Jan. 12th, 2017 06:19 pm
pigmeich: (Default)
Many people talk about how betrayal is bad, but what it really is?

What cannot be considered a betrayal

First, war. When armies clash, either on battlefield or in convention centre, it's essential to consider the right to fight the enemy.

Else you, the reader, shall be complete pacifist, which I guess, not a case.

And it's clearly oathbreaking in "kill not" sense.

Second, civil war. I don't need to explain it to USA readers, definitely. And to UK (not GB,) considering Fourth English Civil War.

Though, it's clearly oathbreaking in both cases.

Third, squall. Even worse would be if the adversarial comes unanswered, by many moral laws system it equals to pleading guilty.

Though, it may be oathbreaking in respect the authority case.

Fourth, retribution. If you were robbed, it's your right to petition for accusation and the return, or, in case of law of prairie, to take back your goods and punish the infringer.

What is a betrayal?

It's a hate crime. Not undermining (though it's too a pity), but crime out of hate and little else.

Pure hate, not retribution, leads to betrayal.

Betrayal is always covert, as if everyone hates you, it's a war.

And it's always going to bring pain, as it's a purpose of hate, not a squall. The pain is made inevitable, and part of hate, by which hater reliefs.

That four paragraphs are all.
pigmeich: (Default)
Посколько LinkedIn заблокировали, я не успел выложить написанный пост. Выкладываю тут.

By many a lawyer seems like a fireman: a litigator who remove troubles arose unexpectedly. So is redundant. Anyway, the essential laws are intuitive, so everyone knows what belong to him.

But let's look at world without lawyers:

A World without Lawyers

There was such world, which has been studied properly. First, at Ancient Greece. Second, in Medieval Europe.

Both have laws, indeed. But they prescribed punishments and procedure, rather than *modus operandi*, and other rules prescribing under what conditions the action or inaction is deemed an infringement.

Was it good? Actually, yes, from this time's point of view. It was better than not having laws.

But there was questions to answer, primarily: What portion of punishment should apply, if not a whole? Can a perfectly reasonable action be deemed inlawful, and inverse? Who is to prove?

In late realms this is was an issue to debate, but what can you do debating Pericles? An once again: on what grounds should the process reside?

The usual example is conflicting intentions: if a pedestrian walks across the road, stumbles and stand up, and there's line of carriages approaching, should first carriage stop and risk collision with the next? The answer differs in Modern times, and is decided on a whim in the world without lawyers.

A Big Change

During Ancient Rome and Renaissance England one simple thing was recognised:

It is better to have obscure, but predictable rules, than straight, but unpredictable ones.

Same times it collided with delegation issue, and the new profession, lawyer, was born.

Lawyer is not just delegation issue, neither a lawyer a litigator. Rather, the need of rules programming, on their turn required the special profession, who can discern and influence the rules.

It's not the same as SMM profession, with all due respect: law cannot be practiced by an non-professional, even at low speed. But it's perfectly fine to require a clear explanation from lawyer, after all the law is a thing of real world.

Types of Lawyers

Maxim Dotsenko has proposed great classification of lawyers in Russian. It breaks down to following:

1. Hamsters

Workhorses who dig up piles of documents, check, recheck, do law work as part of manager work, and else. Don't able to do the whole law work, but, nevertheless, essential.

2. Peacocks

What by many understood as litigator: a person to squall and persuade. Usually, afraid of Hamsters work, but do not able to do lawyer, besides litigator, work on their own.

3. Sharks

Real lawyers. Able to lead a group of Peacocks and Hamsters, possible other Sharks, to achieve result. Finish compliance and other paper work.

4. Owls

Higher lawyers. Do templates of legal documents: contracts, other agreements, even write laws. Frequently works alone, or with help of hamsters. Does organise groups and lead them as a Shark.

Maxim also notes, that, to be successful at a tier, a lawyer should learn skills from all the previous.

My Very Unprofessional Opinion on Juries

Jury practice was created in Renaissance England as an instrument to promote Civil Society and an evolution of Trial by Combat.

It was successful in this times of desert of laws describing test of facts. The more develops the last, and more Jury was put under treat of punishment for unlawful decision, the more its actions become dependant on presiding Judge's words.

Also, the procedure of choosing had its influence. What it boils down is Judge Alsup's verdict (not Jury, which he influenced almost in any event) in Oracle v. Google case, creating precedent of not protecting API of code. Counting in the implied permission to "steal" the code by fully rewriting it, but preserving all the features, it is tremendous! It has reverted previous decisions, and later would be reverted. Does such thing is what we need from the Jury?

What could be, in corporate procedures, is business captains acting as Jury. They really could request lawyers an explanation, and judge on the legal grounds. But, anyway, they would not show up due to possible punishment for inlawful decision, and the nation has professionals to do the same job!

What it's in reality is PR machine acting as Jury and shifting the precedent to the public opinion.
pigmeich: (Default)
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

For the truth of it, Legal is pretty easy science, even not the last, but a knowledge base. Lawyers (graduated or not) are also redundant.

It's out to just state, that, for example, if there's a murder and a man wearing a red hat went by — he is a killer. Punishment should be on him. Contrary, if a oppressed-slave-originated Black went by — he is clearly innocent.

The problem is where four went by the murder site: oppressed-slave-originated Black, Morocco Black, Sephardi Jew and Caucasian. All wearing red hats. Though I know, who will be guilty in the States.

The problem is solved by appointing dedicated persons — Judges. They somehow make judgement. Though, they have no affairs in containing the normal society, and it's problematic to set a duty. Because, then it's about to introduce the Evidence School, and, as we remember: lawyers are redundant.

From that, the judges make judgement taking bribes. But probably, they don't: comment your answer. There's another problem: the nation is unwilling to get through the courts by giving bribes. Because, it's pretty easy to find the red hat (you understand this is not the only criteria), and then being oppressed-slave-originated Black doesn't save you from the trial.

The problem is solved by introducing paid courts and praejudicialis. Maybe, the praejudicialis isn't introduced for that, I don't know. But the neat is: if there a trace of crime, then without sentence resolution the civil case will be left without remedy. And the police (the prosecutor) could easily deny the filing (at least in Russian Federation).

So, as you all see, Legal is very easy knowledge base and lawyers are redundant.
pigmeich: (Default)
На самом деле юриспруденция — очень простая наука, и даже не наука, а область знаний. Юристы (с дипломом или без) тоже не требуются.

Надо просто установить, что, например, если произошло убийство, и рядом проходил человек в красной шляпе, то убийца — он. Он же и должен понести наказание. С другой стороны, если рядом проходил негр-потомок угнетенных рабов, то он явно невиновен.

Проблемы возникают если рядом с местом убийства проходили четверо: негр-потомок рабов, негр из Марроко, еврей-сефард и белый. Все в красных шляпах. Хотя я знаю, кто в Штатах будет виновным.

Проблема решается назначением специальных людей — судей. Они как-то решают дела. Вот только заинтересованности в поддержании нормального общества у них нет, а ответственность назначить — проблема. Ведь тогда придется вводить институт доказывания, а, как мы помним, юристы — не нужны.

Поэтому судьи решают сложные дела (возможно) беря взятки. А возможно и нет, варианты — прошу в комментарии. Но есть ещё одна проблема: население не хочет судиться за взятки, поскольку найти красную шляпу (вы ведь понимаете, что это не единственный признак) можно у любого, а тогда то, что ты — потомок угнетенных рабов не спасёт от суда.

Проблема решается введением платных судов и преюдиции. Может, преюдицию ввели не поэтому, я не знаю. Но суть такова: если в обстоятельствах дела есть признаки указывающие на совершение уголовного преступления, то без решенного уголовного дела, гражданское двигаться не будет. А милиция (СК, прокуратура) может вполне и отказать в возбуждении.

Так что, как видите юриспруденция очень простая область знаний и юристы совершенно не нужны.
pigmeich: (Default)
Тетенька лет 50:

- Здравствуйте, можно проверить показания счетчика газа?

Опа, думаю, счетчика газа-то у нас нет. Ок, переспрашиваю. Отвечает:

- Снять показания счетчика газа. Могу удостоверение показать.
Конечно, давайте удостоверение.

Смотрю, на имя-фамилию внимания не обращаю, смотрю печать. Их две штуки. Одинаковые, на разных местах. Плохо пропечатанные. Естественно, не гербовые. Какой-то "Амур ВЦ". Спрашиваю: что за контора.

- А вы же знаете, наша компания купила Горгаз. Теперь мы от неё ходим и проверяем. - При этом в руках планшетик (картонный, а не IPad), в активе база данных по счетчикам, а о его отсутствие не знаем?

Вежливо прощаемся.

Я вот теперь думаю что делать. В милицию сообщать не хочется. Позапрошлый раз проходил по всему городу в поисках правильного отделения, в конце концов никакой бумажки не взяли, посоветовали обратиться ко врачу. В прошлый раз принес им запись разговора со свидетелем, свидетель магическим образом отказался от своих слов, а меня вызвали в суд как свидетеля и допрашивали с пристрастием.

Короче, в жопу милицию! Или полицию, как их там.

UPDATE: Сайтик похоже этой же шарашки. Вычислительный центр непонятно чего, основной расчетный центр по теплоэнергии в котором я ни разу не платил, и "Вебмастер Корпушев А.В.".


pigmeich: (Default)

June 2017

    1 23
4 5678910


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 02:07 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios