enforce it.
Keep in mind: Just because someone is a judge does not mean they are either smart or honest. Most judges are both smart and honest. Some aren't.
And, most importantly, because of the recent decline in law school quality and commitment to the common law and its ancient rules of juridical reasoning (that aren't taught in most law schools), even the smartest and most honest judges today don't know the rules that should control their decision-making.
Only YOU can prevent the rise of judicial stupidity!
To preserve the Republic, we the People must learn how to control judges whose bias and rebellion against the rules of our legal heritage are eroding the foundations of law that make liberty and justice possible for all!
Don't be thrown by the fancy word. "Juridical" simply means "having to do with judges and what judges do".
Good legal decisions obey reasonable, logical rules!
Or, as stated in a recent English case, "The common law is tolerant of much illogicality, but no system of law can be workable if it has not got logic at the root of it." Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd. v. Heller and Partners Ltd. (1964)
The "logic of law" and the rules of juridical reasoning aren't found in official books. You won't find them in the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of your state, or statutes state or federal. They're hard to find in appellate court decisions, but that is where you find them, and find them you must if you want to win your case.
Judicial decisions must follow logical rules!
Critically important for the future of human liberty and justice is the fact that the rules of juridical reasoning are slowly fading from history as more and more judges place themselves in the seat of God and ignore ancient rules! As a consequence, we see society's morality dissolving as a direct consequence of judicial stupidity and pride.
Those who know how to find and apply the rules of juridical reasoning are controlling judges and getting the justice they deserve.
Those who don't know these rules lose!
Put in the simplest of terms: Judges are forbidden to do whatever they wish whenever they wish!
Unless you foolishly allow them to!
#1: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one thing excludes the inclusion of others. This rule of juridical reasoning applies to the interpretation of statutes, constitutions, case law, contracts, wills, and other writings and statements. If a writing or statement specifically talks about one particular thing or set of things, this rule kicks in to require the judge to conclude an intention to specifically exclude the "other thing"s.
For example, if a statement specifically lists grapefruit, oranges, and tangerines without making mention of lemons and limes, this rule kicks in to prevent your opponent from applying the statement to lemons and limes. If that way of reading the statement is important to the outcome of your case, the application of this rule could mean the difference between winning and losing.
But!
This ancient rule (applied since the days of Cicero, the great Greek lawyer) is under attack in many courts where judges and appellate court justices seek to evade the wise constraints of common law rules of juridical reasoning for the sake of their own convenience or personal bias!
#2: Actori incumbit onus probandi. The burden of proof is on him who makes the claim. This rule is routinely ignored, so if you fail to learn this rule and how to use it to control the judge in your case, you unnecessarily put your case in peril, because the lawyer on the other side will invariably try to make you "disprove" what his client is saying. If you fall into this trap, your case is headed for the tubes.
But!
To enforce this rule, you must know how to compel the judge to enforce it.
It is not reasonable to allow one side to allege facts and then require the other side to "disprove" them. But, unless you know how to force the judge to apply this rule, you'll discover one more reason people hate lawyers, because it is commonplace for lawyers to take advantage of those who do not know this rule or do not know how to require the judge to enforce it.
Keep in mind: Just because someone is a judge does not mean they are either smart or honest. Most judges are both smart and honest. Some aren't.
And, most importantly, because of the recent decline in law school quality and commitment to the common law and its ancient rules of juridical reasoning (that aren't taught in most law schools), even the smartest and most honest judges today don't know the rules that should control their decision-making.
Only YOU can prevent the rise of judicial stupidity!
To preserve the Republic, we the People must learn how to control judges whose bias and rebellion against the rules of our legal heritage are eroding the foundations of law that make liberty and justice possible for all!
