 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
44 The action of a valid law can do no harm (injury).
45 An action decided in law must reflect cause of such action.
46 No injury to the law means no valid cause for action by law.
I can understand, and agree with 44. The next message could be understood as a the punishment must fit the crime, or the message is along the lines of remedy instead of punishment. If so then the word choice of "penalty" can be understood as an action that does not cause harm to the criminal who caused the injury which sets in motion an action aiming for remedy.
Now I think I see how 46 works. If there is no crime then there is no injury to the law, as there is no injury to anyone, and therefore there is no action set in motion seeking remedy.
How is that?
126 The first being Prolocution and the right to speak as a matter of law, 127 And why the complaint and investigation should not continue,
128 The second being Collocution as to why the complaint and accusation is false,
129 And upon such proof why the burden should now be placed on the accuser,
130 And the third being Adlocution being a final speech in defense,
131 Against a complaint or accusation having been heard.
What is the definition for Prolocution, Collocution, and Adlocution?