A Unified Theory Of A Law

A UNIFIED THEORY OF A LAW By John Bosco

PREFACE THERE IS A HOLE IN YOUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT A LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -1PREFACE CONTINUED AN EVOLUTION IN LEGAL IDEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -5INTRODUCTION A UNIFIED THEORY OF A LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -7PREVIEW AT THE BEGINNING, A PREVIEW OF THE END . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -11CHAPTER 1 THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -15CHAPTER 2 FORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -17Chapter 3 A SIMILARITY IN A COMMAND AND A PERMISSION THAT MAKES IT CHALLENGING TO TELL THEM APART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -21Chapter 4 THE STORY OF 'NOT' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -25Chapter 5 THE EXTERNALIZATION AND COMMUNICATION OF A LAWMAKER'S OPINION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -29Chapter 6 INTRUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -31Chapter 7 WHO DECIDES? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -35-

Chapter 8 RECOGNITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -37Chapter 9 THE VOCABULARY OF A UNIFIED THEORY OF A LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -43Chapter 10 TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN - AND A MIDDLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -45Chapter 11 STAYING IN SYNC WITH A LAWMAKER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -47Chapter 12 WHAT IS OCCURRING WHEN THE OPINIONS OF A LAWMAKER ARE MIXED AND MATCHED ACROSS THE THREE STAGES OF THE PROCESS OF MAKING A LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -49Chapter 13 A WARNING ABOUT SIMPLIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -51Chapter 14 EXTRAPOLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -55Chapter 15 THE THREE CLAUSE SENTENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -57Chapter 16 EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -59Chapter 17 THE BIG PICTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -61Chapter 18

AT THE END, A REVIEW TO THE BEGINNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -65CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -73Appendix A HOHFELD, THE TWO MEANINGS OF POWER AND TOXIC DERIVATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -75Appendix B QUESTIONS THAT A UNIFIED THEORY OF A LAW ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -77Appendix C GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page -79-

PREFACE

THERE IS A HOLE IN YOUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT A LAW W hat is a law? It is such a simple question. But, . . . can you answer it? Let's see. Pull all your knowledge about a law from your head and put it right here on the table in front of us. That's right. Lay it all out. Many answers have been given to this simple question. Yet, most answers offer knowledge that is dead not alive, sterile not fecund, inert not generative. The only answer that I would judge correct is an answer that transports us from a law in general to a law in particular and, reversing direction, from a law in particular to a law in general. Any answer that does not show us the door through which we can travel between the general and the particular is inadequate. So, have you supplied a correct answer? W hat if I told you that there is a hole in your knowledge about a law that something is missing? A mistake was made and your law school failed to teach you a legal doctrine that would have made your legal thinking clearer? W ould the words, Oops! or Sorry!, make it all better? But don't trust my word that this has happened. Demand proof. Oddly enough, your proof will be found in a loaf of bread. Have you ever baked a loaf of bread? To do so, ingredients are needed as well as a recipe that tells you how to process the ingredients. Page -1-

The ingredients of a loaf of bread are flour, water, yeast, salt and, perhaps, a pinch of sugar. They are concrete not abstract, substantial not ethereal they can be touched, named and numbered.

Now, here is proof that there is a hole in your knowledge about a law. The proof is incontrovertible because I won't supply it to you; you will supply it to me. W ould you answer two questions? 1. 2.

W hat are the ingredients of a law? W hat is the recipe that transforms a law's ingredients into a law itself and, in the other direction, from a law itself into its ingredients?

Think about the questions. Can you answer them? Isn't it perverse that the ingredients of something as common as a loaf of bread can be touched, named and numbered; yet, the ingredients of something as important as a law cannot? If you cannot answer the two questions, your inability confirms the existence of a hole in your knowledge about a law. It is a hole that A Unified Theory of a Law fills. A Unified Theory of a Law is simply the recipe that teaches you the building blocks of a law. It teaches how to assemble them into a law, and, reversing direction, how to disassemble a law into them. In Greek mythology, the goddess, Athena, was born when she emerged from the skull of her father, Zeus, as a fully grown adult. Inexplicably, she had bypassed infancy and adolescence. Our laws likewise also seem to jump out of our heads fully grown without having passed through any prior stages of development. In reality, however, a law, like the tip of an iceberg, is but the fruit of a process that takes place below the murky surface of the intellect of a lawmaker. There, cloaked in mystery, the process has heretofore enjoyed immunity from scrutiny and discourse. A Unified Theory of a Law exposes the process, presents it to us and brings it Page -2-

under our control.

Page -3-

Page -4-

PREFACE CONTINUED

AN EVOLUTION IN LEGAL IDEOLOGY Either by accident or on purpose, a legal ideology has evolved within each of us. W e are its prisoners. It stands between us and the legal world and filters our view of it. For many, it is a prison with only two windows. Through one, the affirmative is visible; through the other, the negative appears. The ability to distinguish between the affirmative and the negative, however, is nothing special. Any layman untrained in the law can make such a distinction. The legal world is not seen clearly when we bifurcate it using a simple distinction between the affirmative and the negative. W hy? The legal world is trifurcated. Hence, three windows - not two - are needed to view it. The three windows correspond to the three opinions that a lawmaker can hold about the facts. (See, the Chapter called Formation). How far has your legal ideology evolved? Do you view the legal world through two or through three windows? Are you only capable of making a distinction between the affirmative and the negative? Or can you distinguish the three opinions that a lawmaker can hold about the facts? (See, the Chapter called Formation)? Your answer to the following question will tell us the status of your legal ideology. Drawing from your experience as a passenger in or driver of a car, tell us: is a motorist permitted to go through a green traffic light? The answer of the bifurcated legal thinker is 'Yes'. A trifurcated legal thinker answers 'No'. A bifurcated legal thinker figures out the answer to the question by reasoning that either 1) Yes, a motorist is permitted to go through a green light or 2) No, a motorist is not permitted to go through it. W hen the answers are framed using the affirmative versus negative distinction, the better answer is obviously that a motorist is permitted to go through a green light.

Page -5-

Although the bifurcated legal thinker picks the best answer that his legal ideology offers him, the affirmative versus negative distinction gives the bifurcated legal thinker a flawed view of the legal world and carries the bifurcated legal thinker to the wrong answer. W hy? The legal world is not black and white. It is black, white and black. Before the eyes of the trifurcated legal thinker are the three opinions that a lawmaker can form about the facts (See, the Chapter called Formation) and hence the three permutations of a law. The three permutations are 1) permitted to go or to stop, 2) Commanded to stop, or 3) Commanded to go. If a lawmaker permitted a motorist to go through a green traffic light, the lawmaker would also be permitting the motorist to stop because that is the nature of a permission. W ith a permission, the decision whether to stop or go is made by the motorist. A lawmaker, however, does not want a motorist to stop at a green traffic light. A lawmaker wants a motorist to go through a green traffic light. A lawmaker substitutes his decision for the decision of the motorist and commands a motorist to go through a green light. Hence, it is not correct to say that a motorist is permitted to go through a green light. It is only correct to say that a motorist is commanded to go through a green light. A command and a permission are two different laws. Sometimes, a sloppy legal thinker confuses the two. The correct answer is not available to the bifurcated legal thinker. Unless the legal ideology of the bifurcated legal thinker evolves, it is apt to carry the bifurcated legal thinker to the wrong answer. Only a trifurcated legal ideology can carry the legal thinker ineluctably and invariably to the correct answer. Therefore, isn't it time that your legal thinking evolves?

Page -6-

INTRODUCTION

A UNIFIED THEORY OF A LAW Over the last two decades, I have taught a course in law to seniors at Monsignor Farrell High School in Staten Island, New York. In it, I try to give my students the ability to think like a lawyer. Many with low opinions of how lawyers think would wonder why I am trying to ruin young minds. However, I do not share such a dim view of legal thinking. It is such a valuable skill that lawyers themselves ought to re-examine their own legal thinking from time to time. My course, called A Unified Theory of a Law, may help in such a re-examination. All of us have, tucked away in our heads, a model of a law. W e use it to represent the laws that run around outside our heads in the legal world. W hat my course tries to do is upgrade the fidelity of the model so that what exists inside our heads better represents what exists outside. My course exploits the insight that legal fission is possible. Have you not heard of legal fission? The physics of legal fission postulate that a law can be split into two components. One of the components of a law is its words and the other component of a law is its structure. They are not the same. They exist independently of each other. Together they constitute a law. The words of a law sit on top of, or adorn, its structure. The words of a law change; the structure of a law always stays the same. Like the DNA of a cell, the structure of a law repeats itself over and over again in every instance of a law. To generate a law's meaning, both its words and its structure cooperate. Anyone who wishes to push meaning into or pull meaning out of a law must be mindful of a law's structure. Any failure to respect the structure of a law generates inscrutable legalese and legal misunderstanding. W hile many have taken notice of the words of a law, knowledge of the structure of a law is still rare. A baker can articulate the ingredients of a bun. A Doctor can articulate the parts of the human body. A physicist can articulate subatomic particles. Yet, few lawyers can talk about the building Page -7-

blocks of a law! The structure of a law consists of building blocks. Building blocks can be assembled into a law and a law can be disassembled into its building blocks. Your inability to articulate the building blocks of a law is not your fault. The physics of legal fission is a new doctrine. Knowledge that a law can be split into two components, its words and its structure, is still rare. Law schools do not yet teach it. Yet, I have no doubt that you already possess all of the legal raw materials needed to talk about the building blocks of a law. The building blocks of a law - like the kingdom of God - are at hand. You cannot yet talk about the building blocks of a law simply because your legal ideas are not properly organized. Like marbles in a can, they rattle around inside your head freely and haphazardly. In such a state of incoherence, they make a poor model of the laws that run around outside your head in the legal world. Instead of a high fidelity model that generates a fair and accurate representation of our laws, you possess a low fidelity model that generates only a poor approximation. This deficiency in legal thinking, however, is not without a remedy. You can easily learn the building blocks of a law. Physicists have struggled in vain for years to discover a unified theory of everything; lawyers, however, have had better success. W e now have A Unified Theory of a Law. It teaches that a law is simple (yes, that's right, simple), its behavior is regular, and it can be broken down into building blocks that can be mapped using a three by three grid called the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law . The three by three grid called the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law is the heart of A Unified Theory of a Law. Its nine cells capture everything that takes place under the surface of a Lawmaker's intellect during the process of making a law. Anyone of ordinary intelligence can learn the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. Once understood, your understanding of a law equals the understanding of the greatest legal genius. The legal genius cannot understand a law any better than you. W hy? Because there is nothing more to learn about a law! The boundaries that define our knowledge of a law have been discovered, explored and mapped onto the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. The boundaries are now well understood. Beyond them is nothing. All knowledge about a law exists within a three by three grid. Outside the boundaries, as the map Page -8-

makers of old would say, there is nothing but dragons.

Page -9-

Page -10-

PREVIEW

AT THE BEGINNING, A PREVIEW OF THE END At the start of our journey to a more accurate understanding of a law, a glimpse of the path ahead and our destination is helpful. Five Characters The five characters you will meet in A Unified Theory of a Law are 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

a Lawmaker a Source doing conduct a Recipient receiving conduct Neither a Source nor a Recipient a Legal Thinker

Two of the five characters, the Source doing conduct and the Recipient receiving conduct, exist in the factual world. Unless and until a lawmaker binds a command or permission to them, they remain in the factual world not the legal. You are the Legal Thinker. A Legal Thinker observes but does not participate in the lawmaking process. Four Relationships In A Unified Theory of a Law are four relationships. One of them is a factual relationship and three are legal relationships. Each of the four relationships involves someone or something at either end. At either end of the factual relationship is a Source doing conduct and a Recipient receiving conduct. At one end of all three legal relationships is a Lawmaker. At the other ends of the three legal relationships are the conduct itself, the Source doing conduct and the Recipient receiving conduct. The Triangle with Three Legs The four relationships are portrayed on the Triangle of a Law. It is a Page -11-

triangle with three legs. The factual relationship is found on its base and the three legal relationships are found on each of its three legs. Moreover, the Lawmaker, Source doing conduct and Recipient receiving conduct are found at the corners of the Triangle of a Law. Different Worlds A Unified Theory of a Law holds a number of "worlds" that are separate and distinct from one another yet connected. The factual world is different than the legal world. A Lawmaker brings the Source doing conduct and Recipient receiving conduct from the factual into the legal world by binding a command or a permission to them by handing them one of the four legal tokens: 1) duty, 2) privilege, 3) right, and 4) no-right. The world of a lawmaker's opinion is different than the world in which a lawmaker externalizes her opinion and communicates it to others. Much confusion arises when separate worlds are merged. A Three by Three Grid At the heart of A Unified Theory of a Law is a three by three grid called the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. Its three columns capture the three legal relationships. The columns of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law explain the three stages that a lawmaker occupies during the process of making a law. The names of the three stages are, from left to right, INTRUSION, FORMATION and RECOGNITION. The rows of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law capture the three permutations of a law.

Page -12-

Page -13-

Page -14-

CHAPTER 1

THE FACTS The Facts are Infinite but they are best Viewed through one Window and one Window alone Indeed, the number of facts is infinite. Yet, for legal understanding, the number of ways to observe them and talk about them and think about them is finite. A Unified Theory of a Law teaches that it is best to view the facts through one W indow and one W indow alone. It is the same W indow as the W indow through which a lawmaker looks at the facts. Here it is! The subject of a law is conduct. Conduct flows. It flows from a source to a recipient. Conduct that reaches a recipient is called consequences. Furthermore, a flow of conduct from source to a recipient is done in circumstances. Circumstance are the context in which conduct flows. Hence, a flow of conduct from source to a recipient in circumstances is the factual aspect of a law. It constitutes the base of the Triangle of Law and the top of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. The Two Important Characteristics of a Flow of Conduct: Direction and Polarity Moreover, a flow of conduct from source to a recipient in circumstances has two important characteristics: Direction and Polarity. Direction The flow of conduct is mono-directional. It always flows from a source to a recipient. It never flows the other way. Polarity Furthermore, the flow of conduct has polarity. It is either on or off, Page -15-

flowing or still. W hen on, a flow of conduct is described as being “affirmative”. W hen off, as “negative”. There is absolutely no difference between affirmative conduct and negative conduct other than its polarity. Direction and Polarity Direction and polarity are the two significant properties of a flow of conduct from source to a recipient in circumstances. Proof that A Unified Theory of a Law and a Lawmaker look at the Facts through the same Window W hat proof do we have that A Unified Theory of a Law's way of looking at the facts is the optimal way to look at the facts. Have you ever wondered why, in general, there are only two types of litigant in a court of law? W hy only a plaintiff and a defendant? W hy not more? W hy not less? W hat is the simplest explanation for this? There are two types of litigant in a court of law because conduct has only two ends and the focus of a lawmaker, and hence a court a law, is upon conduct. On one of its ends is the source of conduct - who, in a court, is called a defendant; on the other end is the recipient of conduct - who, in a court, is called a plaintiff. If conduct had one end or three ends instead of two, the number of litigants would be a number other than two.

Page -16-

CHAPTER 2

FORMATION Introduction The process of making a law can be broken down into three separate and distinct stages. In this chapter, we will study the stage of the process of making a law called FORMATION. FORMATION deals with the desires of a Lawmaker with regard to the Conduct itself. In contrast, INTRUSION deals with the desires of a Lawmaker with regard to a Source doing conduct and RECOGNITION deals with the desires of a Lawmaker with regard to a Recipient receiving conduct. The Factual Focus of the Lawmaker during Formation is on the Conduct itself From her perch at the acme of the Triangle of a Law, a Lawmaker despises the facts at its base as a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances. During FORMATION, the focus of the lawmaker is upon the Conduct itself. It is not upon the Source doing conduct or the Recipient receiving conduct. This focus creates a relationship between the Lawmaker and the Conduct itself. It is one of the three legal relationships in A Unified Theory of a Law. This relationship is depicted graphically as one of the three legs of The Triangle of a Law. The Opinions of the Lawmaker at the Formation Stage During FORMATION, a lawmaker forms any of three opinions about a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in Circumstances: 1. 2. 3.

a Lawmaker likes the conduct and wants the flow of conduct to be turned on, a Lawmaker is indifferent to the conduct and does not care whether or not the flow of conduct is on or off, or a Lawmaker dislikes the conduct and wants the flow of conduct turned off. Page -17-

A lawmaker's three opinions are no different than the opinions we form about things. The Vocabulary of Formation After a lawmaker forms an opinion during the FORMATION stage of the process of making a law, the lawmaker must externalize the opinion and communicate it to the citizenry. In other words, the shell must be cracked and the nut freed. Fortunately for lawmakers, our language has evolved intrinsic grammatical structures to do so. The vocabulary of FORMATION consists of two sentences coupled with the polarities of conduct. They are sufficient to express the three opinions that a lawmaker can form at the FORMATION stage of the process of making a law. They are 1. 2. 3.

a Command for affirmative (a/k/a on) conduct, a Permission for either affirmative (a/k/a on) or negative (a/k/a off) conduct, or a Command for negative (a/k/a off) conduct;

A command is a sentence in what grammarians call the imperative mood. The word, command, describes a law in which a lawmaker has formed an opinion of like or dislike toward a flow of conduct and hence desires to turn it on or off. A clue to a command is the appearance in the sentence holding the law of the helping verb, shall. A permission is a sentence in what grammarians call the permissive mood. The word, permission, describes a law in which a lawmaker is indifferent and hence there is an absence of a desire for either positive or negative conduct. A clue to a permission is the appearance in the sentence holding the law of the helping verb, may.

Page -18-

The Metaphor of Formation FORMATION does not have its own metaphor because a gap does not exist between the Vocabulary of Formation and the Opinion of the Lawmaker at the Formation stage of the lawmaking process. Thus, no metaphor is needed to help us understand. This is not so during the other two stages: INTRUSION and RECOGNITION Formation and the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law FORMATION occupies three of the nine cells of the three by three grid known as the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. Cells A2, B2 and C2 found in Column 2 capture everything that occurs during the FORMATION stage of the process of making a law.

Page -19-

Page -20-

Chapter 3

A SIMILARITY IN A COMMAND AND A PERMISSION THAT MAKES IT CHALLENGING TO TELL THEM APART Two Flavors of a Law Our laws come in two flavors: a command or a permission. Unlike ice cream which comes in more than two flavors, our laws come in only two. A command and a permission are the literary devices by which a lawmaker externalizes and communicates her opinion during the formation stage of the lawmaking process. A similarity is shared by a command and a permission that makes it challenging to tell them apart. The similarity is the Lawmaker’s lack of an objection to a polarity of conduct. This similarity exists in both a command and a permission. Because the similarity exists in both a command and a permission, the legal thinker sometimes confuses the two - unless the legal thinker keeps both polarities of conduct in mind. A Review of Polarity Recall from the Chapter of A Unified Theory of a Law entitled the Facts that a flow of conduct possesses the property of polarity and, thus, exists in either of two versions: 1) 2)

as a flow of conduct that is on or flowing, i.e. affirmative conduct or as a flow of conduct that is off and not flowing, i.e. negative conduct.

Moreover, there is no difference between affirmative and negative conduct except its polarity.

Page -21-

A Chart of a Lawmaker's Possible Objections W ith regard to each of the two polarities of conduct, a lawmaker can either object or not object. The possibilities available to a lawmaker are charted below: TABLE OF POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS BY A LAWMAKER Polarity Flavor of Law

Affirmative Conduct

Negative Conduct

A Lawmaker does not object to affirmative conduct

A Lawmaker does not object to negative conduct

Permission for either affirmative or negative conduct

A Lawmaker does not object to affirmative conduct but, more importantly, desires affirmative conduct

A Lawmaker objects to negative conduct

Command for affirmative conduct

A Lawmaker objects to affirmative conduct

A Lawmaker does not object to negative conduct but, more importantly, desires negative conduct

Command for negative conduct

A Lawmaker objects to affirmative conduct

A Lawmaker objects to negative conduct

This does not exist. It obliterates rational thought

A Test to distinguish between a Command and a Permission Because one of the polarities in a command and a permission is always, at least, unobjectionable to a lawmaker, it is easy to confuse a command with a permission if you do not keep the opposite polarity in mind. If the opposite polarity is kept in mind, it becomes impossible to confuse a command with a permission. Hence, we can create a test to distinguish a Page -22-

command from a permission. If a lawmaker does not object to either polarity of conduct, we are dealing with a permission. If a lawmaker objects to one polarity, we are dealing with a command.

An Example - the Test in Action One example will suffice. Many think that a green traffic light indicates that a motorist is permitted to go. Although a lawmaker has no objection to a motorist "going" at a green light, a lawmaker objects to a motorist "not going" a\k\a "stopping" at a green light. Because one of the polarities is objectionable and the other is not, we are dealing with a command not a permission. It takes two unobjectionable polarities to make a permission. A lawmaker desires a motorist to go at a green light. Hence, a motorist is commanded to go at a green light.

Page -23-

Page -24-

Chapter 4

THE STORY OF 'NOT' W hat does the word, not, do? Before I proceed, I must digress so you can hear the story of the word, not. The story of the word, not, is also the story of the words, may and shall. The word, not, frequently appears in our laws. It is common to see it escorted by the words, shall or may, as in the sentences, ‘Thou shall not kill’ or ‘Thou may kill’. But what does the word, not, mean? Or better, what ought it mean? How ought it be used? 'Not' in the Factual World is different than 'not' in the Legal World In A Unified Theory of a Law, the word, not, has a well defined job. A flow of conduct has the property of polarity. Polarity is the property of a flow of conduct that indicates whether the flow of conduct is on or off. Affirmative conduct is flowing; negative conduct is not. The job of not is simply to turn off conduct that is flowing. Not, by affecting the polarity of a flow of conduct is, therefore, a word that belongs to the factual not to the legal. In colloquial use, however, not sometimes escapes from the factual into the legal. Thou may not kill is often intended to mean the same as Thou shall not kill. The not in Thou may not kill indicates the absence of permission. It is like saying, Thou hath not permission to kill. This is not an illegitimate usage of not. However, it is a usage shunned by A Unified Theory of a Law on account of its ambiguity. The Facts are Binary; the Law is Tertiary Furthermore, the binary - on and off - state of a flow of conduct is confined to the factual world. In the legal world, there are three options not two. In the factual world, there are two polarities: 1) 2)

on or off.

Page -25-

However, in the legal world, there are three permutations: 1) 2) 3)

Affirmative Regulation which arises when a law maker expresses a command for affirmative conduct, Negative Regulation which arises when a law maker expresses a command for negative conduct, and Deregulation which arises when a law maker expresses a permission for either polarity of conduct.

Both Polarities exist either expressly or by implication in the Three Permutations of a Law Furthermore, both factual polarities of a flow of conduct either expressly or by implication exist in each of the three permutations of a law. 1. 2. 3.

A lawmaker desires the affirmative polarity of conduct not the negative (command for affirmative conduct), A lawmaker is devoid of a desire for either polarity of conduct (permission for either affirmative or negative conduct), or A lawmaker desires the negative polarity not the affirmative polarity (command for negative conduct).

Although both polarities of a flow of conduct exist, both are seldom explicit. Our language has evolved so that, usually, only one polarity is expressed. In commands, the polarity expressed is the polarity that is desired not the undesirable polarity. In permissions, the polarity that is expressed often depends upon the command against which it is compared. One example will suffice to illustrate what goes on. Assume that advocates of life promote the command, Thou shall not kill. Their opponents can advocate either of the two remaining permutations of a law: Thou may kill or not kill or Thou shall kill. Assuming further that their opponents are promoting the permission, the tendency is for the opponents to use the polarity that is the opposite of the one used in the command. In the command, Thou shall not kill, the negative polarity was used. Therefore, the opponents would use the affirmative polarity and say, Thou may kill. Yet, using both polarities in the expression of a permission reinforces the central Page -26-

characteristic of a permission that a lawmaker does not object to either polarity of conduct. That is why we often see the word, or, as a companion to may. After may, one polarity of conduct is expressed and after or the other.

Page -27-

Page -28-

Chapter 5

THE EXTERNALIZATION AND COMMUNICATION OF A LAWMAKER'S OPINION After a lawmaker forms an opinion about a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances, the opinion must then be externalized and communicated to the citizenry. Shakespeare said it best in A Midsummer Night’s Dream: The poet's eye, in a fine frenzy rolling, Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven; And as imagination bodies forth The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing A local habitation and a name. A lawmaker must turn her opinion into a shape and give to this airy nothing a local habitation and a name. The externalization and communication of a lawmaker's opinion begins during the FORMATION stage of the process of making a law with the issuance of a command or a permission. In FORMATION, the decision of the lawmaker consists of picking one and rejecting two of the following permutations: 1.

a lawmaker likes the conduct, wants to turn the flow of conduct on, wants the Source to do the conduct and the Recipient to receive it so the lawmaker issues a command for affirmative conduct. The name for this permutation of a law is AFFIRMATIVE REGULATION.

2.

a lawmaker is indifferent to the conduct, she does not care whether or not the flow of conduct is turned on or off, does not care whether or not the Source does the conduct and does not Page -29-

care whether or not the Recipient receives it so the lawmaker issues a permission for affirmative or negative conduct. The name for this permutation of a law is DEREGULATION. 3.

a lawmaker dislikes the conduct, wants to turn the flow of conduct off, does not want the Source to do the conduct and does not want the Recipient to receive it so the lawmaker issues a command for negative conduct. The name for this permutation of a law is NEGATIVE REGULATION.

The externalization and communication of the Lawmaker’s opinion continues in the next two stages of the process of making a law, INTRUSION and RECOGNITION. In INTRUSION and RECOGNITION, the Lawmaker now must bind the command or permission to a Source and a Recipient. Think of a general pinning a medal onto the tunic of a soldier. The Lawmaker binds the selected permutation by handing out one of the four tokens - a right, a no-right, a duty or a privilege - to a Source and a Recipient. W hen a Lawmaker hands a duty to a Source, the lawmaker binds a command to a Source, either affirmative or negative. W hen a Lawmaker hands a right to a Recipient, the lawmaker binds the command to a Recipient. A privilege binds a permission to a Source and a no-right binds it to a Recipient.

Page -30-

Chapter 6

INTRUSION Introduction The process of making a law can be broken down into three separate and distinct stages. In this chapter, we will study the stage of the process of making a law called INTRUSION. INTRUSION deals with the desires of a lawmaker with regard to a Source doing conduct. In contrast, RECOGNITION deals with the desires of a lawmaker with regard to a Recipient receiving conduct and FORMATION deals with the desires of a lawmaker with regard to the Conduct itself. The Factual Focus of the Lawmaker during Intrusion is the Source doing Conduct From her perch at the acme of The Triangle of Law, a Lawmaker despises the facts at its base as a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in Circumstances. During INTRUSION, the focus of the Lawmaker is upon the Source doing conduct. It is not upon the Conduct itself or the Recipient receiving conduct. This focus creates a relationship between the Lawmaker and the Source. It is one of the three legal relationships in A Unified Theory of a Law. This relationship is depicted graphically as one of the three legs of The Triangle of Law. The Opinion of the Lawmaker at the Intrusion Stage During INTRUSION, a Lawmaker forms any of three opinions about a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in Circumstances: 1. 2. 3.

A Lawmaker likes the conduct and wants the Source to do the Conduct, A Lawmaker is indifferent about the conduct and doesn't care whether or not a Source does the Conduct, or A Lawmaker dislikes the conduct and does not want the Source to do the Conduct. Page -31-

Only these three opinions are available to a Lawmaker during INTRUSION. A Lawmaker must pick one and reject two. Binding a command or permission to a Source doing conduct After a Lawmaker forms an opinion during the INTRUSION stage of the process of making a law, the lawmaker must externalize the opinion and communicate it to the citizenry. This is done when the lawmaker binds the command or permission picked at the FORMATION stage of the process of making a law to the Source. A Lawmaker binds a command or permission to a Source when the Lawmaker hands the Source either of two tokens: 1) a duty or 2) a privilege. Picture a General pinning a medal onto the tunic of a soldier. A duty and a privilege are the two tokens of INTRUSION. A Lawmaker binds a command to a Source by giving the Source a duty. A Lawmaker binds a permission to a Source by giving the Source a privilege. Unless and until a Lawmaker binds a token to a Source, the Source remains in the factual world. Only by binding a token to a Source is the Source transported into the legal world. Hence, the vocabulary of intrusion consists of a mere two words coupled with the polarities of conduct. They are sufficient to express the three permutations available to a Lawmaker at the INTRUSION stage of the process of making a law: 1. 2.

A lawmaker binds a duty for affirmative (a/k/a on) conduct to a Source, A lawmaker binds a privilege for either affirmative (a/k/a on) conduct or negative (a/k/a off) conduct to a Source, or Page -32-

3.

A lawmaker binds a duty for negative (a/k/a off) conduct to a Source.

The Metaphor of Intrusion A metaphor has evolved to help us understand the three permutations available to a lawmaker during the INTRUSION stage of the process of making a law. A Lawmaker's opinion that she wants a Source to do the conduct or does not want a Source to do the conduct feels heavy to a Source because the Lawmaker is intruding to start or stop the conduct. On the other hand, a Lawmaker's opinion that she does not care whether or not a Source does the conduct feels light to the Source because the Lawmaker is abstaining from intruding. Hence, weight is a useful metaphor to represent the lawmaker's decision whether to intrude to start conduct, intrude to stop conduct or to abstain from intruding. A command is a law with weight; a permission is a law without weight. A duty indicates weight is present. A privilege indicates weight is absent. Intrusion and the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law INTRUSION occupies three of the nine cells of the three by three grid known as the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. Cells A1, B1 and C1 found in Column 1 capture everything that occurs during the INTRUSION stage of the process of making a law.

Page -33-

Page -34-

Chapter 7

WHO DECIDES? One of the most fundamental issues in the process of making a law is 'who decides?'. To whom does the decision whether or not to engage in a course of conduct belong? It belongs to either the Source of Conduct or to the Lawmaker. Our grammar reflects this fundamental struggle between a Source of conduct and a Lawmaker with a command and a permission. A command indicates that it is the lawmaker who makes the decision. W ith the issuance of a command, the Lawmaker attempts to substitute his decision for the decision of the Source of conduct. A permission indicates that the decision maker is the Source of Conduct. W ith a permission, the Source of conduct is autonomous. W hen a Source gets to make the decision, the Source can pick either polarity of conduct. W hen a Lawmaker makes the decision, the Lawmaker tells the Source the polarity of conduct the Lawmaker wants. In the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law, we call the permutation of a law in which a Lawmaker makes the decision Regulation and we call the permutation of a law in which a Source makes the decision Deregulation. Regulation is Rows A and C of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law and Deregulation is Row B.

Page -35-

Page -36-

Chapter 8

RECOGNITION Introduction The process of making a law can be broken down into three separate and distinct stages. In this chapter, we will study the stage of the process of making a law called RECOGNITION. RECOGNITION deals with the desires of a lawmaker with regard to a Recipient receiving conduct. In contrast, INTRUSION deals with the desires of a lawmaker with regard to a Source doing conduct and FORMATION deals with the desires of a Lawmaker with regard to the Conduct itself. The Factual Focus of the Lawmaker during Recognition is the Recipient receiving Conduct From her perch at the acme of The Triangle of Law, a Lawmaker despises the facts at its base as a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in Circumstances. During RECOGNITION, the focus of a Lawmaker is upon the Recipient receiving conduct. It is not upon the Conduct itself or the Source doing conduct. This focus creates a relationship between the Lawmaker and the Recipient. It is one of the three legal relationships in A Unified Theory of a Law. This relationship is depicted graphically as one of the three legs of The Triangle of Law. The Opinion of the Lawmaker at the Recognition Stage During RECOGNITION, a lawmaker forms any of three opinions about a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in Circumstances: 1. 2. 3.

a Lawmaker likes the conduct and wants the Recipient to receive the conduct a Lawmaker is indifferent to the conduct and does not care whether or not the Recipient receives the conduct, or a Lawmaker dislikes the conduct and does not want the Recipient to receive the conduct. Page -37-

Only these three opinions are available to a lawmaker during RECOGNITION. A lawmaker must pick one and reject two. Binding a command or a permission to a Recipient receiving conduct After a lawmaker forms an opinion during the RECOGNITION stage of the process of making a law, the lawmaker must externalize and communicate the opinion to the citizenry. This is done when the lawmaker binds the command or permission picked at the FORMATION stage of the process of making a law to the Recipient. A lawmaker binds a command or a permission to a Recipient when a Lawmaker hands a Recipient either of two tokens: 1) a right or 2) a no-right. Picture a General pinning a medal onto the tunic of a soldier. A right and a no-right are the two tokens of RECOGNITION. A Lawmaker binds a command to a Recipient by giving the Recipient a right. A Lawmaker binds a permission to a Recipient by giving the Recipient a no-right. Unless and until a Lawmaker binds a token to a Recipient receiving conduct, the Recipient remains in the factual world. Only by binding a token to a Recipient is the Recipient transported to the legal world.

The Vocabulary of Recognition Hence, the vocabulary of RECOGNITION consists of a mere two words coupled with the polarities of conduct. They are sufficient to express the three permutations available to a lawmaker at the RECOGNITION stage: Page -38-

1. 2. 3.

a Lawmaker binds a right to affirmative (a/k/a on) conduct to a Recipient, a Lawmaker binds a no-right to either affirmative (a/k/a on) conduct or to negative (a/k/a off) conduct to a Recipient, or a Lawmaker binds a right to negative (a/k/a off) conduct to a Recipient.

The Metaphor of Recognition A metaphor has evolved to help us understand the three permutations available to a lawmaker during the RECOGNITION stage of the process of making a law. The Metaphor is known as Standing. A Recipient seems visible to a Lawmaker who holds the opinion that she wants the Recipient to receive the conduct or the opinion that she does not want the Recipient to receive the conduct. Because a Recipient seems visible, the Recipient is said to have standing. On the other hand, a Recipient seems invisible to a Lawmaker who holds the opinion that she does not care whether or not the Recipient receives the conduct. Because a Recipient seems invisible, the Recipient is said to lack standing. Hence, standing is a useful metaphor. A command is a law with standing; a permission is a law without standing. A right indicates standing is present. A no-right indicates standing is absent. Standing, in contrast to weight, is visual not tactile. Standing seems; weight feels. Moreover, our grammar is geared to weight rather than standing and, alas, we are all prisoners of our grammar. There are no intrinsic grammatical structures in our language that express standing. There are no shalls or mays that serve as clues. Hence, it is easier to talk from the perspective of a source rather than a recipient. Recognition and the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law RECOGNITION occupies three of the nine cells of the three by three Page -39-

grid known as The Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. Cells A3, B3 and C3 found in Column 3 capture everything that occurs during the RECOGNITION stage of the process of making a law.

Page -40-

Page -41-

Page -42-

Chapter 9

THE VOCABULARY OF A UNIFIED THEORY OF A LAW In the chapters about RECOGNITION, INTRUSION and FORMATION, a vocabulary was introduced with which we can talk about the opinion of a lawmaker at the three stages of the lawmaking process. Strikingly, the number of linguistic devices needed to externalize the opinion of a lawmaker and communicate it to the citizenry is few. There are a mere six (6) linguistic devices, two (2) of which are sentences and four (4) of which are words: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

a a a a a a

command, permission, duty, privilege, right, and no-right,

These six linguistic devices used with the two polarities of conduct are all that is needed to talk about the process of making a law. A Source doing conduct gets transported from the factual world to the legal world when a Lawmaker binds a command to the Source with a duty or when a Lawmaker binds a permission to the Source with a privilege. A Recipient receiving conduct gets transported from the factual world to the legal world when a Lawmaker binds a command to the Recipient with a right or when a Lawmaker binds a permission to the Recipient with a no-right. A word of warning: Do not confuse the vocabulary of a law with the opinion of a Lawmaker. They are different. The vocabulary of a law are the linguistic devices that a lawmaker uses to externalize her opinion and communicate it to the citizenry. The Vocabulary of a law is not the opinion itself. Page -43-

Page -44-

Chapter 10

TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN - AND A MIDDLE Each permutation of a law - there are three - is akin to a coin with two sides and a middle. On one side of AFFIRMATIVE REGULATION is a duty and on the other is a right. In between the duty and right is the opinion of a lawmaker who likes the conduct, wants the flow of conduct to be turned on, wants the Source to do the conduct and wants the Recipient to receive the conduct. The Lawmaker externalizes and communicates this opinion with a command for affirmative not negative conduct. On one side of DEREGULATION is a privilege and on the other is a no-right. In between the privilege and no-right is the opinion of a lawmaker who is indifferent to the conduct, does not care whether or not the conduct is on or off, does not care whether or not the Source does the conduct and does not care whether or not the Recipient receives the conduct. The Lawmaker externalizes and communicates this opinion with a permission for either affirmative or negative conduct. On one side of NEGATIVE REGULATION is a duty and on the other is a right, In between the duty and the right is the opinion of a lawmaker who dislikes the conduct, wants the flow of conduct to be turned off, does not want the Source to do the conduct and does not want the Recipient to receive the conduct. The Lawmaker externalizes this opinion and communicates it with a command for negative not affirmative conduct.

Page -45-

Page -46-

Chapter 11

STAYING IN SYNC WITH A LAWMAKER During the process of making a law, a lawmaker occupies any of three stages. The names of the three stages of the process of making a law are 1) FORMATION, 2) INTRUSION and 3) RECOGNITION. During FORMATION a lawmaker focuses on the conduct itself. During INTRUSION a lawmaker focuses on the Source doing conduct. During RECOGNITION a lawmaker focuses on the Recipient receiving conduct. Thus, the focus of a Lawmaker shifts according to the stage of the lawmaking process the Lawmaker occupies. To avoid confusion, a Legal Thinker and a Lawmaker must occupy the same stage of the process of making a law. A Lawmaker and a Legal Thinker are in sync when they occupy the same stage. A Lawmaker and a Legal Thinker are out of sync when they occupy different stages. If a Lawmaker is dealing with the conduct itself during FORMATION, the Legal Thinker ought to be dealing with it too. If a Lawmaker is dealing with the Source during INTRUSION, the Legal Thinker ought to be dealing with it too. If a Lawmaker is dealing with the Recipient during RECOGNITION, so too should the Legal Thinker. A Legal Thinker must shift from stage to stage as the Lawmaker shifts from stage to stage.

Page -47-

Page -48-

Chapter 12

WHAT IS OCCURRING WHEN THE OPINIONS OF A LAWMAKER ARE MIXED AND MATCHED ACROSS THE THREE STAGES OF THE PROCESS OF MAKING A LAW Focus vs. Opinion The focus of a Lawmaker is different than the opinion of a lawmaker. Both shift. However, the focus of a Lawmaker shifts within a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. The Opinion of a Lawmaker shifts about a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. The focus of a Lawmaker shifts from the Source doing conduct to the conduct itself and to the Recipient receiving conduct. The opinion of a Lawmaker shifts from like to Indifference to dislike. Mixing and matching makes multiple laws The opinion that a lawmaker picks at one stage of the process of making a law carries over to the other two stages - assuming one law is being made. There is no mixing and matching. A lawmaker at the INTRUSION stage cannot like the Source doing conduct then at the FORMATION stage dislike the conduct itself. If mixing and matching takes place, more than one law is being made. To make one law, the same opinion applies over all three stages of the process of making a law.

Page -49-

Page -50-

Chapter 13

A WARNING ABOUT SIMPLIFICATION Simplification can be a trap For the purpose of communication, we try to reduce the complex into the simple. Instead of spelling it out, we use shorthand. Simplification makes communication easier. However, simplification can also become a trap into which we may fall if we forget that the original idea has been simplified for the purpose of communication and is, in reality, more complex. The Tools of Expression in A Unified Theory of a Law The tools of expression in A Unified Theory of a Law consist of two (2) sentences, a command and a permission, the two polarities of conduct, affirmative (a/k/a on) and negative (a/k/a) off, and the four (4) tokens, duty, privilege, right and no-right. These six literary devices and two polarities are all that is needed to talk about a law. They free the nut from the shell. Anything else is surplusage. Moreover, they belong to a particular stage of the process of making a law. During FORMATION, the tools of expression are the two sentences, a command and a permission. During INTRUSION, the tools of expression are two of the four tokens, a duty and a privilege. During RECOGNITION, the tools of expression are two of the four tokens, a right and a no-right. All of the tools of expression represent and express and stand for the opinion that a lawmaker has formed at the three stages of the lawmaking process. However, they are not the opinions themselves. The Gap between the Tools of Expression and the Opinions themselves. In FORMATION, the gap between the opinion of a lawmaker and the tools of expression - a command and a permission - is nil. A command and a permission are the embodiment of the opinion formed by a lawmaker at the FORMATION stage of the lawmaking process.

Page -51-

In INTRUSION and RECOGNITION, however, the gap between the opinion and its expression is wider. In INTRUSION a lawmaker picks one of the following permutations and rejects two: 1.

A Lawmaker ! likes the flow of conduct, ! wants the Source to do the conduct ! issues a command for affirmative conduct and ! intrudes upon the Source’s decision making process in an attempt to start the flow of conduct by binding the command to the Source with a duty for affirmative conduct.

2.

A Lawmaker ! is indifferent about the conduct ! doesn't care whether or not a Source does the Conduct ! issues a permission for affirmative or negative conduct and ! abstains from intruding upon the Source’s decision making process letting the Source himself decide by binding the permission to the Source with a privilege for either affirmative or negative conduct.

3.

A Lawmaker ! dislikes the flow of conduct, ! does not want the Source to do the conduct ! issues a command for negative conduct and ! intrudes upon the Source’s decision making process in an attempt to stop the flow of conduct by binding the command to the Source with a duty for negative conduct.

The metaphor of weight has evolved to represent the three permutations of INTRUSION: 1.

The duty for affirmative conduct feels heavy to a Source (a Page -52-

2. 3.

command is a law that has weight), The privilege for affirmative or negative conduct feels light to a source (a permission is a law that lacks weight), The duty for negative conduct feels heavy to a Source (a command is a law that has weight).

The tools by which we express the opinions of INTRUSION are the words, duty and privilege. Duty is the shorthand for the two opinions to intrude and privilege is the shorthand for the opinion to abstain from intruding. In RECOGNITION a lawmaker picks one of the following permutations and rejects two: 1.

A Lawmaker ! likes the flow of conduct, ! wants a Recipient to receive the conduct ! issues a command for affirmative conduct and ! recognizes a Recipient by binding the command to a Recipient with a right to affirmative conduct.

2.

A Lawmaker ! is indifferent about the conduct ! doesn't care whether or not a Recipient receives the conduct ! issues a permission for affirmative or negative conduct and ! abstains from recognizing a Recipient by binding the permission to the Recipient with a no-right.

3.

A Lawmaker ! dislikes the flow of conduct, ! does not want the Source to do the conduct ! issues a command for negative conduct and ! recognizes a Recipient by binding the command to a Recipient with a right to negative conduct.

Page -53-

The metaphor of standing has evolved to represent the three permutations of RECOGNITION: 1.

2.

3.

A Recipient has standing, i.e. is visible, to the eyes of a lawmaker who has bound a right to affirmative conduct to the Recipient (a command is a law that has standing), A Recipient lacks standing, i.e. is invisible, to the eyes of a lawmaker who has bound a no-right to either affirmative or negative conduct to the Recipient (a permission is a law that lacks standing), A Recipient has standing, i.e. is visible, to the eyes of a lawmaker who has bound a right to negative conduct to the Recipient (a command is a law that has standing).

The tools by which we express the opinions of RECOGNITION are the words, right and no-right. Right is the shorthand for the two opinions to recognize and no-right is the shorthand for the opinion to abstain from recognizing. Do not get lost in Simplification It is easier, when we communicate, to use the shorthand. The use of shorthand is valid provided we do not forget that the shorthand merely represents and expresses and stands for the opinion formed by a lawmaker and is not the opinion itself. Do not let the opinion of the lawmaker get lost in simplification.

Page -54-

Chapter 14

EXTRAPOLATION The four relationships within A Unified Theory of a Law between and amongst a Lawmaker, a Source doing conduct and a Recipient receiving conduct can be depicted using the simple geometric shape of a triangle. A Lawmaker at the top of The Triangle of a Law looks down upon a flow of conduct at its base and despises a Source doing conduct at one corner and a Recipient receiving conduct at the other corner. This depiction is purely factual. There is nothing legal about it. It becomes legal if and only if a Lawmaker binds one of the four legal tokens to either a Source or a Recipient. Being a token holder transports a Source doing conduct and a Recipient receiving conduct from the factual world into the legal world. Conventionally, a Lawmaker wields weight – either a duty or a privilege – towards a Source doing conduct and wields standing – a right or no-right – towards a Recipient receiving conduct. Hence, the conventional depiction of The Triangle of Law suggests that only a Source doing conduct can be a weight token holder and only a Recipient receiving conduct can be a standing token holder. Although this is conventional, this is not necessarily the case. A lawmaker can bind tokens to someone other than a Source and a Recipient. W hen a lawmaker binds a legal token - a duty, privilege, right or no-right - to someone other than a source or a recipient, the lawmaker is engaged in extrapolation. Lawmakers do extrapolate. However, beware of extrapolation. W hen we look closely at what Lawmakers are doing during an extrapolation we realize that extrapolation is often just lazy and circuitous way to suggest the legal repercussions to someone who is neither a Source nor a Recipient when a Source disregards a duty. W hen you suspect that an extrapolation has occurred, go deeper than the words, duty, privilege, right and no-right, and think about the opinions that these words manifest. Doing this, will clarify your understanding.

Page -55-

Page -56-

Chapter 15

THE THREE CLAUSE SENTENCE W hen it comes to legal communication, it is often best to structure the command or permission into a sentence with three clauses: 1) 2) 3)

a main clause, an if clause, and an even though clause.

In the main clause is expressed the command or permission and hence, one of the legal tokens, i.e., the right, duty, no-right or privilege. In the if clause is placed any circumstance necessary and sufficient to trigger the main clause. In the even though clause is placed any unnecessary circumstances.

Page -57-

Page -58-

Chapter 16

EVALUATION After A Unified Theory of a Law is employed to visualize the three permutations available to a lawmaker with regard to any single flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances, the real debate begins. W hat are the merits and demerits of each permutation of a law? W hy prefer one permutation over another? W hy is a permutation good? W hy is a permutation bad? W hat will a permutation of a law accomplish? W hat won't it accomplish? The evaluation of the permutations of a law for their virtues and vices is where energy ought to be expended. These are the hard questions that A Unified Theory of a Law cannot answer. A Unified Theory of a Law makes the issue clear. Only our hearts and souls can provide the answers to the hard questions.

Page -59-

Page -60-

Chapter 17

THE BIG PICTURE When lawyers communicate legal meaning, instead of following a methodology, they improvise. Before A Unified Theory of a Law, a methodology to communicate legal meaning did not exist. W ithout one, lawyers improvised. Yes, that's right - before A Unified Theory of a Law, when lawyers communicated legal meaning, they extemporized! Improvisation guaranteed that legal meaning was put into dialects of legalese that varied from lawyer to lawyer and, with regard to any particular lawyer, from occasion to occasion! Nobody quite understood what was being said and, hence, legal confusion tended to arise more often than not. A Unified Theory of a Law has changed all that. W ell, maybe, soon. Imagine traffic lights improvised when they communicate their meaning. Imagine that traffic lights improvised. Instead of using a common language for communicating their meaning, imagine each traffic light communicated meaning in its own unique, idiosyncratic way! No longer would it be possible, by understanding one traffic light, to understand all traffic lights. As a motorist travels, he must learn a new language for every traffic light he encounters. Think of the mistakes motorists would make during the learning process. Transitional incompetence would never end. The pace of travel would slow down to a crawl! Yet, this is how lawyers operate. The meaning of our laws is entrusted to dialects of legalese instead of to a common legal language. In the real world, traffic lights know how to communicate successfully. W hy not lawyers? Why do traffic lights succeed in communicating their meaning but lawyers fail? W hy is it easy to understand our traffic lights but hard to understand our laws? Traffic lights belong to a class of communication devices that are Page -61-

our most highly successful communicators. This class has a rigid internal structure so they are known as structured communication devices. They succeed because of their stubbornness. They never abandon the methodology by which they organize and communicate their meaning to accommodate the authors who wish to use them. Instead, the author must adapt to them. This is important. Making the author adapt to them instead of them to the author standardizes and brings stability to the organization and presentation of meaning. Standardization and stability allow us to perfect - in advance and with time - a thorough understanding of the methodology being used. W hen we encounter a familiar methodology in a particular instance of a structured communication device, understanding is, thereby, instantaneously achieved. Moreover, by putting the same methodology into other communication devices, instantaneous understanding travels with us as we move from device to device. The communication methodology of traffic lights. The twin benefits of instantaneous and transportable understanding are clearly evident in our traffic lights. Our traffic lights attempt to communicate three ideas: 1) 2) 3)

stop go and caution.

The methodology they use to do so is via illuminated colored lights: 1) 2) 3)

green to communicate go red to communicate stop and yellow to communicate caution.

Illuminated red, green and yellow lights are the parts of a traffic light that communicate its meaning. Motorist understand this methodology and, because, this methodology is used by all traffic lights, traffic lights succeed in communicating their meaning. The communication methodology of scoreboards. Page -62-

Another example of a structured communication device is the scoreboard at a sporting event. Because meaning is organized on a scoreboard in a well-defined way and fans are intimately familiar with its organization, by glancing at a scoreboard, fans instantaneously understand the status of a game. Moreover, fans can get the same instantaneous understanding as they travel from ballpark to ballpark because each scoreboard is organized the same way. Why don't lawyers communicate like traffic lights and scoreboards? Motorist and baseball fans enjoy the twin benefits of instantaneous and portable understanding by virtue of using one, standard, uniform, common, well defined and well understood methodology for communicating meaning, i.e. a common language. W hy not lawyers? W ouldn't it be nice to bring the twin benefits of instantaneous and portable understanding to our laws? Why we can now structure legal communications. A Unified Theory of a Law attempts to exploit the principles behind a structured communication device to bring its twin advantages -instantaneous and transportable understanding -- to our laws. This is possible because a breakthrough has been made in the science of jurisprudence. Legal fission has been discovered! Before A Unified Theory of a Law, legal thinkers did not make a clear distinction between the words of a law and the structure of a law. To them, a law was monolithic. A Unified Theory of a Law has discovered that this is not true. A law can be split into two components: 1) its words and 2) its structure. The words of a law, like ornaments, adorn the structure of a law. The words of a law change; the structure stays the same. Like the DNA of a cell, the structure of a law repeats itself again and again in every instance of a law. To generate a law's meaning, both its words and its structure cooperate. Anyone who wishes to push meaning into or pull meaning out of a law must be mindful of a law's structure. Any failure to respect the structure of a law generates inscrutable legalese and legal misunderstanding.

Page -63-

Page -64-

Chapter 18

AT THE END, A REVIEW TO THE BEGINNING Introduction At the end of our journey to a more accurate model of a law, let us review to the beginning. How was our model of a law built from the ground up? Step 1 - The Facts Start with the facts. View them through a window that arranges them as a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. This is how the facts are viewed in a court of law. Because conduct has two ends, a court of law has Plaintiffs and Defendants. At one end of a flow of conduct is the Source doing conduct who in Court is called the Defendant. At the other end is the Recipient receiving conduct who in Court is called the Plaintiff.

The most important property of a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances is polarity. Polarity indicates whether a flow of conduct is on or off. W hen the flow of conduct is on, the polarity is affirmative. W hen the flow of conduct is off, the polarity is negative. There is no difference between affirmative and negative conduct aside from the polarity. Page -65-

Step 2 - Add a lawmaker and complete the three legged Triangle of a Law How do we jump from the factual world to the legal world? By adding a Lawmaker, we switch worlds. A lawmaker perches atop the Triangle of a Law and despises the facts at its base. So, let us add to our drawing a lawmaker and the three legs of our Triangle of a Law

A three legged triangle is used because there are four relationships in a Unified Theory of a Law. One is factual; three are legal. Hence, a figure with four lines is needed to depict the four relationships. The one factual relationship is found at the base of the Triangle of a Law. The three legal relationships are found on the legs of the Triangle of a Law. Step 3 - A Lawmaker's scrutiny of a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances is both broad and narrow During the process of making a law, a lawmaker's scrutiny is both broad and narrow. Although it always rests upon the entire flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances, it narrows its concentration to 1) the Conduct itself, 2) the Source doing conduct and 3) the Recipient receiving conduct. Hence, it can be said that there are three stages to the lawmaking process. To avoid confusion, the legal thinker ought to be at the Page -66-

same stage in the process of making a law as the lawmaker. W e can draw boxes around 1) the Conduct, 2) the Source doing conduct and 3) the Recipient receiving conduct to indicate the three different stages of the process of making a law.

Step 4 - A Lawmaker's Opinion about a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances W hat is a lawmaker thinking as she despises the facts at the base of the Triangle of a Law? It should come as no surprise that the thinking of a lawmaker is no different than our own thinking. As a lawmaker despises the facts below, she is forming an opinion about them. There are only three possible opinions that a lawmaker can form about the facts. 1.

she likes the flow of conduct, wants the flow of conduct to be on, wants the Source to do it and wants the Recipient to receive it,

2.

she is indifferent to the flow of conduct, does not care whether or not the flow of conduct is off or on, does not care whether or not the Source does it and does not care whether or not the Recipient receives it, or

Page -67-

3.

she dislikes the flow of conduct, wants the flow of conduct to be off, does not want the Source to do it and does not want the Recipient to receive it.

To capture the three permutations of a lawmakers thinking about the facts, we can add three rows to our drawing. If the number of possible opinions were fewer or more than three, there would be fewer or more rows.

Step 5 - Naming the Stages, the Permutations and the 3 by 3 Grid Before we fill in the blanks of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law, let's name the three stages of the process of making a law, the three permutations and the three by three grid itself. The names of the three stages of the process of making a law are 1) 2) 3)

Intrusion, Formation and Recognition.

The names of the three permutations are

Page -68-

1) 2) 3)

Affirmative Regulation, Deregulation and Negative Regulation.

The names for the three by three grid itself will be the alphanumeric notation associated with a table.

Step 6 - Allocating the Three Opinions onto the Stages of the Process

Page -69-

Let us now allocate the three opinions that a lawmaker can have about a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances to their proper place on the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law.

Step 7 - Externalizing and Communicating the Lawmaker's Opinion After a lawmaker has formed an opinion, the opinion must be externalized and communicated to the citizenry. In other words, the shell must be cracked and the nut freed. The vocabulary that accomplishes this consists of two sentences and four words: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

command, permission, duty, privilege, right and no-right.

These four tokens and two sentences together with the two polarities Page -70-

of conduct are sufficient to express any law.

Step 8 - Putting it all together - The Map of the Process of Making a Law The boundaries that define our knowledge of a law have been discovered, explored and mapped. They are now well understood. Beyond the boundaries is nothing. All knowledge about a law exists within a three by three grid called the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. Outside the boundaries, as the map makers of old would say, "hic sunt dracones".

Page -71-

Page -72-

CONCLUSION In the first half of the nineteenth century, the Danish author, Hans Christian Andersen, wrote a story called, “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. Anderson told a tale of a king and a kingdom who deceived themselves into thinking that an imaginary set of clothes were real. W hen a guileless boy, upon seeing the king dressed in the imaginary set of clothes, exclaimed, “But he hasn't got anything on!", the bubble of belief was burst and the illusion shattered. Andersen’s story is an allegory for lawyers. Too many of the laws that govern us are naked of meaning. Yet, we have convinced ourselves otherwise. A Unified Theory of a Law opens your eyes like the guileless boy in Anderson's story so you won't fool yourself into thinking that the meaningless is meaningful. A Unified Theory of a Law gives the Legal Thinker a systematic understanding of a law. The boundaries of our knowledge of a law have been discovered, explored and map. Their edges are no longer fuzzy but sharp. Although the facts may be complex, A Unified Theory of a Law teaches that a law is always simple.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Page -73-

Page -74-

Appendix A

HOHFELD, THE TWO MEANINGS OF POWER AND TOXIC DERIVATIVES Isaac Newton is credited with saying “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” In 1913, Hohfeld submitted an article to the Yale Law Journal entitled, "Fundamental Conceptions as Applied to Judicial Reasoning". On the shoulders of W esley Newcomb Hohfeld do I stand and to his genius I dedicate this work. .A Unified Theory of a Law gives theoretical “legs” to Hohfeld’s epiphany that definitive relationships exist between and amongst a right, duty, no-right and privilege. A Unified Theory of a Law explains why Hohfeld was right. Although Hohfeld is indeed my intellectual ancestor, and his work inspired me to look at a law systematically, other than a shared use of the words, 1) right, 2) no-right, 3) duty, and 4) privilege, Hohfeld and I part company. Hohfeld felt the need to use four more words, 5) power, 6) disability, 7) liability and 8) immunity. I look at these last four as toxic derivatives. They hide rather than expose meaning. They pertain to the concept of “power”. Power has two meanings. One of its meaning comes into play before while the other comes into play after a law is born. The power to make laws is one meaning. The Congress of the United States has the power to make laws. The Congress is a Lawmaker. However, there is another kind of power. W hen a law already exists, a person can make a condition of a law come to be by controlling a fact. This is the second meaning of power. This second meaning does not exist unless and until a law exists. Tools of expression that externalizes and communicate the opinion of a Lawmaker are available within A Unified Theory of a Law for each of the three stages of the process of making a law: 1) INTRUSION, 2) RECOGNITION and 3) FORMATION. They make manifest the opinion of the Lawmaker at each of the three Page -75-

stages. They crack the shell so the nut can pass from inside to out. To express a lawmaker's opinion at the INTRUSION stage of the lawmaking process, the words, duty and privilege, do the job. No other word is needed. To express a Lawmaker's opinion at the RECOGNITION stage of the lawmaking process, the words, right and no-right, do the job. No other word is needed. To express a Lawmaker's opinion at the FORMATION stage of the lawmaking process, the sentences, a Command or a Permission, do the job. No other sentence is needed. Hence with A Unified Theory of a Law only the following words or sentences together with the appropriate polarity of conduct are needed to capture what goes on in the mind of a Lawmaker during the lawmaking process: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

a a a a a a

duty privilege right no-right command permission

Hohfeld's power, disability, liability and immunity are not needed to capture anything that goes on during the three stages of the lawmaking process. They are superfluous.

Page -76-

Appendix B

QUESTIONS THAT A UNIFIED THEORY OF A LAW ANSWERS 1)

W hat is a law?

A law is the opinion of a lawmaker about a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. A Lawmaker can hold any of three opinions toward the facts. The range of a Lawmaker’s opinions is captured on a three by three grid known as the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law.

2)

Does a green traffic light mean a motorist has permission to go?

A bifurcated Legal Thinker answers, ‘Yes”. A trifurcated Legal Thinker answers, ‘No”. A green traffic light does not mean a motorist has permission to go. It means that a motorist is commanded to go. If it meant that a motorist had permission to go, it would also mean that a motorist had permission to stop. That is the nature of a permission. Our lawmakers do not want traffic to stop at a green light. W ith the issuance of a permission, a lawmaker indicates no objection to either polarity of conduct. W ith the issuance of a command, a lawmaker indicates that one polarity is objectionable and the other is not only unobjectionable but desirable. Question: W hat is the traffic signal that does give motorists permission to go or to stop yet is interpreted by motorists not in the front of the line as a command to go?

3)

W ith regard to the building blocks of a law, how many are there and what are their names?

The building blocks of a law can be found in the nine cells of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. The nine cells are arranged into a three by three square. The three columns capture what happens at the Page -77-

three stages of the process of making a law: Formation Intrusion and Recognition. The three rows capture the three permutations of a law: Affirmative Regulation, Deregulation and Negative Regulation.

4)

W hat is a difference between regulation and deregulation?

A notable difference between regulation and deregulation is who makes the decision whether or not to engage in a course of conduct: the Lawmaker or the Source of conduct herself. In regulation, the Lawmaker substitutes his decision for the decision of the Source. In deregulation, the Source makes the decision.

5)

W hy in a court of law are there two types of litigants - plaintiffs and defendants? W hy not only one type? W hy not more than two types?

There are two types of litigant in a court of law because a court of law evaluates conduct and conduct only has two ends. If conduct had only one end or if conduct had more than two ends, there would be different types of litigants than the two with which we are familiar.

Page -78-

Appendix C

GLOSSARY

–A– ACME: The top of the Triangle of a Law where a Lawmaker is perched as she scrutinizes the facts at its base.

AFFIRMATIVE: Affirmative is an adjective that in A Unified Theory of a Law associated with conduct that is flowing.

AFFIRMATIVE CONDUCT: Affirmative conduct is a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances that is on, i.e., flowing. It is one of the polarities of conduct, the other being negative conduct. Affirmative conduct is converted to negative conduct by means of the word ‘not’. There is no difference between affirmative conduct and negative conduct other than the polarity.

–B– BASE: The bottom of the Triangle of a Law

where a flow of conduct from

Source to Recipient in circumstances is found.

BINDING: A Lawmaker binds a command or a permission to a Source and a Recipient by distributing to them any of four tokens: 1) a duty, 2) a privilege, 3) a right or 4) a no-right. Think of the children’s game of pin the tail on the donkey or a general pinning a medal on the tunic of a soldier. A command is bound to a Source with duty and to a Recipient with a right. A permission is bound to a Source with a privilege and to a Recipient with a no-right. A duty and a privilege are weight tokens. A right and no-right are standing tokens. A command or a permission come into being then are bound. In other words, the stage of the lawmaking process that occurs first Page -79-

is FORMATION and then comes INTRUSION and RECOGNITION. However, this sequence is merely theoretical as Lawmakers shift their focus from a Source, to the conduct itself and to a Recipient in no apparent order.

BUILDING BLOCKS:

A law is assembled from and disassembled into building blocks. A law consists of its words and its structure. Building blocks form the structure of a law. All of our laws are built upon the same structure. W ords adorn the structure of a law. A recipe called The Unified Theory of a Law teaches you how to turn building blocks into a law and how to turn a law into its building blocks. The building blocks of a law occupy the nine cells of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law.

–C– CIRCUMSTANCE: A circumstance is a fact that surrounds a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient. Circumstances are the context in which conduct flows.

COMMAND: A command indicates that a Lawmaker wants the flow of conduct to be turned on (a command for affirmative conduct) or wants the flow of conduct to be turned off (a command for negative conduct). A command is one of the two flavors of a law, the other being a permission. Unlike ice cream which comes in a variety of flavors, a law comes in only two. It appears at the FORMATION stage of the process of making a law. It is one of the six literary devices that, together with the appropriate polarity of conduct, make up the Vocabulary of a Law. A Lawmaker binds a command to a Source with a Duty and to a Recipient with a Right. It is not the opinion of a Lawmaker but represents the opinion of a Lawmaker. A command has both weight and standing. W ith a command, the decision whether or not to engage in a course of conduct belongs to the Lawmaker not the Source. A command shares a similarity with a permission. One of the polarities of both a command and a permission is unobjectionable to a Lawmaker. The difference is that with a Permission, both polarities are unobjectionable whereas in a command the Lawmaker objects to the other polarity. Moreover, with a command the polarity that is unobjectionable is also Page -80-

desired by a lawmaker.

CONDUCT: Conduct has two ends.

At one end is a Source and at the other end is a Recipient. That which leaves a Source and flows to a Recipient is conduct. It has two noteworthy properties: 1) direction and 2) polarity. Conduct that arrives at a Recipient is known as consequences. Conduct is the subject of a law. It occupies the base of the Triangle of a Law. The conduct itself participates in two of the four relationships in A Unified Theory of a Law. Conduct itself is at the middle of the factual relationship and is at one end of the legal relationship known as Formation.

CONSEQUENCE:

A consequence is conduct that has arrived at a

Recipient.

CONTEXT: A flow of conduct from Source to Recipient does not take place in a vacuum but in a context. The context is the circumstances. W hat goldfish are to a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient, the tank of water in which the goldfish reside is to the context.

–D– DEREGULATION: The opinions that a Lawmaker can form about a flow of conduct are 1) like and the desire that conduct flow, 2) dislike and the desire that conduct not flow and 3) indifference and the absence of a desire for conduct to flow or not flow. Deregulation occurs when a Lawmaker externalizes and communicates a Lawmaker’s indifference. [Regulation involves a Lawmaker’s likes and dislikes.] W ith deregulation, a lawmaker keeps his opinion to himself and allows the Source of conduct to make the decision about whether or not to engage upon a course of conduct. Deregulation is depicted in Row B of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law.

DESPISE:

Despising is what a Lawmaker does at the acme of the Triangle of a Law. The Lawmaker looks down to the base at the facts in the Page -81-

process of forming an opinion about them. The connotation of looking down with contempt is not implied although this is undoubtedly where such a connotation arose.

DIRECTION: Direction is a property of a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. Its other significant property is polarity. Direction indicates whether or not a flow of conduct is headed toward or away from a Source. A flow of conduct is mono-directional. It always flows from a Source to a Recipient never from a Recipient to a Source.

DISLIKE: Dislike is one of the three opinions of a Lawmaker. Dislike triggers a desire that a flow of conduct be turned off, that is a desire for negative conduct.

DUTY:

A duty indicates that a Lawmaker wants a Source to do conduct (duty for affirmative conduct) or does not want the Source to do conduct (duty for negative conduct). It binds a command to a Source. It transports a Source from the factual world into the legal world. It is one of the weight tokens, the other being a privilege. A duty indicates that weight is present. It appears at the INTRUSION stage of the process of making a law. It is one of the six literary devices that, together with the appropriate polarity of conduct, make up the Vocabulary of a Law. It is not the opinion of a Lawmaker but represents the opinion of a Lawmaker.

–E– EXTRAPOLATION:

Extrapolation occurs when a Lawmaker attempts to distribute any of the four tokens to someone other than a Source or a Recipient. In a broader sense, an extrapolation is any deviation from A Unified Theory of a Law.

–F– FACTS: Although the number of facts is infinite, the best way to view Page -82-

them is through a window that arranges them as a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances.

FACTUAL RELATIONSHIP: In a Unified Theory of a Law there is one legal relationship - and three legal relationships. It occupies the base of the Triangle of a Law. At one end is a Source doing conduct and at the other end is a Recipient receiving conduct.

FIDELITY:

Fidelity in A Unified Theory of a Law is the accuracy with which the model of a law inside your head reflects or corresponds to the laws that run around outside it in the legal world. A high fidelity model of a law generates a fair and accurate representation of our laws. A low fidelity model generates only a poor approximation. A Unified Theory of a Law increases the fidelity of your model.

FLOW:

Flow is a property of conduct. It indicates that conduct is not static but dynamic. It moves from a Source to a Recipient. A Lawmaker is interested in conduct because it flows. If conduct did not flow, a Lawmaker would be uninterested.

FOCUS: The focus of a Lawmaker shifts across the facts as a spotlight moves across different parts of a stage. As the focus of a Lawmaker shifts across the facts, it pauses to pay special attention to 1) the conduct itself, 2) the Source doing conduct and 3) the Recipient receiving conduct. Each pause can be viewed as a separate and distinct stage of the process of making a law.

FORMATION: Formation is a stage of the process of making a law at which a Lawmaker is focusing upon the conduct itself. Formation is a legal relationship that occupies one of the legs of the Triangle of a Law. The three opinions of a Lawmaker during Formation are captured in Column 2 of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. From the acme of the Triangle of a Law, a Lawmaker despises the facts at its base as a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. W hen a Lawmaker tilts her head and pays extra attention to the conduct itself, we are at the Formation stage of the process of making a law. It gets its name because at this stage Page -83-

a Lawmaker is forming her opinions about the flow of conduct and deciding whether to substitute her opinion for the opinion of the Source by issuing a command or letting the Source make the decision by issuing a permission. After a Lawmaker arrives at an Opinion at the Formation stage of the process of making a law, the Lawmaker then must bind the command or permission to a Source and to a Recipient. Binding takes place during the other two stages of the process of making a law: Intrusion and Recognition.

FREEDOM: Freedom is explained with deregulation. It means that the decision whether or not to engage upon a course of conduct belongs to the Source of conduct not the Lawmaker. A Source doing conduct is free when a Lawmaker has handed him a privilege. A Source doing conduct is not free when a Lawmaker has handed him a duty.

–H– HOHFELD, WESLEY NEWCOMB: W esley Newcomb Hohfeld wrote “Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning”. He is the authors intellectual ancestor. On his shoulders, does the author of a Unified Theory of a Law stand.

–I– INDIFFERENCE: Indifference is one of the three opinions of a Lawmaker. Indifference is an absence of desire for either affirmative or negative conduct. Either polarity of conduct makes no difference to the indifferent Lawmaker.

INGREDIENT:

The ingredients of a law are its building blocks. The building blocks are assembled together into a law according to a recipe. The ingredients can be touched, named and numbered. They are not ephemeral but substantial. They are not abstract but concrete. They are invisible to Page -84-

those whose mind is infected by the monolithic heresy.

IN SYNC: A Legal Thinker is in sync with a Lawmaker when the Legal Thinker and the Lawmaker are occupying the same stage of the lawmaking process.

INTRUSION:

Intrusion is a stage of the process of making a law at which a Lawmaker is focusing upon a Source doing conduct. During Intrusion a Lawmaker binds the command or permission of the Formation stage to a Source with a duty or a privilege. Intrusion is a legal relationship that occupies one of the legs of the Triangle of a Law. . The three opinions of a Lawmaker during Formation are captured in Column 1 of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. From the acme of the Triangle of a Law, a Lawmaker despises the facts at its base as a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. W hen a Lawmaker tilts her head and pays extra attention to a Source, we are at the Intrusion stage of the process of making a law. It gets its name because at this stage a Lawmaker is considering whether or not to intrude upon a Source’s decision about engaging on a course of conduct.

–L– LAW:

A Law is the opinion that a Lawmaker forms about a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. The gamut of a Lawmaker’s opinions is captured by the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. A Law comes in two flavors: a command and a permission. There is no third flavor - only two.

LAWMAKER:

A Lawmaker is one of the five characters of a Unified Theory of a Law. In addition to a Lawmaker, A Unified Theory of a Law has a Source doing conduct, a Recipient receiving conduct, a Legal Thinker observing the lawmaking process, i.e. you and Neither a Source or a Recipient. A Lawmaker participates in three of the four relationships in a Unified Theory of a Law. A Lawmaker is at one end of each of the three legal relationships: 1) Formation, 2) Intrusion and 3) Recognition. A Page -85-

Lawmaker does not “participate” in the factual relationship. A Lawmaker forms opinions about the facts.

LEG: The Triangle of a Law is a three legged triangle. Each leg represents one of the three legal relationships in a Unified Theory of a Law: 1) Intrusion, 2) Formation and 3) Recognition.

LEGAL FISSION:

A Unified Theory of a Law is powered by the insight that legal fission is possible. The physics of legal fission postulate that a law can be split into two components 1) its words and 2) its structure. They exist independently of each other. Together they constitute a law. W hile many have taken notice of the words of a law, knowledge of the structure of a law is still rare. The words, like ornaments, adorn the structure of a law. The words change; but the structure stays the same. Like the DNA of a cell, the structure of a law repeats itself over and over again in every instance of a law. To generate a law's meaning, both its words and its structure cooperate. Anyone who wishes to push meaning into or pull meaning out of a law must be mindful of a law's structure. Any failure to respect the structure of a law generates inscrutable legalese and legal misunderstanding.

LEGAL RELATIONSHIP: In a Unified Theory of a Law there are three legal relationships - and one factual relationship. Each occupies one of the three legs of the Triangle of a Law. At one end of all three is a Lawmaker. At the other end of all three is some aspect of the facts: 1) the conduct itself, 2) the Source doing conduct or 3) the Recipient receiving conduct. The names of the three legal relationships are 1) Formation, 2) Intrusion and 3) Recognition.

LEGAL THINKER: You are the Legal Thinker. You observe but do not participate in the lawmaking process.

LIKE: Like is one of the three opinions of a Lawmaker. Like triggers a desire that a flow of conduct be turned on, that is a desire for affirmative conduct.

Page -86-

–M– MONOLITHIC HERESY:

A Legal Thinker is the grip of the monolithic heresy who cannot disassemble a law into its building blocks. Such a legal thinker is akin to a physicist who, being stuck at the level of the atom, refuses to believe in the existence of sub-atomic particles.

–N– NEGATIVE:

Negative is an adjective that in A Unified Theory of a Law associated with conduct that is not flowing. It does not carry the connotation of bad; it simply means off or not on.

NEGATIVE CONDUCT: Negative conduct is a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances that is off, i.e., not flowing. It is one of the polarities of conduct, the other being affirmative conduct. Negative conduct is converted from affirmative conduct by means of the word ‘not’. There is no difference between negative conduct and affirmative conduct other than the polarity.

NO-RIGHT:

A no-right indicates that a lawmaker does not care whether or not a Recipient receives conduct (a no-right to affirmative or negative conduct). It binds a permission to a Recipient. It transports a Recipient from the factual world into the legal world. It is one of the standing tokens, the other being a right. A no-right indicates that standing is absent. It appears at the RECOGNITION stage of the process of making a law. It is one of the six literary devices that, together with the appropriate polarity of conduct, make up the Vocabulary of a Law. It is not the opinion of a Lawmaker but represents the opinion of a Lawmaker.

NOT: The sole function of the word, not, in A Unified Theory of a Law is to turn affirmative conduct into negative conduct. ‘Not’ turns the flow of conduct off. Hence, it belongs to the factual not the legal. Page -87-

NUT: Slang for the opinion of a Lawmaker.

It lives within a shell. Its shell is a barrier between the Lawmaker and the Legal Thinker. The Vocabulary of a Law externalizes the nut and communicates it so the citizenry and the Legal Thinker can know it.

–O– OPINION:

The opinion of a Lawmaker is no different than the opinions we form about things. The three opinions of a Lawmaker are 1) like, 2) dislike and 3) indifference. The opinion that a Lawmaker forms determines her desire with regard to a flow of conduct. A Lawmaker who likes conduct desires that the flow of conduct be turned on, that the Source do the conduct and the Recipient receive the conduct. A Lawmaker who is indifferent to conduct does not care whether or not the flow of conduct is on or off, does not care whether or not the Source does the conduct and does not care whether or not the Recipient receives the conduct. A Lawmaker who dislikes conduct desires that the flow of conduct be turned off, that the Source does not do the conduct and that the Recipient does not receive the conduct.

OUT OF SYNC: A Legal Thinker is out of sync with a Lawmaker when the Legal Thinker and the Lawmaker are occupying different stages of the lawmaking process.

–P– PERIODIC TABLE OF THE ELEMENTS OF A LAW: The Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law is a three by three grid that captures all that occurs during the lawmaking process. Each of its nine cells is a building block of a law. The names of Its columns are Formation, Intrusion and Recognition. They correspond to the three stages of the process of making a law. The names of the three rows are Affirmative Page -88-

Regulation, Deregulation and Negative Regulation. They correspond with the three opinions that a Lawmaker can form toward the facts. Anyone who understands the three by three grid known as The Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law has an understanding of a law equal to the greatest legal genius. W hy can this be said? This can be said because there is nothing more to know about a law. Our knowledge of a law has been discovered, explored and mapped. The boundaries once fuzzy are now sharp. Everything that is needed to understand the process of making a law is found within the three by three grid. Outside the three by three grid, as the map makers of old would say, are nothing but dragons.

PERMISSION:

A permission indicates that a Lawmaker does not care whether or not the flow of conduct is turned on or off (a permission for either affirmative or negative conduct). A permission is one of the two flavors of a law, the other being a command. Unlike ice cream which comes in a variety of flavors, a law comes in only two. It appears at the FORMATION stage of the process of making a law. It is one of the six literary devices that, together with the appropriate polarity of conduct, make up the Vocabulary of a Law. A Lawmaker binds a permission to a Source with a Privilege and to a Recipient with a No-right. It is not the opinion of a Lawmaker but represents the opinion of a Lawmaker. A permission lacks both weight and standing. W ith a permission, the decision whether or not to engage in a course of conduct belongs to the Source not the Lawmaker. A permission shares a similarity with a command. One of the polarities of both a command and a permission is unobjectionable to a Lawmaker. The difference is that with a Permission, both polarities are unobjectionable whereas in a command the Lawmaker objects to the other polarity. Moreover, with a command the polarity that is unobjectionable is also desired by a lawmaker.

PICK ONE REJECT TWO:

At each stage of the process of making a law, a Lawmaker picks one permutation and rejects two. The permutation picked at one stage of the process of making a law determines the permutation picked at the other two stages. In the process of making one law, there is no mixing and matching. If there is a need to mix and match, more than one law is being made.

Page -89-

POLARITY:

A flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances has the property of polarity. Polarity indicates whether the flow is on or off. W hen the flow is on, the conduct is said to be affirmative conduct. W hen the flow is off, the conduct is said to be negative conduct. Affirmative conduct is the same as negative conduct except that affirmative conduct is flowing and negative conduct is not.

PRIVILEGE:

A privilege indicates that a lawmaker does not care whether or not a Source does conduct. It binds a permission to a Source. It transports a Source from the factual world into the legal world. It is one of the weight tokens, the other being a duty. A privilege indicates that weight is absent. It appears at the INTRUSION stage of the process of making a law. It is one of the six literary devices that, together with the appropriate polarity of conduct, make up the Vocabulary of a Law. It is not the opinion of a Lawmaker but represents the opinion of a Lawmaker.

PROCESS THAT GIVES BIRTH TO OUR LAWS:

Our laws do not come into being fully fledged having been delivered as the stork delivers babies. Prior to the birth of a law is a process. It has heretofore existed below the murky surface of the intellect of a Lawmaker. There, cloaked in mystery, the process has heretofore enjoyed immunity from scrutiny and discourse. A Unified Theory of a Law exposes the process, makes it visible and brings it under our control. Each stage of the process has been mapped onto The Triangle of a Law and the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. The three stages of the process of making a law are FORMATION, INTRUSION and RECOGNITION.

–R– RECIPE:

A Unified Theory of a Law is the recipe that transforms legal ingredients into a law and, unlike a recipe for a loaf of bread, also operates in the other direction, telling us how to transform a law into its building blocks.

Page -90-

RECIPIENT:

A Recipient is the destination of a flow of conduct. Conduct flows to a Recipient. A Recipient receives conduct. Conduct that arrives at a Recipient is called consequences. A Recipient participates in two of the four relationships in A Unified Theory of a Law. A Recipient is at one end of the factual relationship and is at one end of the legal relationship known as Recognition.

RECOGNITION: Recognition is a stage of the process of making a law at which a Lawmaker is focusing upon a Recipient receiving conduct. During Recognition a Lawmaker binds the command or permission of the Formation stage to a Recipient with a right or no-right. Recognition is a legal relationship that occupies one of the legs of the Triangle of a Law. . The three opinions of a Lawmaker during Recognition are captured in Column 3 of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. From the acme of the Triangle of a Law, a Lawmaker despises the facts at its base as a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. W hen a Lawmaker tilts her head and pays extra attention to a Recipient receiving conduct, we are at the Recognition stage of the process of making a law. It gets its name because at this stage a Lawmaker is considering whether or not to recognize a Recipient.

REGULATION: The opinions that a Lawmaker can form about a flow of conduct are 1) like and the desire that conduct flow, 2) dislike and the desire that conduct not flow and 3) indifference and the absence of a desire for conduct to flow or not flow. Regulation occurs when a Lawmaker externalizes and communicates a Lawmaker’s likes and dislikes. [Deregulation involves a Lawmaker’s indifference.] W ith regulation, a lawmaker is attempting to usurp the opinion of a Source of conduct by substituting the opinion of the Lawmaker. Regulation is depicted in Rows A and C of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. Row A deals with affirmative regulation and Row C deals with negative regulation.

RELATIONSHIP: In a Unified Theory of a Law are a finite number of relationships. There are only four. One of the relationships is factual and three of them are legal. The four relationships are depicted graphically on a three legged triangle called the Triangle of a Law. The factual relationship is Page -91-

between a Source at one end and a Recipient at the other end. It is found at the base of the Triangle of a Law. At one end of the three legal relationships is a Lawmaker. At the other end are 1) the Source, 2) the conduct itself and 3) the Recipient. The three legal relationships are found on the legs of the Triangle of a Law.

RIGHT:

A right indicates that a lawmaker wants a Recipient to receive conduct (right to affirmative conduct) or does not want a Recipient to receive conduct (right to negative conduct) . It binds a command to a Recipient. It transports a Recipient from the factual world into the legal world. It is one of the standing tokens, the other being a no-right. A right indicates that standing is present. It appears at the RECOGNITION stage of the process of making a law. It is one of the six literary devices that, together with the appropriate polarity of conduct, make up the Vocabulary of a Law. It is not the opinion of a Lawmaker but represents the opinion of a Lawmaker.

–S– SHELL:

Shell is slang for the barrier that stands between the opinion of a Lawmaker, i.e. the nut, and the Legal Thinker. The Vocabulary of a Law gets the nut out of the shell.

SOURCE:

A Source is the origin of a flow of conduct. Conduct flows from a Source. A Source does conduct. A Source participates in two of the four relationships in A Unified Theory of a Law. A Source is at one end of the factual relationship and is at one end of the legal relationship known as Intrusion.

STAGE:

The process of making a law can be divided into three stages according to the aspect of the facts that has caught the attention of a Lawmaker. The conduct itself, a Source doing conduct and a Recipient receiving conduct can draw the attention of a Lawmaker. Intrusion is a stage of the process of making a law at which a Lawmaker is focusing upon a Source doing conduct. Recognition is a stage of the process of making a Page -92-

law at which a Lawmaker is focusing upon a Recipient receiving conduct. Formation is a stage of the process of making a law at which a Lawmaker is focusing upon the conduct itself.

STANDING:

Standing is a metaphor that has developed to explain the stage of the process of making a law known as RECOGNITION. It is visual not tactile. It seems. A command is a law that has standing. A permission is a law that lacks standing. The two standing tokens are 1) a right and 2) a no-right. A Recipient not a Source is the target of the two standing tokens. They transport a Recipient from the factual world into the legal world. W hen a Lawmaker “recognizes” a recipient, the Recipient has standing, i.e. seems visible in the eyes of the Lawmaker. W hen a Lawmaker declines to “recognizes” a recipient, the Recipient lacks standing, i.e. seems invisible in the eyes of the Lawmaker. Hence, standing is either present or absent. Standing is present when a Lawmaker has given a Recipient a right. Standing is absent when a Lawmaker has given a Recipient a no-right. Standing is just a metaphor. It is neither the opinion of the Lawmaker nor the literary device that gets the nut out of the shell. Standing exists when a Lawmaker either wants a Recipient to receive conduct or does not want a Recipient to receive conduct. Standing is absent when a Lawmaker does not care whether or not a Recipient receives conduct. Standing is one of the tools that a Lawmaker wields to indicate his desire about the receipt of conduct and a Recipient.

STATIC VS. DYNAMIC KNOWLEDGE:

Knowledge can be classified as either static or dynamic. Static knowledge is sterile, inert and not very useful. Dynamic knowledge is fecund, generative and useful. Let me illustrate the distinction with examples. If you told me the numbers, 17, 34, 3, you would have given me useless knowledge. However if you told me the numbers and would have also told me that they were the combination to a treasure chest, you would have given me useful knowledge. "At night, the sky is red", is useless knowledge. However, if you told me "red sky at night, sailors delight", you would have told me something useful. Dynamic knowledge is transportative: it transports you from one place to another. Static knowledge is a dead end: it does not transport you from where you are to another place. The test, therefore, that distinguishes static from Page -93-

dynamic knowledge is whether it has the ability to sweep you off your feet and transport you somewhere else. A Unified Theory of a Law is dynamic knowledge because it transports you from the general to the particular and, vice versa, from the particular to the general.

STRUCTURE:

A structure, like the DNA of a cell, repeats itself over and over again in every instance of a law. The physics of legal fission postulate that a law can be split into two components: its words and its structure. They are not the same. They exist independently of each other. Together they constitute a law. The words of a law sit on top of, or adorn, its structure. The words of a law change; the structure of a law always stays the same. The words make a law particular; the structure gives a law its generality. To generate a law's meaning, both its words and its structure cooperate. Anyone who wishes to push meaning into or pull meaning out of a law must be mindful of a law's structure. Any failure to respect the structure of a law generates inscrutable legalese and legal misunderstanding. The structure of any particular law can be abstracted therefrom and traced back to one of the nine cells of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. If this cannot be done, what purports to be a law is not.

STRUCTURED COMMUNICATION DEVICE:

A structured communication device is a literary device that communicates its meaning according to a rigid methodology. The author who uses a structured communication device must adapt to its methodology not vice versa. They are inflexible in how they organize and present meaning. Examples of structured communication devices are traffic lights on our roadways and scoreboards at sporting events. Their stubbornness and stability in how they organize and present meaning allows us to perfect in advance and with time a thorough understanding of them. Their twin benefits are instantaneous and transportable understanding. Because instantaneous and transportable understanding are so valuable, it would seem wise to exploit the principle behind a structure communication device to bring its twin benefits to our laws.

SUBJECT OF A LAW:

The subject of a Law is conduct. A law deals

Page -94-

with conduct that flows from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances.

–T– TOKENHOLDER:

A Tokenholder is a Source or a Recipient who is a

candidate for a Token.

TOKENS:

A token or legal token is 1) a duty, 2) a privilege, 3) a right and 4) a no-right. A Lawmaker hands them out to a Source and a Recipient to a bind a command and permission to them. They appear at the FORMATION and the RECOGNITION stages of the process of making a law. They transport a Source and a Recipient from the factual world into the legal world. They are part of the Vocabulary of a Law. A duty and a privilege are weight tokens. A right and no-right are standing tokens.

TOOLS:

W eight and standing are the tools of a Lawmaker. A Lawmaker wields weight and standing to bind a command or a permission to a Source and a Recipient. A Lawmaker works with weight by distributing either a duty or a privilege to a Source doing conduct. A Lawmaker works with standing by distributing either a right or a no-right to a Recipient receiving conduct.

THREE PART SENTENCE:

The sentence best suited to convey our laws is the three part sentence. It consists of a main clause, an if clause and an even though clause. The main clause holds the legal token, command or permission. The if clause holds those facts necessary to trigger the main clause. The even though clause holds those facts that are irrelevant.

TRIANGLE OF A LAW:

The Triangle of a Law is a three legged triangle that depicts the three legal relationships and one factual relationship in a Unified Theory of a Law. The base of the Triangle represents the factual relationship. The three legs represent the three legal relationships. At the acme of the Triangle of a Law is a Lawmaker. At one corner of the base is a Source and at the other corner of the base is a Recipient. From Page -95-

the acme of the Triangle of a Law, a Lawmaker despises the facts at its base. The three legal relationships on the legs of The Triangle of a Law are Formation, Intrusion and Recognition. Formation is the leg of The Triangle of a Law between a Lawmaker and the Conduct itself. Intrusion is the leg of The Triangle of a Law between a Lawmaker and the Source. Recognition is the leg of The Triangle of a Law between a Lawmaker and the Recipient.

–V– VOCABULARY OF A LAW:

Only six literary devices together with the appropriate polarity of conduct are needed to externalize and communicate the opinion of a Lawmaker to the citizenry. They get the nut out of the shell. They are 1) a command, 2) a permission, 3) a duty, 4) privilege, 5) right and 6) no-right. They represent the opinion of a Lawmaker at each of the three stages of the process of making a law. They are not the opinion itself. Anyone who understands these six (6) literary devices can talk intelligently about a law - any law.

–W– WEIGHT:

W eight is a metaphor that has developed to explain the stage of the process of making a law known as INTRUSION. It is tactile not visual. It is felt. A command is a law that has weight. A permission is a law that lacks weight. The two weight tokens are 1) a duty and 2) a privilege. A Source not a Recipient is the target of the two weight tokens. They transport a Source from the factual world into the legal world. W hen a Lawmaker “intrudes” upon the decision making process of a Source, the Source feels heaviness. W hen a Lawmaker refrains from intruding, the Source feels lightness. Hence, weight is either present or absent. W eight is present when a Lawmaker has given a Source a duty. W eight is absent when a Lawmaker has given a Source a privilege. W eight is just a metaphor. It is neither the opinion of the Lawmaker nor the literary device that gets the nut out of the shell. W eight exists when a Lawmaker either Page -96-

wants a Source to do the conduct or does not want a Source to do the conduct. W eight is absent when a Lawmaker does not care whether or not a Source does the conduct. W eight is one of the tools that a Lawmaker wields to influence a Source with regard to a particular flow of conduct.

Page -97-

NOTE: THERE IS MORE TO COME

Page -98-