Curt Doolittle

Form: Short Note

  • Reciprocity – Court

    Jury Nullification

    Nullifications in England, USA and Canada have a long history, and are dependent upon the character of the jury, and the character of the jury largely a matter of being a responsible middle class citizen, ad a middle class citizen on responsibility for property.

    —“Jury nullification, jury equity, or a perverse verdict occurs when members of a criminal or civil trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor or plaintiff, or judge has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh.”—

    So let’s list them again: … 1 – The Law itself is unjust, … 2 – The prosecutor(Plaintiff, Judge) has misapplied the law, … 3 – The punishment is too harsh for the crime. Nullification is at present a consequence of two rules of procedure within the law rather than a because it is explicitly encoded in the law: … a) Jurors cannot be punished for reaching a “wrong” decision. … b) A defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried again for the same alleged crime in front of another jury. In practical terms to prevent jury nullification, … a) prosecutors choose not to prosecute, … b) jurors are given a set of options and multiple ‘counts’ (crimes), … c) jurors are given instruction by the judge. The most effective is (b) since this is usually the source of concern. The open issue is the corrupt juror or jurors which originally was a common problem. In the P-Constitution jury nullification is embedded in the law. However, … 1) The unjustness of a law is easy to explain, demonstrate, and difficult to construct, and it is possible to prosecute those who attempt unjust laws before they can be acted upon. … 2) Misapplication of the law is easy to explain, and demonstrate. … 3) Excessive Punishment is open to debate, and in general should be a misapplication of the degree of the crime. So this means it is fairly easy for a juror or jurors to either (a) explain and defend their position on nullification (b) judge, juror or jurors to claim the resistant juror is engaged in contempt. (c) And it should be extremely difficult to make a fraudulent claim of nullification, (d) and extremely difficult for an unjust law to survive. What remains is (e) that the juror or jurors disagree on the interpretation of the facts of the case. (Good examples in the literature are common). In addition, police, plaintiffs, prosecutors, the judge, and members of the court are not free from prosecution for misrepresentation including overcharging including overcharging for the purpose of coercing the accused. THE PROBLEM The problem is preserving the high trust society that makes the jury system possible. it’s almost impossible to create. it’s extremely easy to destroy. And that is the reason for P-law. To defend it.

  • Reciprocity – Court

    Jury Nullification

    Nullifications in England, USA and Canada have a long history, and are dependent upon the character of the jury, and the character of the jury largely a matter of being a responsible middle class citizen, ad a middle class citizen on responsibility for property.

    —“Jury nullification, jury equity, or a perverse verdict occurs when members of a criminal or civil trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor or plaintiff, or judge has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh.”—

    So let’s list them again: … 1 – The Law itself is unjust, … 2 – The prosecutor(Plaintiff, Judge) has misapplied the law, … 3 – The punishment is too harsh for the crime. Nullification is at present a consequence of two rules of procedure within the law rather than a because it is explicitly encoded in the law: … a) Jurors cannot be punished for reaching a “wrong” decision. … b) A defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried again for the same alleged crime in front of another jury. In practical terms to prevent jury nullification, … a) prosecutors choose not to prosecute, … b) jurors are given a set of options and multiple ‘counts’ (crimes), … c) jurors are given instruction by the judge. The most effective is (b) since this is usually the source of concern. The open issue is the corrupt juror or jurors which originally was a common problem. In the P-Constitution jury nullification is embedded in the law. However, … 1) The unjustness of a law is easy to explain, demonstrate, and difficult to construct, and it is possible to prosecute those who attempt unjust laws before they can be acted upon. … 2) Misapplication of the law is easy to explain, and demonstrate. … 3) Excessive Punishment is open to debate, and in general should be a misapplication of the degree of the crime. So this means it is fairly easy for a juror or jurors to either (a) explain and defend their position on nullification (b) judge, juror or jurors to claim the resistant juror is engaged in contempt. (c) And it should be extremely difficult to make a fraudulent claim of nullification, (d) and extremely difficult for an unjust law to survive. What remains is (e) that the juror or jurors disagree on the interpretation of the facts of the case. (Good examples in the literature are common). In addition, police, plaintiffs, prosecutors, the judge, and members of the court are not free from prosecution for misrepresentation including overcharging including overcharging for the purpose of coercing the accused. THE PROBLEM The problem is preserving the high trust society that makes the jury system possible. it’s almost impossible to create. it’s extremely easy to destroy. And that is the reason for P-law. To defend it.

  • The State as A Monopoly on Violence Is Evidently False.

    Apr 24, 2020, 2:11 PM   The westphalian peace resulted in the demand between states that the state maintain a monopoly on violence. The muslims do the opposite and ended the westphalian peace. The state cannot in fact and never has had, a monopoly on violence. It still doesn’t. It just tries. What defines a state is not it’s monopoly on violence but it’s capacity to produce the incentives that produce order with violence among those incentives.

  • The State as A Monopoly on Violence Is Evidently False.

    Apr 24, 2020, 2:11 PM   The westphalian peace resulted in the demand between states that the state maintain a monopoly on violence. The muslims do the opposite and ended the westphalian peace. The state cannot in fact and never has had, a monopoly on violence. It still doesn’t. It just tries. What defines a state is not it’s monopoly on violence but it’s capacity to produce the incentives that produce order with violence among those incentives.

  • Strictly Constructed Natural Law Jurisprudence.

    When you go to law school you do not learn what we teach here: strictly constructed natural law jurisprudence. Most of what you learn is procedure, statute (legislation), and case law (examples). Or “How to work the process”. That’s why P makes sense to you. Because its internally consistent. Now, once you learn ENOUGH case law, you realize that the court does a pretty good job most of the time. The problem is the lack of jurisprudence (rules of law) in the constitution, and the ‘legislation’ that violates the natural law on top of it. Most of the ‘bad stuff’ is procedural manipulation somewhere between the police, the prosecution, the court staff. There are very good lawyers and not so good lawyers. And you can tell when reading the arguments put before the court which one you’re dealing with. Mostly there are waaaaaaayyyyy too many lawyers. And that’s why I prefer the british two stage system. So that a lawyer(customer service representative) and a barrister(presents to the court) are separated. This allows you to get customer service from a lawyer, but a barrister may refuse your case. This savse the judge and jury from legal clown world. That’s the ONLY thing I really prefer about the british system other than the wigs. I really like the wigs.

  • Strictly Constructed Natural Law Jurisprudence.

    When you go to law school you do not learn what we teach here: strictly constructed natural law jurisprudence. Most of what you learn is procedure, statute (legislation), and case law (examples). Or “How to work the process”. That’s why P makes sense to you. Because its internally consistent. Now, once you learn ENOUGH case law, you realize that the court does a pretty good job most of the time. The problem is the lack of jurisprudence (rules of law) in the constitution, and the ‘legislation’ that violates the natural law on top of it. Most of the ‘bad stuff’ is procedural manipulation somewhere between the police, the prosecution, the court staff. There are very good lawyers and not so good lawyers. And you can tell when reading the arguments put before the court which one you’re dealing with. Mostly there are waaaaaaayyyyy too many lawyers. And that’s why I prefer the british two stage system. So that a lawyer(customer service representative) and a barrister(presents to the court) are separated. This allows you to get customer service from a lawyer, but a barrister may refuse your case. This savse the judge and jury from legal clown world. That’s the ONLY thing I really prefer about the british system other than the wigs. I really like the wigs.

  • Jesus wasn’t complicated

    Apr 25, 2020, 9:54 AM Mithra was the origin of the political utility of monopoly. Zoroastrian the religion of that successful monopoly. Sol Invictus was a rotation like Odin->Tyr replacement, to compete with Mithra. Jesus was a ‘capture’ of john the baptist (jesus’ competitor for prophet), Mithra, Pagan Sun Gods, and from hindu: “Christ”=”Krishna”, from Egyptian: Osiris, the king as son-of-god, mediator with god, trinity, isis=holy spirit, cross, baptism, eucharist, and mythology, and the was bible an attempt to replace the Epic Cycle esp. aristocratic Achilles with his mirror image.

    –“Zoroaster’s religious innovation was the cosmic struggle between Ahura Mazda, a supreme wise and benevolent deity, and Angra Mainyu, Ahura’s evil opponent. Here on earth, humans can support this struggle by taking sides. Living a virtuous life supports Ahura Mazda and contributes to the triumph of good over evil. Zoroaster encouraged his followers to worship Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord, claiming that the old Persian deities were unworthy of worship and should be considered spirits of destruction.”–

    Jesus wasn’t complicated. He had a single very useful idea of how to resist the predation of the jews on their own, and the threat of their cultural erasure by the great empires, and the need for a means of integrating with or competing with those empires that conveyed mindfulness to the weak and ignorant. And it worked. Just like Marxism > Neomarxism > Postmodernism > Feminism > and it’s origins: HBD-Denialism and the natural eugenics of the great civilizations.

  • Jesus wasn’t complicated

    Apr 25, 2020, 9:54 AM Mithra was the origin of the political utility of monopoly. Zoroastrian the religion of that successful monopoly. Sol Invictus was a rotation like Odin->Tyr replacement, to compete with Mithra. Jesus was a ‘capture’ of john the baptist (jesus’ competitor for prophet), Mithra, Pagan Sun Gods, and from hindu: “Christ”=”Krishna”, from Egyptian: Osiris, the king as son-of-god, mediator with god, trinity, isis=holy spirit, cross, baptism, eucharist, and mythology, and the was bible an attempt to replace the Epic Cycle esp. aristocratic Achilles with his mirror image.

    –“Zoroaster’s religious innovation was the cosmic struggle between Ahura Mazda, a supreme wise and benevolent deity, and Angra Mainyu, Ahura’s evil opponent. Here on earth, humans can support this struggle by taking sides. Living a virtuous life supports Ahura Mazda and contributes to the triumph of good over evil. Zoroaster encouraged his followers to worship Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord, claiming that the old Persian deities were unworthy of worship and should be considered spirits of destruction.”–

    Jesus wasn’t complicated. He had a single very useful idea of how to resist the predation of the jews on their own, and the threat of their cultural erasure by the great empires, and the need for a means of integrating with or competing with those empires that conveyed mindfulness to the weak and ignorant. And it worked. Just like Marxism > Neomarxism > Postmodernism > Feminism > and it’s origins: HBD-Denialism and the natural eugenics of the great civilizations.

  • Male Female Cognition in Math Is Insightful

    Apr 25, 2020, 10:11 AM MALE FEMALE COGNITION IN MATH IS INSIGHTFUL Very interesting insight into mathematics is that the mathematicians who by far, best explain mathematics as a language are women. While the mathematicians that practice mathematics have a tendency to platonism. This is interesting in that for men the spatial-mathematical world is existential and for women its predominantly verbal. And we see this same differences in gender behavior across the spectrum with women providing empirical insight and men providing theoretical insight. Just as we see in all workplaces women are usually superior at many empirical details and certainty and men are superior at coalescing theoretical innovations and risks. To educate people in ‘what is math’ (a language of positional names) I would interview four specific women. If I wanted to educate people in the language of logic-proper I’d ask one woman. If I wanted to extend mathematics from points to geometric combinatorics (i do) I’d interview the same number of men. Just odd that it’s so obvious when you look at the best people in every field. Same in economics. Elinor Ostrom. Empirical not theoretical. Same in computing. Babbage and his wife. Einstein and his significant other. (My ex-wife Allora and I in biz for that matter.) Fascinating.

  • Male Female Cognition in Math Is Insightful

    Apr 25, 2020, 10:11 AM MALE FEMALE COGNITION IN MATH IS INSIGHTFUL Very interesting insight into mathematics is that the mathematicians who by far, best explain mathematics as a language are women. While the mathematicians that practice mathematics have a tendency to platonism. This is interesting in that for men the spatial-mathematical world is existential and for women its predominantly verbal. And we see this same differences in gender behavior across the spectrum with women providing empirical insight and men providing theoretical insight. Just as we see in all workplaces women are usually superior at many empirical details and certainty and men are superior at coalescing theoretical innovations and risks. To educate people in ‘what is math’ (a language of positional names) I would interview four specific women. If I wanted to educate people in the language of logic-proper I’d ask one woman. If I wanted to extend mathematics from points to geometric combinatorics (i do) I’d interview the same number of men. Just odd that it’s so obvious when you look at the best people in every field. Same in economics. Elinor Ostrom. Empirical not theoretical. Same in computing. Babbage and his wife. Einstein and his significant other. (My ex-wife Allora and I in biz for that matter.) Fascinating.