dream of admin

3 episodes. getting wories crossed

must be to do with Les. Madam P turned up unannounced but I only speak to ehr online. In the dream this one was nubule whereas in reality she is Milf to cougar territory .

In the dream I saw across a table from Angelica Vara and Tphanie Poupee and chatted to them amiably. There was naother yoingish white female too. Brunette. not sure whom ehs represented.d did not speak to her. Notarul?

Then I sae Friday. I hugged him. But he was chorniy. did not seem odd at firrst. then realised younfer twin was his mum. how was I to tell hin. maybe because the notion of payments had come up eysterday. had younf twin borne fruit things would be v differnet. was nostalgic yestedsat. It all related rto what Les said via and intermedoary. the problems arising from many years ago.

reveries of Greg and others

I dreamt I was with Geek. Greg then took us in a land rover. we were in Hibernia. probably iarthair corcAigh. we drove up into the hills above the raging sea. The hill was v steep abd bare

we got to a stong cottage on s sttep slope. we saw the sea storming far, far below. there were white breakers which rolled onto the land. the waves went several hundred metres up the hill but we were a few km up from that. Greg was an eyeore as usual. he is a loony conspiracy theorist banging on about the illuminati. I disagree with him about the edge.,

I was with Geek. in a separate room. he had lost someting and searched for it on the floor. weeping as he had lost an itme. I was a bit sympathetic

what can he signify? His nation. he was so annoying.

why think of west land? Provlems with radio rentals

then I was due to collect xome students from catahy from an outdoor railway station. methinks I was in catahy. I spike to some oldish chinese wmne at the entence of the station and told them what i was doing. I do not reclal in qhich tonhue. they were not in unfirom. maybe because I think of maozi and have to help mentee.

then a green train pulled in and a several orientla yougn adults de-trained. They were smily. do not know ehre I had to take them that warm and sunnt day

later I met angell summers and tiffany dolll. chatted to both – they sat across form one on my table in a cafe. we spoke about going it. tey were beaming and excited. I was rock hard. there was anotheer whote person there. male or famel? If female she was unsexu. do not recall. poate ast inseamna cu nu s gandit care dealul e foarte atractiv? aceste fetele nu s folosist preservativi si an adat snagul meu ieri pentru analzi. dealul are a laut pentry mine. causemar.

a few night ago I dreamt f takingf yound saui adults up a troust attraciton near london eye. it was lke the british airways thing in brighton. vertically up. the men and women were most aimpresed. agood. reallt liked it. look down on the london eye. why this drem. i know no sauids. maybe me think fo 2016 when I had some in twickenham.

p 107 . jurisprudence

7.8

Raz’s article Kelsen’s theory of the basic norm before tackling this activity

A. what is the difference between social normativity and justified normativity.

Normativity is what we need to maintain social relations. A justified normativity means there is a good reason for this norm. He said that the government does not depend on consent for legitimacy. He said Kelsen was into justified normativity. Raz said we need to see what lawyers and judges do to find that laws are.

Kelsen said there is a hierarchy of norms. He said is and ought are no the same.

B. In Raz’s theory who precisely is supposed to do the justification?

He said it is the government

SAMPLE EXAM QUESTIONS

1. Consider carefully Laski’s famous dismissal of Kelsen’s theory as an exercise in logica with no application in real life. Do legal theorists have a social obligation?

He said it was sterile in logic not in life. Laski thought Kelsen was unrealistic and this Grundnorme were bogus.

Kelsen was a legal positivist. He taught in Cologne and fled the Nazis moving to Switzerland.

2. Examine critically Kelsen’s theory of legal validity/ Is the basic norm a fiction as he once said it was?

We do have norms and some of these become statutory. There is behaviour that is consider to meet with standards of acceptability. Some conduct is regarded as so harmful to others that is is unlawful. Some abnormal behaviour is permissible though it meets with disapprobation. Kelsen was partly correct.

jurisprudence p 105

7.7

write three or four paragraphs commenting on the two criticisms in section 7.4 . you should consider carefully what possible advantages there could be in seeing law in these two unified ways.

Kelsen says laws are directed to officials. This is bogus. laws are directed to everyone.

He says tha civil and criminal law were not always separate. This os wrong.

Kelsen says there is a second legal norm directing citizens how to behave. This is fallacious. These are laws not norms. Breach of a norm is not criminous whereas breach of a law is.

Kelsen’s presupposition of norms that were then turned into laws is unsound.

Kelsen said there was a suggestive force to laws. His theorem has been invoked as justificatory of military putschs and dictatorship.

p 103 jurisprudence

activity 7.6

consider the following revolutionary scenarios and decide what conclusion Kelsen’s theory of revolution would have for them:

A. a rebel army seizes power and elects its commander head of state. All opponents killed . the commander of state rules by general decree for five years before being deposed.

The norm would say that as he actually wields power he is the lawful ruler.

B. rebels within government illegally depose the PM, and impose their own constitution. the balance of power and unclear for 3 months until a majority of the judges clinch the matter by declaring the rebel constitution to be the valid constitution. a significant number of judges remain opposed.

This is difficult. The country needs a government. What is the norm? The norm is that the lawful government remain in power. As the majority of judges have made the decision this needs to be respected.

C. a former colony breaks away from an imperial power by declaring a constitution that is contrary constitution of the imperial power. the imperial power threatens sanctions but nothing comes of it.

The norm is that the colony remains a colony until it is lawfully decolonised. the UN says that decolonisation must happen. As the coloniser makes not attempt to recover the colony then the norm is that the colony is now independent.

D. after 80 years of communism , capitalism returns to State A. X an heiress un A offers up 120 year old government bonds for redemption.

The norm is that the property is returned. This happened in many former communist countries.

p 101 jurisprudence

7.5

both of the propositions are necessary for understanding Kelsen’s famous theory of legal revolution.

A. give an example of a historically first constitution.

The French Constitution after the Revolution.

B. give an example of a historically second constitution.

The constitution of 1795 in France.

C. could an unwritten constitution ever be first>?

Yes, so long as it really is a constitution such as the UK’s one.

D. Why does Kelsen insist that the Grundnorm is not the same thing as the historically first constitution

Because Grundnorm is more basic than that. It is an unwritten code of acceptable behaviour. A constitution is governmental and is documented.

E. what is the difference between a sufficient and a necessary condition? you can answer this by common sense

One must have a necessary condition for something but that necessary condition is not enough on its own. It needs a sufficient condition too.

F. Could A Legal system exist in any meaningful or useful sense even though it is no longer effective? Think of Roman Law

No it could not because it has fallen into abeyance.

p 100. jurisprudence

7.3

Hart famously criticised Kelsen’s theory of law in the following way: Kelsen regarded the basic form of law as a permission to officials e g judges to impose a sanction upon individuals when they committed a delict. He therefore held a sanction theory of law. But argued Hart on this basis one cannot distinguish a tax from a fine. Look at the distinction between norms arising by operation of law and the operation of powers in the chapter on Raz. try to explain Hart’s criticism.

Hart said that law distinguishes criminal and civil law. There are obligations to do things and to refrain from doing other things. Some norms are due to law. There are norms about how powers are exercised.

Hart thought Raz was wrong.

========================

7.4 write a brief summary of Austin’s theory . try to get its bare bones.

Austin said law is orders backed by threats. He was a former army officer. He was a positivist.

A. what is law for Austin?

Law is a means of regulating society.

B. what is the law of a particular legal system?

It is a rule and it may be unique to that system. It fits into a network of laws which are supposedly consonant.

jurisprudence p 98, activity 7.2

Define Grundnorm using your own terms as clearly as you can

This is what Hans Kelsen said made law. These are customs that are universally recognised as having legal force.

jurisprudence p 98

7.1

remind yourself of important concepts that we dealt with in earlier chapters, write down a brief definition of legal positivism

Legal positivism is the notion that law is what it is and that is unrelated to morality. Rights are not natural but are man made and vary from one country to the next and one epoch to another.

A dream of Mrs. Golden Horde

several days ago in konigsstdat I dreamt of her. She sat some distance away and looked away. she was bluff and aloof. what can it mean? What can it mean? Is it reminiscing. ? or because I am thinking of publishing a memoir

another time I dreamt of teaching Maths 1 times one to the power of one times one and suchlike. to whom I know not. perhaps because bright faith had to do it.