All information on these pages is subject to review and/or changes. Chapters will be added as these are finalized and/or reviwed.

Links to other chapters

Chapter 1 Modifying the Intent of Law
Chapter 2 Exceptional Circumstances



1.0 The laws being referred to are man-made laws and not natural or biological laws.

1.1 Every law has a purpose. That purpose is defined as the "intent of the law".

1.2 The full context of a situation must be understood prior to understanding which rules of the Science of Law apply. Court orders on their own convey nothing of interest to the Science of Law. Judicial decisions which are not consistent with the Science of Law are of no interest to the Science of Law. Example. In countries such as Australia at the time of writing court orders known as AVOs were literally sold through legal firms. The actual law was intended to protect a person from violence but these AVOs became means of all sorts of legal scams and legal theft (e.g. isolating an executor of a Will of an elderly parent from the parent and then engineering a new Will leaving all to oneself) or to even protect child sexual abuse. All manner of evidence was invented and fabricated by legal firms to obtain these and in the end these were signed as a "matter of routine" without any concern for the safety of the person isolated from a relative by such a court order.

1.3 The only "evidence" acceptable to the Science of Law is evidence acceptable to a group of say twelve randomly selected educated people. The term "educated" refers to at least senior High School level but excludes law or the study of law or the study of administration. These latter types of studies do not, usually, result in "thinking" and in fact cause the opposite. There may be other areas of study which do not result in thinking merely memorising rules and procedures. To "memorise" is not the same as to "think and reason". Different functions in the brain are used. Note that "evidence" not understood by a person is "not evidence" to the Science of Law. However, in some situations a person can accept an authority figure or "expert witness" and in such a case he or she can count the evidence as "evidence" even when the person themselves does not understand the evidence. (refer appropriate chapter).

1.4 Any court order signed without evidence acceptable to the Science of Law is to be viewed as "corrupt conduct" until proven otherwise. It may not be the result of corruption, it could be the consequence of "incompetence", or forgetting to take medication (e.g. some mental disorders can be controlled by medication and such people do sit as tribunal members or magistrates or judges).

1.5 Laws can be categorized into subsets.






1.6 These are laws which any normal person can understand. Most traffic laws are such. Any law which a normal 12 year old fails to understand does not belong to this subset.




1.7 The keyword is "compelling" and implies an action that can not, or ought not, be normally controlled. Examples.

a) a person is about to walk across the road and see a car approaching quickly. This is a compelling reason for the person to take a step back and wait until the car passes to cross the road.

b) a person is not allowed to see his or her parent and finds out the parent is gravely ill and goes and sees them. The situation is a "compelling event".

c) a motorist is booked for speeding while driving his wife to the hospital because she thinks labour has started. This situation is a compelling event.




1.8 These are the bulk of legislation. The intent of any such law can be sabotaged by courts setting precedents. The intent of the law can be read any way a court decides such can be read. Usually expensive legal firms present one point of view of how a law should work, and the opposite legal team presents another. The subsequent decisions of courts tend to form a cascade effect and after a time the intent of the law, or what it is actually about, can become meaningless or confused.







1.9 An example of such laws is the Australian Social Security legislation to do with disability. In theory a person with what is known as 20 point disability can apply for this type of pension. In reality the legislation is worded in such a way that the decision makers can reject such an application even when a person has 80% disability as established by medical doctors.

1.10 Another example are laws to do with legal aid. The legislation uses "may" and not "will" or "must" which means that while the Australian Constitution gives all people the right to legal representation, in practice few people can obtain legal aid.

1.11 Political laws are for the "show" - so that politicians can claim they have laws in place that do this or that. In practice political laws do nothing or very little.







1.12 The human brain modifies itself. Neuroscientists refer to the brain as having "plasticity". This does not mean the brain is made of plastic, it means the brain modifies itself. The modifications are usually changes in what are known as synapses that need to release a chemical known as a neurotransmitter in order to activate an adjacent neural cell. Hence such changes result in alternate paths in the brain being created as required. The brain can also kill off neural cells it no longer wants or needs.

1.13 The brain is one important aspect of our being. The human brain is in fact three brains, the left and right cerebral hemisphere (or the left and right brain) and a smaller brain underneath known as the cerebellum. The left and right brain is connected by a band of neural rich tissue known as the corpus callosum. For practical purposes the corpus callosum makes an infinite number of paths possible between the two brains. This is of critical importance because the typical left brain is only a 2-D perception brain and the right brain is the 3-D perception brain. The left brain also sees "details" while the right brain does not see such.

1.14 The other important aspect of our being is what is termed the psyche and the mind. The human psyche is a complex entity defined in psychiatry as consisting of the concious and unconscious, and the superego and id and ego. Most important of these is the ego which is the human reality test. A healthy ego knows reality and can act accordingly. Those into law or any position that "enforces" something on other people, can loose this reality test very quickly to be replaced, in some cases, by a syndrome we can define as "I AM GOD AND I KNOW BETTER." Too often we hear of a judge in this or that country refusing a clearly mentally ill patient the right to a psychiatrist. The usual cause is the "I AM GOD AND I KNOW BETTER" syndrome. Recently, for example, a person in the United States (2011) fired some shots into the White House. A judge refused to allow this person to be examined by a psychiatrist.

1.5 Not every person is a neuroscientist whose brain had learnt the skill of studying reality and different states of mind from first principles. A society does need a document such as a Constitution by which the citizens can live. That document would form the highest framework of the "mind" in the "superego" of the society. Only within that state of mind, can laws and any other rules be defined. Thus a mentally healthy tribunal member, or magistrate or judge, would at the mind level contain an image of the Constitution. Within that framework would any law be interpreted. An ideal Constitution ought to ensure each citizen is protected from courts of law and police by stating clearly such fundamental principles as:

(a) personal liberty
(b) freedom of choice
(c) trial by jury
etc.

1.15 In pratise it does not work like that. The prime example are the inheritance laws of different States in Australia (likely all much the same). The Australian Constitution requires that any posession of land by government must be on "just terms". Courts of law are part of the government and the process of probate is the government taking land from a deceased person and handing it someone else. This must be done on "just terms" according to the Constitution but in practise anyone who knows how to engineer a new Will and Tetament can pass this through probate and be given legal right to property before any other sibling even knows this has taken place. Only those with a large amount of money can find legal firms who can take these types of cases to the High Court - that is if a legal firm can be found to do so, but if you throw an awful lot of money at a specialist legal firm they are likely to represent you. Hence regardless of what the Constitution says, Federal and State laws can easily violate the Constitution. This is usually achieved by defining "rules and procedures" of courts. It is a huge beaureacracy. Courts of law need the "correct form" before such understand what a claim is about. It is not important to any Supreme Court what the Constitution says, what is important to them are the rules and procedures they have invented. Courts of law also need specialist lawyers to explain what something is about else they don't understand plain English. Courts of law need affidavits presented in a certain format else they can not comprehend what is being explained. As pointed out in the medical treatise on the subject, courts of law are "dens of ignorance."

1.16 A major reason why courts of law are becoming dangerous to society is due to how the brain in lawyers modifies itself. The brain modifies itself to conform to the rules and procedures of courts - not the intent of the law. How the brain modifies itself that is how a person learns to think and believe and relate. If the nerves of your right and left leg were crossed over, would you be able to walk properly? Of course not! Same princple is at work in the brain - it modifies itself and a person can only think in accordance with how the brain allows thoughts to be "thought". A person can not "think outside the square" if their brain is hard-wired not to allow this. People tend to think that our mind and intellect is what matters and what "thinks." No, it is the total brain that contributes to thought and if the brain does nor permit certain types of thought processing to take place then these can not take place.

1.17 If you were a neuroscientist whose brain has learnt to emulate the mental states in others, then if you truly emulated a magistrate or judge (or similar) who has been one for more than five years - you wuold come across an "alien" world in your head which has no resemblence to the human existance. That means that the nature of magical thinking so common in courts of law could be taking quantum leaps into "alien" domains.

1.18 The Science of Law is about bypassing the formation of an "alien mentality" in those into law. The Science of Law is about making sure both brains are balanced when talking about law and interpreting law and extending laws. The Science of Law is about making sure no mental blocks or detachments form between the left and right brain. The Science of Law is about making sure the "I AM GOD AND I KNOW BETTER" syndrome does not take hold. It is also about making sure the normal reality test is as healthy as possible.

1.19 The Science of Law is defined using psycholegalanalysis in the brain to process information. This is a process performed in the medical diagnosis areas of the frontal lobes and it reproduces what is known as psychoanalysis but excludes from consideration those aspects essential in the unconscious of lawyers. Example. A lawyer may be interrogating a person in the witness box, a person who is denying everything. A lawyer may need to use "cunning" and "cleverness" and even "angry moments" to try and get at the truth. Psycholegalanalysis identifies all such requirements the unonscious of a lawyer needs to have, and excludes these from analysis.