Chapter 105: The Basis of Jurisprudence

By Darryl Penney

General: I have to go to court and face a trial with a maximum penalty of two years jail for gun-storage that was regularly inspected by police. Clearly, the justice system has broken down in spite of the court of equity being added to the court of law [fusion] in a muddled attempt to fix this type of problem. The justice system needs to be reorganised and be made complete by adding bottom-up organisation to the current top-down attempt. The universe is based on orthogonality [independence with entanglement] for its construction and is different to our notions of logic, but it does explain why things have to happen if we are to live in this universe and its use creates a complete ‘general jurisprudence’. [‘Jurisprudence or legal theory is the theoretical study of law, principally by philosophers but, from the twentieth century, also by social scientists. Scholars of jurisprudence, also known as jurists or legal theorists, hope to obtain a deeper understanding of legal reasoning, legal systems, legal institutions, and the role of law in society.’ (Wikipedia, Jurisprudence)]

Firstly, the government and judiciary are orthogonal, as are each with the police, and they are standing in place of the parent [in loco parentis] and thus, must do the best for the offspring to survive and secondly, agree with each other about what is told to the offspring [logic of evolution]. Thirdly, the gun storage law is not relative [opposite/orthogonality of orthogonality and not recognised] and is thus not a ‘proper’/relative law and fourthly, the orthogonality of the specialist and generalist is (possibly) shown by this case because our mind/brain is limited in scope. In other words, everything in the universe must be relative to the physical structure of the universe and that structure is not what we think that it is.

When a ‘general jurisprudence’ is created by adding bottom-up and top-down orthogonality to the law/equity orthogonality, plus general mathematical physics, there is hope/possibility to organise the world through the use of class actions through the international court to force precedents on governments’ law-making and so guide humanity to solve the world’s over-population etc. problems.

Abstract: law is an orthogonality of both the physical and Life because Life arose from and is entwined with the physical. The continuance of Life requires an enigmatic orgene [organisational gene] that requires parents to illogically accept added competition and this becomes part of the logic of organisational physics. Law must obey the principle of relativity and be based on the orthogonality of the mathematics of concept/context and organisational physics [to make general mathematical physics] as well as the orthogonalities of society and parenting. The word ‘equity’ is a misnomer, as it is currently used, and the court of equity is shown to benefit the ruler and his position, in the main instance and benefit the person inadvertently so as to keep them more content with the outcome. The creation equation generates a simple fractal/probability space and the governance of our society reflects the parenting in evolution [in loco parentis] as would be expected in a fractal. This fractalness shows that the government and judiciary are orthogonal, with the police orthogonal to both, and that each stands in loco parentis to the population and that they have a responsibility to agree on the laws that either, can make, or change. This relativity/orthogonality aligns with the physics of the universe that requires a different logic to what we normally use. The case considered shows the basic design/method of creating sensible laws and their applicability based on the principle of relativity and the organisational physics of the universe. Further, suggestions are made to overcome the apparent inability of society to manage/organise the world’s society and an example is made that the judiciary, through class actions, could supply the context that is the missing link in politics and the universities

Part 1: Fundamentals

‘In current English, a “whipping boy” is a metaphor which may have a similar meaning to scapegoat, fall guy, or sacrificial lamb; alternatively it may mean a perennial loser or a victim of group bullying.’ (Wikipedia, Whipping boy) It appears that I am being so used by Senior constable Craig Barlow in his avowed effort to not allow any gun to be stolen and in my case I am being prosecuted for not keeping a ‘pea rifle’/’rabbit gun’ in a 150 kilogram safe even though the method used [lockable toolbox solidly bolted to a support and the rifle-bolt kept separate] was requested and inspected by Batemans Bay police several times over the years.

It appears that I am facing a maximum sentence of two years jail as a ‘whipping boy’ being used in a possible internal police ‘whistle blowing’ exercise (possibly) designed to force the police to adhere to a law that is (possibly) excessive for a farm ‘pea rifle’ and designed for the larger calibres. A simple solution is given in chapter 103 as an example using general mathematical physics and it is possible that the ‘manoeuvring’ that underlies this case is a reflection of the orthogonality/independence of government, judiciary and police. Senior constable Craig Barlow’s ‘hands appear to be tied’ in respect of having to press charges until he gets a change in the law, or a precedent from a court. In other words, Senior constable Craig Barlow is setting in motion a procedure to investigate what he sees as conflicts/errors in the law and wants them solved/legitimised.

How many innocent farmers have been caught in this situation by doing as the police instructed? Why was the simple solution, as given in chapter 103 not implemented? The cause, I believe, lies in the orthogonality of government, judiciary and police and not recognising the definition of orthogonality. The three arms of governance are considered to be independent, but the definition of orthogonality is independence [of two] with entanglement and as will be shown below, to comprise concept and context [entanglement] and is part of the underlying physics of the universe [organisational physics] and not the made-up independence that we ascribe to governance. This is an extremely important point and shows that the three arms of governance must have entanglement and that entanglement is that both the government and judiciary can make laws that must reflect the same outcomes [in loco parentis].

I have prepared this defence using law and in particular the venerable and well known law, in loco parentis. I am not considering the law as it has stood for thousands of years, but am adding an orthogonality to it to make it complete, also I am pleading this case myself because orthogonality is not new [Cartesian coordinates] but is generally unknown as being basic to everything. It will also be shown, using in loco parentis that there is an orthogonality in law and evolution [principle of relativity], so, what is true in law is true in evolution and vice versa. I can say this because governance is orthogonal [government, judiciary and police] and in some courts, law and equity have been ‘fused’, but still retain their orthogonality/independence [fusion fallacy].

This (alleged) fact of orthogonality in governance is welcome news because it means that governance aligns with the physics of the universe [organisational physics] and allows unique solutions through the general mathematical physics. This is important because traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics are based on man-made logic that is at odds with the physical world and, in particular, because of its universality, both disciplines are special cases of general mathematical physics. Thirdly, as the amount of knowledge accumulated by humans increases, it becomes increasing apparent that a relativity between specialist and generalist is emerging that is jeopardising the legitimacy of decisions and so requires a ‘team effort’, where the team is adequately represented by specialist and generalist (see chapter 102)

The universe is a simple place, as should be expected from the creation equation (1+(-1))=0 with its orthogonality and relativity and further, that the physical possibility [of chemistry] leads to the creation of Life that evolved the mind/brain from the probability space (a+b)=1, for all a and b. From chapter 97, ‘in a probability/fractal space, the Principle of Relativity is that everything is relative to something else (1+(-1))=0, except for the conservation of total energy, the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum and the increase in energy/organisation per unit of newly created space [dark energy].’ The instability of the equation requires the continual expansion of the universe [which occurs] and that expansion determines the dimensions, and the ratios of the dimensions necessarily become ‘absolutes’.

Life is a parasite that has created thought in the form of organisation/concepts a and b [mathematics of concept/context] and is one of the possibilities of the creation equation which builds on the first orthogonality of energy (1) and organisation (-1) which can be done because (1+(-1))=0 is also a fractal/probability space/generator [the equation is only stable with an expanding universe, which we have]. Orthogonality is the result/producer of relativity and consists of vertical and horizontal forms as well as concept and context that presents as a single concept that is equal to an infinite sequence. An example of the latter, from chapter 102, ‘mathematics is a case in point and contains the enigma that the constants can all be expressed in infinite series [e, pi etc. and all these are related by Euler’s equation (chapter 98)]. Clearly, this is an orthogonality of exact versus infinite series and this equates to the basic/first orthogonality [energy/organisation] in that energy is exact and organisation is an infinite series that is efficient ‘in the limit’ [evolution].’

An example of vertical and horizontal forms is the generations of organisms [parents and offspring] where the parents are themselves orthogonal [men, women] as are the children [brothers, sisters] and this concept has been extended [as a context] over 3,000 million years [evolution]. Thus, it is no surprise that the family structure has been extended in this form to the governance of communities and in particular, defines our modern orthogonality/independence of government, judiciary and police, and further, even to religion with God the Father. Orthogonality is independence combined with entanglement and is a feature of organisational physics [based on the universe] and is different to Newtonian physics and traditional mathematics that are human constructions and special cases of general mathematical physics. An example is the Cartesian coordinate system where the X-Y axes are said to be orthogonal/independent, but ignores the case at (0, 0) where there is entanglement where the axes join together.

Further, the fact that parents firstly, expend the energy to produce offspring, that will secondly, compete with them, thirdly, actively feed them and teach over a considerable time, the skills to compete is what I call an ‘orgene’. This is an organisational ‘gene’ or function that is detrimental to the parent’s well-being and not in their immediate interest, but is a concept that is necessary for the perpetuation of the species. In other words, it is a function that is costly and altruistic but is inbred for thousands of million years. Clearly, only those organisms having this ‘orgene’ would pass it to the next generation [thus highly heritable] and this forms the basis to the formation of Life. In other words, for life to exist, organisational physics contains the requirement of the parent.

From chapter 102, ‘postscript: it is with great surprise and pleasure that I find the essence of the above ‘alive and well’, though unrecognised, in governance [government, police and law are orthogonal/independent] and again in the court of law [fusion of law and equity]. It is also a surprise that the law, with a pedigree as old as mathematics and science and a reputation of being old-fashion/staid is based on the same system that I believe mathematical physics should be using in being in the forefront of technology.’ The law, as practiced, is top-down and needs to consider the logic of organisational physics to be complete and this derivation is a ‘case in point’.

Senior constable Craig Barlow has brought two charges (1) not kept firearm safely, and (2) not having approved storage, against me and I will show that those charges have no relevance to me and that I am being used, necessarily, for him to gain entrance into a Court that excludes him in his official capacity. In other words, it is possible that senior constable Craig Barlow is using me as an excuse [whipping boy] to gain entrance to a court to ‘whistle blow’ a police matter and I have been warned to get a solicitor and hope for a good behaviour bond. If this is normal behaviour, there is something very wrong with the governance system.

I will show that those charges have no relevance to me because the Batemans Bay police are standing in loco parentis for me. The relevant section is:

In loco parentis: ‘originally derived from English common law, it is applied in two separate areas of the law.
Second, this doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held themselves out as the parent.’ (Wikipedia, In loco parentis)

I believe that every member of governance stands in loco parentis to the citizens and in total constitute the fatherland/motherland and as such do not have the right to punish unjustly when the injustice has been brought to their attention. In other words, it could be said that not one, of the practically infinite number of organisms in 3,000 million years has knowingly lied about finding food to its offspring and further, it is obvious that the two parents must be in agreement as to the advice given to offspring. In the context of this case, the concept of punishing me must be for my own good, is not retrospective because I was obeying the Batemans Bay police acting in loco parentis and the government, judiciary and police must be in agreement. Clearly this has not happened.

Conclusion: I believe that I have proven that I have not been at fault and that the dispute is between my ‘parents’ and the law must be changed because it is unconscionable as it stands in requiring a 150 kilogram safe to house a single shot ‘pea’/rabbit rifle. The law can be changed by either of government or the court making a decision to do so, with the court having the power [precedent] at any time.

Prediction: firstly, I have assumed that the court of equity has been concerned about fairness of the law, but viewing the above, in the light of the law [in loco parentis], an orthogonality emerges that the purpose of in loco parentis is to feed/support the offspring and has nothing to do with fairness, but is a means of retaining the status quo. ‘While imports could ease the crisis of supply, and thus lower prices in the French towns accessible from the Mediterranean, this was not possible for Paris, where a worker’s daily bread now cost 97 per cent of his income…. If the French Revolution was not borne of climatic crisis, bad weather was at least the midwife.’ (The Birth of Europe, Michael Andrews, p 173) Thus, the court of equity is a means of curtailing the excesses of the ruler/governor with the aim of retaining their power and not provoking the populous

Notice that ‘the teachings of Confucius (551-479 BC) were to form the basis of one of the most powerful political philosophies in history … as with father and son, the subject’s duty to his ruler was balanced by the ruler’s moral duty to his subjects.’ (Timelines of the Ancient World, Dorling Kindersley, p 149) This shows the nature of the current concept of the equity court that is necessarily top-down, as is the law, and are ‘truths’ through usage, but must always be tempered by bottom-up context.

Secondly, the requirement that the parents do the best by the offspring and thereby maximise their usefulness to evolution raises complex social issues around state of mind, nutrition and exercise as well as the problem of overpopulation. A couple of examples are chapters 54 and 59.

Part 2: the Law

The above is from the point of view of ‘equity’, together with the law, because they are orthogonal and ‘equity’ is the context of the law because the principle of relativity requires two aspects to be considered on all occasions. This also explains the ‘fusion’ of law and ‘equity’ in that they are independent and yet entangled and I need to consider the law, on its own [concept] and I can do that through the principle of relativity. The law is a man-made law based on concepts and context, but it is also based on physical laws/logic. The governance system and the court (in general) are (somewhat) based on the organisational physics that is the logic of the physical universe, whereas physics and mathematics are based on a man-made logic and contain enigmas. The laws that have been brought against me are of the latter type and are badly formulated and that is why there are problems and I have to plead ‘not guilty’.

The laws under which I am being charged do not fall under the principle of relativity because they lack relativity and thus are not ‘proper’ and are man-made and thus contain enigmas. The only proper logic is based on the universe, and the mathematics of concept/context [(a+b)=1] is the system that our brain uses to create the mind. Thought [mind] is the organisation (-1) that is produced by the burning of a simple sugar [glucose] (1) in the brain in line with the equation of creation (1+(-1))=0. The physical brain and the resultant organisation are, not surprisingly, based on the mathematics of concept/context. Note that the law of conservation of energy is empirical and man-made because both energy and organisation are created all the time [the two absolutes in the principle of relativity show this occurs as energy/time and energy/space and the latter is continually created in a necessarily expanding universe].

The ‘general law’ is always workable because it is built on the same structure and logic as the universe, but working top-down involves guesswork, whereas working bottom-up is straightforward and gives unique answers. I am going to show that the ‘gun laws’ have not been applied properly and are bad laws for this reason and that is why I am challenging the structure of the ‘gun law’. Simply, the definition of a ‘gun’ [within the law] lacks relativity. When I was a child I used part of an old car tyre pump, dropped in a lighted ‘bunger’ and a piece of wood to see how high the wood reached when the ‘bunger’ exploded. That was a ‘gun’.

When Senior constable Craig Barlow was at the farm, someone had placed a ‘gun’ on the bench that had a wooden stock, a nail for a trigger and a barrel with a ¾ inch bore. I asked if he wanted that, but he disdained it even though it was a passable-looking shotgun. A ‘pea rifle is not an assault rifle and yet there is little relativity as to their purpose. In chapter 104, I pointed out that the concepts are the type of gun and the ‘dangerousness’ of the gun is the context and the answer is the type of storage. Under the current law, all guns have the same level of dangerous and type of storage [150 kilogram safe]. The above, by showing that toy guns are excluded provides relativity, and requires a relationship between ‘size of the gun’ and the storage [or lack of storage].

Batemans Bay police, presumably tried to inject more sense into the problem by allowing a toolbox to be used for ‘pea’ rifles, however, that is contrary to the law and requires a court decision as a precedent, or a change in the law. To have this unfair and badly constructed law changed is my intention and secondly, to show how relativity must be used to construct laws. Physics and mathematics are based on special cases and the hierarchy seem to be reluctant to examine their structure, whereas the law/equity has come a long way on the correct path but the world’s problems cannot wait while top-down guesses are examined and trialled.

Conclusion: from part 1, a child cannot logically be chastised for obeying another parent [police in this case], so this appearance should find that I have no case to answer and secondly, from part two, the law is badly constructed and is not logical and does not achieve its aim in a conscionable way.

Part 3: Entanglement

The principle entanglements are:

(1) the specialist/generalist divide that occurs as the amount of specialist information increases until it becomes necessary when employing specialists to include sufficient generalists.
(2) The above shows that the Law has been constructed top-down and that there is a top-down and bottom-up orthogonality of the conscionability and that bottom-up is based on the physical as determined by the probability space (a+b)=1.
(3) It also suggests a sideways orthogonality in that the arguments used in law are part of the mathematics of concept/context and are already part of general mathematical physics.
(4) Law/equity concerns Life, and evolution can only occur if animals have evolved and they must always form part of the organisational physics of the universe of which we are part.

The fact that this attendance at court has been required, I believe, shows that the Law is deficient in its application [no bottom-up] and requires amendment and the above provides a base on which a ‘scientific law’ can be constructed. Organisational physics is not our ‘natural’ logic, for instance concepts of fairness, justice, good, evil etc. are, like physics and mathematics, human constructs and we must take care that they align with organisational physics if we want to make the law scientific and work properly. Clearly, this is the top to bottom orthogonality where bottom-up is organisational law and top-down is conventional law such as ‘no alcohol’, no parking etc. and organisational law is always present.

Part 4: Prediction

I want to stress that I did not pick in loco parentis ‘out of a hat’, but it is the core ‘physical law’ of the infinite series [context] that corresponds to the single concept of survival of the fittest [as mathematical concepts pi, I, e etc. are infinite series]. If government, judiciary and God are ‘parents’ to everyone on the planet [in loco parentis] and the universe is simple [from a simple creation equation], then the solution to the world’s problems will become simple, when it is based on bottom-up logic. Mathematics, physics and law are special cases of the mathematics of concept/context with law closest to the attainable. Universities are composed of specialists turning out technology without context as to its use, and mathematics, physics and law can make do, as above, within a general mathematical physics, but there is agreement between the judiciary [precedent] and government [laws] and each is independent but entangled because the law/precedent of each affects the other, just as parents must agree on the best for their offspring.

Politicians spend their time trying to be re-elected and statesmen/women are rare because they do not know how to proceed without bottom-up knowledge, but the judiciary are appointed for the long-term and are answerable to the public in an ‘orthogonal’ way to the politicians. Politicians tend to deal in concepts, whereas the judiciary can determine a class action [context] that becomes a precedent and this can be done in any court and, in particular, an international court. Perhaps this is a way to fix the world’s problems. ‘International Court of Justice is the judicial organ of the United nations. Its duty is to settle international disputes and determine the legal rights of the member nations. The members of the U.N are bound to abide by the decisions of the I.C.J whose judges are elected by the members of the General assembly and Security council.’

Conclusion: the top-down guesswork in making laws and then fixing them up in a ‘trial and re-make’ depending on the citizens’ response forces me to defend this obviously problematical law and seek changes as I have outlined above. It also appears that the use of the court of equity is to safeguard the system and not the citizen and I am reminded that a major religion surfaced in spite of the government and courts failing to modernise 2,000 years ago. Orthogonality is a two-way street due to entanglement and it would be easier to change society with the ‘parents’’ blessing and help.

In other words, the law has to stay pertinent and now that it has been shown to lack relativity, it must change and become ‘general law’ and reflect the physical basis that is part of the structure of the universe and the physical base provides its own defence, in that the parent does the best that they can in the light of the knowledge of the circumstances without punishment [basis of my case]. The knowledge of a general law provides the measurement [as a re-occurrence in a fractal] in that knowledge of an experiment ‘decides’ quantum mechanical wave/particle properties [single/double slit experiment] and is a property of a measuring/probability space [Michelson-Morley experiment where the speed of light is constant (absolute) to the measurer] and thus be part of general law.

Part 5: Opening

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to state my case for I fear that there may be technical reasons why I cannot proceed as I do not know the law, and I will have to ask for your indulgence, further as I must conduct my defence myself, as this is private research and the circumstances of my using it is to show that the understanding of some of the law is incomplete and that is because the law ignores the basis property of the universe, namely relativity.

I have always believed that we should do what the police tell us to do, so why am I in this court? Clearly, as I did what I was told to do, and the police inspected the housing on a number of occasions, there is an internal organisational problem in governance that obviously needs fixing and obviously no one seems to know how to fix it. So, my defence is to fix it. Principally, the law, mathematics and physics are incomplete because relativity requires considering the physical space that we live in, and what we assume for this universe is wrong [Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein’s postulate for the special theory of relativity]. This case shows the truth of that state of affairs because firstly, we have a difficulty in that the court is a specialist at law, whilst I am a generalist that knows little of the law. Secondly, the basic problem is that it is the organisation behind the law that is not understood. Thirdly, the law is based on humanity and ignores the physics of the universe that must part of the law, and the inclusion of the physical is necessary for relativity.

My strategy is to give all concerned a statement of my arguments and an adjournment may be in order to consider it because it could cause a basic rethink of parts of the law, in particular, jurisprudence. However, I feel it best to briefly present my case so that questions can be asked and then rely on what I have written because it is important that it be understood. Firstly, I intend to prove that the law, in its entirety, is intended for humans and thus deficient and ‘out of step’ with the fundamental principle of relativity, then secondly, I will show that the law in loco parentis has physical ramifications that preclude me from blame and thirdly, that a not guilty judgement will, by necessity, become a precedent and require a change in the law because there is an entanglement between government and judiciary.

Fourthly, I will also show that the justice system, shown in this powerful new light might possibly be able to solve the world’s organisational problems of global warming, over-population etc. and the outcome of this trial has a direct link in the outcome. Fifthly, I feel justified in challenging this appearance because a lot of time and money is being spent because, I believe, the organisation behind the structure of the law is not appreciated and I may be able to help sort it out. Sixthly, the answer, I will show, is simple, straight-forward and powerful in its effect because it is fundamental and will lay a floor to the question of jurisprudence. Seventhly, there is a possibility that that the justice system has been politicised and should perhaps require the gun storage system that logic suggests.

In other words, the law is a truth because it is relevant to humanity through usage, but the law is not relevant to the physical space and this fact changes the meaning of law and that needs to be fixed. In this case the police are readjusting their internal political stance on weapon storage and using me as a ‘whipping boy’ to test the parental resolve/agreement of government and judiciary.

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com or from the author on darryldarryl1@bigpond.com phone 0410668511, if required.

Chapter 103: Understanding Governance Through Orthogonality

Chapter 102: To the Vice-chancellor

Chapter 98: The Principle of Relativity, the Creation and Euler’s Equation Explained

Chapter 104: The Family Court and Parental Responsibility

Chapter 54: The Determination Orgene, Selecting the ‘Best’ and a General Solution to ‘Struggle Street’ and the World’s Overpopulation.

Chapter 59: Measurement of Concepts, the Relativity Paradox Explained and Why our Health has Not Improved Over the Last 165 Years