Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • The defense is signaling that if they get a guilty verdict that they have ample

    The defense is signaling that if they get a guilty verdict that they have ample evidence to escalate to an appeal. The evidence is obvious that the judge should dismiss the charges with prejudice. He’s giving the jury the option. And the defense the option to appeal by not.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-17 13:06:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460957434529435649

    Reply addressees: @FreeKyle89 @aVoice4MA6

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460956610960973824

  • Don’t be stupid. This is how we randomize a jury. Its a technique that’s thousan

    Don’t be stupid. This is how we randomize a jury. Its a technique that’s thousands of years old. The size of the jury reflects the scope of influence of the crime. The jurors selected at random and the size of the jury protect against tampering. Democracy originated with it.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-17 13:00:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460956047502458886

    Reply addressees: @ReportsDaNews

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460691287863144452

  • “The basis of construction work in France revolves around the premise that skill

    –“The basis of construction work in France revolves around the premise that skilled individuals undertake work that they insure for a period of 10 years. “–

    What the French do right? Consumer protection.
    But at very, high, cost.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-17 01:33:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460783155271680000

  • I can condense all of the work into the constitution at this point, but it’s bre

    I can condense all of the work into the constitution at this point, but it’s breaking my brain doing it. I still have to get responsibility, first principle, and the enumeration of the methods of lying in there. And I have to remove some duplication. I think I’ve figured out how.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-16 18:10:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460671714665324554

  • @WhitesAdvocate What do you need to understand? You need to understand that this

    @WhitesAdvocate What do you need to understand? You need to understand that this law is a science and that the judges defend against internal political enemies the way ‘every man a sheriff does against internal physical and social enemies, and as the military defends against external enemies.

    To do that you need to understand the paragraph that describes the european group strategy, the law of reciprocity and testimony, the list of demonstrated interests we call capital, the list of crimes that can be committed, and the rights, obligations, and inalienations under the law that demand we suppress those crimes in ourselves and others.

    Can you do that? Yes you can. It’s possible to write a set of posters you can stick on your wall. It will largely mirror your moral intuitions., Just like magical thinking, selfishness, lying, cheating and stealing will largely mirror leftist intuitions.

    The problem I have is (a) getting you idiots to pay attention long enough to understand that (b) show up to make it happen (c) stay in the field long enough to bring it into fruition (d) not go all fundamentalist, or nazi and screw it up by making the people more afraid of your having any semblance of influence, than they are of a constitutional reformation.

    So I’ve done my job. It took seventy of the greatest men of the enlightenment to do it the last time. I’m stuck here doing it almost alone with a few others helping me. And you clowns are a train wreck of fail.

    So grow up, man up, and learn how to win. But don’t chastize me because I can’t make grownup thinking into a chocolate milkshake of sophistry and ideology for nitwits.

    Nitwits just need to show up and shut up, and if necessary ‘supply’ yourselves by the traditional method militia armies always do.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-15 17:29:26 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282259422278268

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282223412964301


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    @WhitesAdvocate I make the point, I make the point over many posts not just one. Because people don’t read long posts. (that’s the evidence.) if you can’t follow across the posts then that’s a filter. And you aren’t the audience. There is only one way to save our civilizatoin it’s by showing up in mass. Showing up in mass requries set of actionable asks that are hard to resist or morally reject by all. The youung men (like yourself) are alienated from the upper classes with the skill to do that – you don’t have it. You are also biased to self overconfidence. That overconfidence manifests in simple-stupid-solutions that are impossible, and in leadershp that fragments into personality cults – precisely becuase you lack teh competency tod o anything else. And this allows the left to pick you off one at a time, and prevent any and all leadership from emerging. And so the left is eating your lunch and drinking your milkshake. As such we are limited in the number of ways we can organize ‘the dumb fucks, the slow kids’ into a political movement. Since we can’t organize these numbsculls into a political movement, we have only the hope of mobilizing them into a rebellion-movement, where we all show up and issue a set of possible demands ‘or else’. Even then, the cahnces that shit-for-brains, impulsive, ignorant, macho, virtue-signallers will screw it up is almost a certainty. So we have to make everyone dependent upon everyone else, by taking the same risk and ostracizing those fromthe future who don’t show and take the risk. I’ve produced (a) the moral license (b) the set of demands (c) an actionable and implementalbe solution that will fix the problem (d) a strategy for rapid victory, (e) and a devastatingly believable threat of consequences if negotiations on a settlement fail.(this constitution is a settlement that serves everyone left , center, and right) by restoring the constitution to its original designs as a federation of independent states. And this particular strategy is directly licensed by the declaration and constitution. Every other plan is a slow burn to failure. I’ve seen nothing that can survive other than retreat to a region, or retreat into a separate economy, or retreat into religion – meaning we only delay the inevitable. The state will defend itself by happily burning the enemy (finance, academy, education, media, entertainment). The state cannot resist a moral claim without losing very rapidly it’s geostrategic position. So this plan uses the state’s self interest against it self. Law, constitution, legislation, regulation, policy, and procedure are the operating system for government, and money is the resource it uses as influence. Do you need to understand the science behind the law that makes all that operation of a complex political organization possible? No you don’t. But I and those like me do. We are the judges that will administer that law. WE have to understand it. (more below)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282223412964301

  • THE SCIENCE OF THE LAW IS THE LAW OF THE SCIENCES – UNIVERSAL LAW “[Blackstone]

    THE SCIENCE OF THE LAW IS THE LAW OF THE SCIENCES – UNIVERSAL LAW

    “[Blackstone] it was who first gave to the law the air of a science.”

    Yep. Of course, it’s not occurred to our ancestors that science is but applied Anglo, Germanic, European, traditional, law.

    P-Law produces the formal science of law – and in doing so the Law of Science: All.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-14 17:02:16 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107276490296451034

  • “[Blackstone] it was who first gave to the law the air of a science.” Yep. Of co

    “[Blackstone] it was who first gave to the law the air of a science.”

    Yep. Of course, it’s not occurred to our ancestors that science is but applied Anglo, Germanic, European, traditional, law.

    P-Law produces the formal science of law – and in doing so the Law of Science: All.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-14 16:59:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459929029830709248

  • So, if we have rule of law we will have a mixed economy with maximum innovation

    So, if we have rule of law we will have a mixed economy with maximum innovation and adaptation, maximum production of non consumable commons (capitalization) and the suppression of the reproduction of those unfit, in exchange for their caretaking (subsidy).
    That’s just physics.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-14 01:44:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459698669356261377

    Reply addressees: @inDUPEitably @2020Blackstone

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459688307684691977

  • In P-Law we find closure in “Testimony providing decidability that is sufficient

    In P-Law we find closure in “Testimony providing decidability that is sufficient to meet demand for infallibility and therefore for a claim of innocence in the question at hand.” https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1459253247093399564

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @ConceptualJames Draft. Any feedback appreciated. Thx. (If yo

    RT @curtdoolittle: @ConceptualJames Draft. Any feedback appreciated. Thx. (If you don’t know my work is largely in law that would prohibi…


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-10 18:57:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1458509244106424327