Lady Justice (a picture)

Part 4: An Organisation for Freedom, Justice and Righteousness

4.1. Our Rights and Freedoms under Attack

4.1.1. Arbitrary Restictions of Natural Rights
4.1.2. The European Union: Hitler's dream come through
4.1.3. The Impopularity of a United Europe
4.1.4. The Failure of the Civil Rights Organisations
4.1.5. A Code of Natural Law

4.2. Defective Criminal Systems

4.2.1. Miscarriages of Justice
4.2.2. Shortcomings of the Criminal Systems
4.2.3. Is Man by nature good or bad?
4.2.4. Validity of laws and decisions

4.3. Revision of the Legal System

4.3.1. Organisation and Procedures
4.3.2. Description of a modern System
4.3.3. Codes of Law, other Laws and Regulations

4.4. Description of the legal Institute

4.4.1. Its Raison d’Être
4.4.2. Its Competences
4.4.3. Its Roles and Tasks
4.4.4. Its Members
4.4.5. Recognition as an independent Institute
4.4.6. The Institute as an Order of Chivalry

Part 5: Overview of the System

Through the increasing power of national states and the emergence of totalitarian superstates like the European Union, people are more and more being exposed to arbitrary limitations of their rights and freedoms by immoral governments and private organisations without any scruples.

People become more and more the prisoners of the System. Although various treaties on human rights have been drawn, all of which are supposed to secure the inalienable natural rights, these have proven to be ineffective. Despite all the treaties and charters, governments continue to act as they please and show an increasing contempt for the inalienable rights. They always find a reason and way to limit the basic freedoms, a popular one being that it is "in the interest of national security". Humbug of course.

Governments often don't really have to dig deep for a valid reason, for human rights treaties and charters, and national constitutions, generally explicitly allow governments to restrict the natural rights "if there is sufficient and appropriate legal basis defined: public interest, security, public order in the interest of democratic society". Such clauses supply all governments with the legal basis to restrict, or even abolish, any right whenever it pleases them and for whatever reason they find appropriate!

People should thoroughly realise that politicians are notorious and compulsive liars with the intelligence of an amoeba and obsessed with power. Their behaviour is of a machiavellian nature, which means that they act in a way first described by Nicolò Machiavelli (1469-1527). The term 'machiavellian' is defined as:

The political doctrine which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power.

Political behaviour is characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty. Since politicians place political expediency above morality and approve of the use of craft and deceit to maintain their authority and carry out their policies, they can only be immoral creatures; and immoral creatures are criminals. Politicians purposely manipulate or mislead others in order to achieve their own personal goals, and they should therefore never be believed. Yet doing so is extremely hazardous to one's health. But governments can also be dangerous, especially when they are wrong and you are right! (for more information read the article "Nicolò Machiavelli" in Volume 3 ).

Contempt for the natural rights is commonly associated with Third World countries and banana republics, so people are usually quite shocked to hear that the situation in the so-called civilized West is not different. Countries like Spain, but especially France, are notorious for disregarding natural rights, in which they are fully supported by the European and US laws intended to curtail the activities of 'terrorists'. Since the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, the USA have gone utterly hysterical in regard to the threat of terrorism. Any person can be arrested at will, without a warrant, on the slightest suspicion of being a terrorist, real or imaginary (the same applies to England). Contrary to what the US politicians still dare assert, the USA is no free nation at all, but a downright totalitarian state, and definitely not the "Leader of the Free World" (read the article "Breton Political Prisoners" in Volume 3 which illustrates the current situation).

Individuals who consider their natural rights to have been infringed can of course take their case to a civil rights court (like the European Court of Human Rights), but the result will generally be disappointing. Judges are just civil servants, and thus not really independent and impartial. Being employed by their governments, they will always make sure that their ruling is not too much at variance with the view or the will of Big Brother, in order not to harm their careers. Apart from that, citizens usually don't have the money to succesfully fight governments (and big companies).

Moreover, the current human rights treaties and charters contain a lot of clauses which have been softened to please the governments. Such a softened clause is for instance Article 22 of European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was introduced to provide ethnic minorities in Europe with certain guarantees. The original clause read:

"The Union shall maintain cultural, religious and linguistic diversity."

The French and the Spanish governments objected to the wording and demanded a softer clause, because the issue of ethnic minorities is a very sensitive one for them (France has to deal with separatist movements in Corsica, Brittany and the Basque region, and Spain has similar problems with the Basque and other provinces). So the text of the article was changed to:

"The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity."

This makes the whole clause utterly useless, as is proven by the practice of the day.

The European Union (soon to become the United States of Europe) is often referred to as 'The Fourth Reich', which is not at all surprising, since the whole idea of a "United Europe" is based on a blueprint drawn up by Walter Funk, Economics Minister and President of the German National Bank under Adolf Hitler, who envisaged a Fourth Reich comprising the then occupied countries. The architects of the European Economic Community (EEC) have from the very start used this blueprint as their guide for the creation of a united Europe, and their successors who are not really averse to totalitarianism continue to do so.

It should be alarming that a convicted war criminal with responsibilty for the Nazi war effort and atrocities has been one of the designers of the EEC. Since Funk's blueprint forms the basis for the "United States of Europe", this Fourth Reich will closely resemble the Third Reich, which in the end will possess all the characteristics of its immediate predecessor. There will be only one major difference: the Fourth Reich will be perfect (read the articles on this subject in Volume 3).

Quote:

"The future will belong to the Germans... ...when we build the House of Europe. In the next two years, we will make the process of European integration irreversible. This is a really big battle but it is worth the fight" (Chancellor Kohl of Germany, October 1996).

The EU is run by Eurocrats who are totalitarian-minded in their behaviour, but is also strongly influenced by the maffia, to whom the EU is a major source of income. In this context it must be noted that Romano Prodi, the current unelected president of the European Commission, is not without reason known as Mr. Maffia. It is not clear whether he is actually a member of the mob, but he does have good relations with them The EU is not a democracy, nor is it intended to ever become such, but a totalitarian superstate created by criminals for criminals, and run by criminals.

Quote:

"Mr Claude Cheysson, former French Foreign Secretary and member of the European Commission, stated that the Europe of Maastricht "could", I quote, "only have been created in the absence of democracy". He went on to say that public debate would be counterproductive.

Mr Raymond Barre, former French Prime Minister and also a former Commissioner, said when discussing the construction of the European Union "I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account" (Sir James Goldsmith, June 1996).

A united Europe is far from popular amongst the citizens of the European nations, and the only support actually comes from the politicians. The EU's own surveys show that only a tiny minority (5%) of the EU's 'citizens' consider themselves 'European'. A large majority of 85% view their nation as their sole or principal affiliation. As the EU survey ruefully admits "a sense of sharing a common identity does not appear to have become more widespread over the years."

All those people who fight against the EU and who don't believe the assertions and promises of that criminal Nazi and maffia-gang in Brussels are no fanatical, fundamentalist europhobic nutters who don't not know what they are talking about. On the contrary: these people have actually seen and recognized the true danger this Beast poses to the freedom and happiness of all individuals. The sooner this emerging evil empire is dissolved, the better it is for all of us.

For more bad news about the European Union and its true face, pay a visit to these websites:

A New Alliance <http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~iits/newalliance/index.htm>

The European Union FAQ <http://members.aol.com/eurofaq/>

The truth about Europe <http://www.democracymovement.org.uk/booklet/>

CH Libre <http://www.ch-libre.ch/chlibre.html>

EU Critical Answers <http://www.ch-libre.ch/Answers.html>

Although the first three sites concern Britain and the last two Switzerland, what is said in general equally applies to all other European nations!

The various civil rights organisations, groups and movements see themselves as the guardians or watchdogs of the natural rights, and pretend to counterbalance every move by the governments to undermine these rights. They fail miserably though, for the following (combination of) reasons:

• they have no identity and have not build up any authority (so the governments will not have to take them seriously);
  
• they don't form a unity, given the many national and international competing civil rights groups (so the governments are able to play off one against the other: divide and rule);
  
• they are not drastic and aggressive in their actions (so the governments need not fear any direct danger);
  
• they are often on good terms with the governments (so the governments can easily give them direction);
  
• they lack the necessary funds (so the governments can completely ignore them);
  
• they are generally little known by the public (so the governments can rest in peace).

The Scottish Human Rights Centre (Ionad Choirichean Dhaonna na h-Alba), for instance, state the following on their website <http://www.scottishhumanrightscentre.org.uk/index.asp>:

Scrutiny of Legislation

It is important that all prospective legislation is scrutinised to ensure that its provisions do not breach human rights. Drawing on our years of experience dealing with the Westminster Parliament, SHRC has been ideally placed to make a positive contribution to proposed legislation in the Scottish Parliament. SHRC is regularly consulted before legislation is proposed and is also regularly invited to give evidence to Parliamentary committees and to provide information to MSP's, this provides us with valuable inputs before and during the drafting of legislation. Contributors to our proposals include some of the most respected legal experts in Scotland and experts from many other professional backgrounds. SHRC also lobbies the Holyrood, Westminster and European Parliaments on issues of human rights concern.

Well said, but not well done, or better: not done at all, for we still witness an uncanny increase in the attacks on our rights and freedoms by the various state and suprastate governments, which attacks become more violent by the day, while at the same time the respect for our rights diminishes beyond belief. Have we, the people, who are the rightful owners of our freedoms and of our lands, given our governments, who are our humble servants, permission to rob us of our natural rights? Sure as hell not! Governments who infringe or violate our rights must therefore immediately remove themselves, or else be removed.

Apart from all this, civil rights movements and other (generally left-wing) organisations haven't quite understood natural law. First of all they equate natural law with the (inalienable) human rights. As pointed out in Volume 1, the human and civil rights form only a part of the whole of natural law, and may be considered the heart in the body. Both heart and body must form a unity to stay alive, but through their little knowledge of what natural law exactly is, the civil rights movements and commissions have in fact ripped the heart out of the body. The body has meanwhile died, and they are trying to keep the heart alive. In vain, though.

Civil rights movements and commissions (governments as well!) also interpret the natural rights in such a way that these rights fit their own personal views and ideas. Their morality is therefore of a subjective nature, based on their personal will and lust alone. Now, since natural law is always based on reason, it is clear that these movements and organisations have created a peculiar form of positive law for themselves, which has nothing to do with natural law and which should not be taken seriously.

The direct result is that they have become hysterical, and see acts of discrimination, racism and xenophobia where there are actually none. In an effort to suppress all these cases of so-called discrimination, etc., they see themselves forced to resort to means which themselves are hostile to every individual and his freedom, and contradictory to natural law. One of the means they employ is imposing political correctness, which is generally defined as:

A sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society

This totalitarian doctrine restricts, or even de facto abolishes, the very important natural right of freedom of utterance, and turns citizens into nothing more than remote-controlled programmable robots with no opinion of their own. Wherefore it is good to be politically incorrect. In other words: it is politically incorrect to be politically correct. (read the three articles about political correctness in Volume 3).

Governments and many, especially left-wing, judges and public prosecutors have blindly adapted this vile doctrine, or have fallen into its trap. With the result that innocent people who, according to some morons, are not politically correct in their behaviour or utterance, immediately find themselves persecuted by an incompetent, panicking and biassed judiciary, and tried on a charge of racism, discrimination and/or xenophobia. This is utterly absurd and crazy, and the persecutors themselves should be charged with violation of the natural rights!

Besides, acts of discrimination, racism, xenophobia, etc. are conflicts between civil parties. This implies that the parties involved must, in a peaceful manner, first try sort their conflict out amongst themselves. If this proves impossible, then it is up to the civil judge alone to supply the solution. There is absolutely no role in this for the state (criminal law). The state, Big Brother, must mind its own business, and not that of others.

Furthermore, every free human being is in the full possession of his inalienable natural rights and freedoms. No politicians nor any other criminals will ever succeed in taking them away from him. They couldn't even if they wanted to, for these rights are inherent rights; so the only way to take these rights away from an individual would be by actually dispatching him to the promised land. But even in that case they wouldn't have taken the rights away from him ...

It must be crystal clear, and let there be no doubt about this, that if all these violent attacks on our natural rights and freedoms by the various governments and other malicious institutions and groups are not stopped, then we will soon have only one "natural" right left, and that is:

There are not only various rivalling civil rights organisations, there is also a number of rivalling human rights declarations. Which is curious, to say the least, since the natural rights are universal (and eternal). So why the need for more than one declaration? Well, one reason may be that just a handful of people really do comprehend the system of natural law (least of all by politicians, since they have less than two braincells). But egocentrical reasons also play an important role: every region on the globe appears to need its own charter. This is of course not to the advantage of the citizen, who in this way never knows what position in regard to his rights and legal security is.

Currently there are eight human rights treaties in force, namely:

Civil and Political Rights:

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
• European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000
• American Convention on Human Rights, 1969
• African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, 1981

  Economic, Social and Cultural Rights:

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966
• European Social Charter, 1996

  Note that the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and all special human rights aimed at certain 'minority' groups, are the result of political hysteria, and not that of reason. These special rights are unnecessary, for they can all be found in, or deduced from, the Civil and Political rights (or better: natural law).

  These special human rights also pose a serious danger, for they create an unjustified and unallowed form of discrimination, known as 'positive discrimination'. Take for example the Women's Rights. The first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood".

  This is correct, and since women are human beings too, the article naturally also applies to them. This implies that women don't need any special rights of their own, for if they do, then it is either explicitly acknowledged that women are not human beings, or it is explicitly denied that they are! Given the existence of special rights for women, the conclusion must be that all states who are parties to the (UN and EU) human rights treaties, regard women not as human beings!

  Such special rights also cause a lot of envy, because they make some people or groups of people more equal than others, which has resulted in the political invention of the highly unjustified 'positive discrimination'. Natural law, however, protects minorities by denying their existence, something that is neither understood by the politicians nor by the so-called civil rights movements and organisations.

To create order out of this chaos, and since all (so-called) human rights treaties contain softened clauses (to please governments) and restrictive articles (which stem from political lust for control), all true natural rights must be written anew, but then in their true and unrestricted form with the heart in the body, regardless whether totalitarian governments and politicians like it or not. After all, the people are in charge, and the governments only do their job on behalf, and with the permission or consent, of the people!

A nation whose system is based on natural law (democracy) has at least five codes of law instead of the usual four under a system of positive law (dictatorship), as follows:

1. Natural Law (ius naturale)

i. Code of Natural Law

This is the fundament of the law system. It contains the whole of the natural law (all the known natural rights). This Code can never be changed, in that rights contained in it can never be removed. But since natural law is not made by man, but found by man (in general by the judge), newly found natural rights must always be added.

The next Codes are the pillars of Constitutional, Administrative, Criminal, and Civil Law, which rest on the fundament of the Code of Natural Law. These 4 Codes in turn form the fundament for all lower laws and regulations, which implies that all laws and regulations must in the end refer back to the basic fundament, which is the Code of Natural Law. Any lower law or regulation which does not find its origin in any higher law, and eventually in the Code of Natural Law, is not valid. This is known as the Principle of Legality.

2. National Law (ius civile)

a. Public Law (ius publicum)

ii. Code of Constitutional Law

Describes the organization, tasks and competences of the central and lower organs of the state.

iii. Code of Administrative Law

Describes the exercise of the tasks of the state, and regulates the relations between the state bodies, and between the state bodies and the citizens.

iv. Code of Criminal Law

Describes which acts the state can punish (crimes and offences) and which penalties can be imposed.

b. Private Law (ius privatum)

v. Code of Civil Law

Describes and regulates the relationships between the citizens.

International law is still often seen as part of, and integrated in, the Code of Constitutional Law, but it may yet be decided to compose a separate code for this law.

3. International Law (ius gentium)

vi. Code of International Law

Describes the procedures and competences in international relationships, treaties, etc.

The hierarchy of laws

Unlike the Code of Constitutional Law under positive law, which also contains an often limited Bill of Rights, the Code of Constitutional Law under natural law only contains a description of the organisation of the state, its organs and their competences, and the relations between them. A Code of Natural Law, as a separate code of law containing only all the natural rights, is thus typical of a nation under natural law (which is always a democracy). But don't forget that the list of natural rights summed up in that code is by far not exhaustive, for there are also many unwritten rules of natural law (or unwritten natural rights)! It is up to the judge to find these.

The major advantage of a separate Code of Natural Law is, that the natural rights laid down in it can never be changed, restricted or abolished by the state (government and parliament), for they do not, nor will they ever, form a part of the man-controlled legal system. This is different from the constitutional rights under positive law, which are laid down in the Code of Constitutional Law in the form of a bill of rights, and through that become a part of positive law. And positive laws can be changed at will by the government and parliament, which is why constitutional rights are so very vulnerable, and in fact worth nothing.

Every criminal system, regardless whether the investigative and judge-based system, or the adversarial and jury-based system, frequently produces serious miscarriages of justice as a result of a number of reasons. Miscarriages of justice always result in innocent people being put behind bars for a certain period, or even for the whole rest of their lives, or in guilty people being acquitted. In both cases gross injustice is done, and neither is acceptable.

The fact that miscarriages of justice occur over and over again (they can hardly be prevented from occurring), is the main reason that capital punishment may never be (re-)introduced. The death penalty is an irreversible punishment, which can also never be financially compensated. Putting a person to death who is later yet proven to be innocent is utterly unacceptable. This would not be justice, not even injustice, but downright barbarism; or simply put: a criminal act!

Some argue that the natural right to life automatically implies that capital punishment is not allowed. This is not true.

The natural rights apply in full to free people only.Under natural law, free people are those people who have not infringed on the freedoms of others. An individual who has committed an offence or a crime (who has thus infringed on another person's freedoms), looses one or more of his rights for a certain time or forever: he, for instance, looses his right to move around freely ('gets jailed') for a limited period or for the whole rest of his life, or he looses the right to a certain part of his capital ('gets fined').

It is however also possible that a crime committed is of such a nature that the perpetrator should loose all his natural rights forever, which can only mean execution.

It would be very unwise though to actually (re-)introduce the death penalty, for the reasons given above. Execution of an innocent person by sentence of the judge must be deemed a criminal act committed by the state, which should then backfire on the judge and the jurors in that they themselves must be executed for murder. But justice would not be served by all this of course. And natural law is about justice and righteousness, and not about the law and revenge, which is typical of positive law!

Miscarriages of justice are generally the result of (a combination of) the following shortcomings (the list is not exhaustive):

1. Laws are based on postive law rather than on natural law.

For a description of natural law and positive law, and the differences between both systems, see paragraph 2.1 of Volume 1, and the essays on natural law in Volume 3.

2. Judges are not always independent and impartial.

Some reasons that may be mentioned are:

a. judges are always bound by the (man-made) law in their rulings, so that in certain cases it is utterly impossible to come to a just and righteous ruling without violating the law;

b. judges, being civil servants, are generally appointed by the government, and will thus do nothing to displease that government in order not to jeopardize their careers ("you don't bite the hand that feeds you");

c. judges can be members of a polical or religious party, or adhere to a certain political or religious doctrine, and shall therefore (tend to) base their decisions on the doctrine they have adopted, or simply decide in favour of their own party out of loyalty or for their own benefit.

d. judges can be corrupt, which often remains undiscovered for many years.

3. Not all judges are fully capable of performing their tasks in accordance with the required standards.

They may not be suited for the task in general, have too little contact with reality, are too old to understand what's really going on, cherish their own moral conceptions, have no good insight in what's good and what's bad (faulty conscience), are indifferent, deprived of reason, etc.

4. Circumstantial evidence is far too easily and far too often accepted as fysical evidence.

No verdict, no conviction may ever be based on circumstantial evidence alone, for such evidence doesn't proof anything. Verdicts and convictions must in all cases be based upon fysical evidence only, which must have yielded proof beyond any doubt. Circumstantial evidence may never be more than only of a supportive nature. In case of absence of fysical evidence the accused must be granted the benefit of the doubt.

5. Bad criminal and/or juridical investigation.

A bad police investigation or a bad court inquiry, or a combination of both, can be the result of incompetent, indifferent or even corrupt police investigators and/or judges, and/or of certain legal restrictions imposed on investigators while doing their investigation. Apart from this, corrupt and malevolent attorneys and busy-body politicians can also play a detrimental or even destructive role in truth-finding.

6. Not all crimes are laid down in laws.

Positive law is man-made law, and laws will thus vary from time to time, according to the will of the legislator. Laws can become obsolete because the crimes they name are no longer seen as crimes by society, and "new" crimes and their penalties will not yet be recorded. Given the sluggishness of the system, however, it is impossible to abolish obsolete laws, and to make new laws covering "new" crimes, at the right moment. This inevitably results in people getting punished for acts which are actually no crimes (anymore) and in people being acquitted because the crime they committed doesn't yet exist (according to the law).

Since natural law is eternal, it doesn't suffer from this shortcoming. Under a system of natural law it is known of all possible acts whether they are criminal or not. Since natural law knows no "new" crimes, it is not necessary to first draft and pass a new law (which may take years) before a person can be tried and convicted.

Slavery, for instance, has always been recognized as illegitimate by natural law, and therefore not allowed. It would take till the 18th century before positive law slowly started to discover this. Far too late of course.

7. Wrong jury verdict.

The Common Law system has an additional shortage in that it is a jury-based system, which implies that the decision whether a person is guilty or not guilty is in the hands of a jury. This jury determines whether the accused is guilty or not, and the judge has to pass sentence accordingly. This, however, is a dangerous shortage.

Jurors are common people who often lack the necessary and essential knowledge of the legal and criminal systems, of law in general, of the philosophy of law, of psychology (often even lack normal insight into human nature and behaviour) and of legal jargon. They can easily get emotionally involved, easily be bluffed by professional lawyers (defender and prosecutor), and they can even be bribed. They often don't know how to interpret the backgrounds that have led to a certain crime or offence. The danger that they come to the wrong verdict is thus uncannily real, which is proven time and time again. Justice can never be served with such a flawed system.

The right to be judged by one's own peers may be an ancient tradition, but it also very easily causes miscarriages of justice (which in some countries can result in an innocent person being executed). Traditions should indeed be cherished and maintained, unless or until they cause damage. In this case, damage is injustice.

In regard to the validity of a law, regulations, decisions, and acts there is an important difference between legal en legitimate:

&endash; legitimate always and only refers to found law, which is natural law

&endash; legal always and only refers to man-made law, which is either human law or positive law

Under positive law, a law or any legal decision, in order to be valid in regard to its substance, needs to be legal, but not necessarily also legitimate. For a law or legal decision to be valid in regard to its substance under natural law, it must always be legitimate. If so, that law or decision must be regarded as also legal, for natural law is the higher law, which thus implies that all lower norms must always be derived from the higher norm, and may not deviate from that higher norm. Any law can therefore only be legal, if it is also legitimate (= in accordance with the higher norm). The will alone (positive law) can never produce valid laws. Logically:

&endash; legitimate + legal = valid

&endash; legitimate + not legal = valid

&endash; not legitimate + legal = not valid

&endash; not legitimate + not legal = not valid

The same applies to all regulations and legal decisions based upon a law, even if the law is valid. Such a situation can occur if a certain competence supplied by a law is used for a different purpose it was originally intended or designed for (technically known as 'Détour de Pouvoir'). In such a case the law may be valid (legitimate and legal), but the decision based upon it will only be legal, and thus invalid.

What is said above about the validity of a law concerns its substance. But a law should also be valid in the formal sense, meaning that the procedure prescribed for making and passing a law must be minutely observed. If, for instance, a stage in the procedure was forgotten or skipped, then the law is formally invalid. Under natural law, however, neither of the two criteria for validity plays an important role, or even no role at all.

Natural law, however, is not really concerned with the validity of a man-made law (regardless whether it was passed under human or under positive law), for the only criterion that counts is legitimacy. This means that under natural law any law, and all decisions based on that law, will be totally ignored and overruled if the substance of that law can not meet the criterion of legitimacy. When a man-made law, or a decision based on that law, is overruled under natural law, this must be regarded as a signal to the legislature and/or the judicature that something is seriously wrong.

But even if a law, a regulation or legal decision based on that law, is found to be valid, or at least legitimate, the application thereof in general and in particular may still not be just. In order to test a decision based on a (valid) law for its justness, it must therefore also be tested for its reasonableness and equity (ex bono et aequo). Logically:

&endash; reasonable + equitable = just

&endash; reasonable + not equitable = not just

&endash; not reasonable = not just

Note: if a previous criterion is found to be not true, the following criteria can not, need not and will not be tested!

Reasonableness and equity establish jurisprudence (precedence) because they create new rules (based on natural law) for particular cases by deducing concrete rules from abstract natural rights.

The doctrine of natural law is ruled by the presupposition that the true rules of natural law can be found through reasoning, through rational deduction. It presupposes the presence of a whole of unwritten rules of law (the absolute norms) which, independently of man, is valid. The method of deduction is therefore of the utmost importance in natural law, for it is the only method which allows new rules to be found, especially since natural law actually contains only one principle right, which is: All human beings are free. From this highest principle, all other rights (and obligations) can be deduced. The Code of Natural Law could therefore, in principle, consist of just one short article. However, in order to avoid lack of legal security, the most important deduced rights should be laid down in the Code of Natural Law.

The method of deduction, belonging to natural law, must not be confused with the method of interpretation, which belongs to man-made law. Deduction yields new rules which are still linked to the original rule, and thus to natural law itself. Interpretation, on the other hand, yields new rules which often have nothing whatsoever to do with the original rule.

Under natural law, legal decisions and conclusions will only be tested for their justness, and only using the following three criteria:

1. Legitimacy (the absolute criterion)

Determines whether a decision or conclusion is in accordance with natural law. It asks: is a natural right applicable.

2. Reasonableness (the first relative criterion)

Determines whether decision or conclusion is just in general. It asks: is it in relation to all members of society reasonable to decide thus.

3. Equity (the second relative criterion)

Determines whether a decision or conclusion is just in singular. It asks: is it in relation to all other individuals in the same position as the individual to whom the decision applies equitable to decide thus.

Note: both relative criteria may not be based on the will, but must find their justification in natural law.

All three criteria must be true for a decision or conclusion to be valid and just. Logically:

&endash; legitimate + reasonable + equitable = just

&endash; legitimate + reasonable + not equitable = not just

&endash; legitimate + not reasonable = not just

&endash; not legitimate = not just

Note: if a previous criterion is found to be not true, the following criteria can not, need not and will not be tested!

The three criteria are also closely linked to the highest principle of natural law, which justly says that all human beings are free, for they moderate this principle so that all human beings indeed can enjoy the same right to freedom: 'Every human being is free within the bounds of legitimacy, reasonableness and equity'. The absolute right to freedom is thus brought in accordance with, and applied to, reality, but without disregarding natural law.

Natural law and positive law have each their own portrayal of mankind, which are diametrically opposed to each other:

• Natural law is optimistic and states that Man is by nature good. He can therefore be free, but the necessity for some form of coordination is yet not denied.
  
• Positive law is pessimistic and states that Man is by nature bad. He can therefore not be free, but has to be led by an elite. Positive law however doesn't say whether that 'elite' itself (the politcians!) is good, or at least better.

Given the absolute character of these assertions, neither of them can be fully true, and they must be moderated.

Every human being strives for just two things in his entire life, and no more, namely:

a. Maximisation of utility;

b. Minimisation of pain.

ad a. Maximisation of utility implies two things:

i. a human being will only do those things, or act in such a way, he considers useful to himself;

ii. he tries to maximise that usefulness as much as possible.

A human being will thus do nothing which he regards as not useful to himself, but when he discovers something he considers useful to himself, he will do everything to make the most of it (wht is here called usefulness, was called 'lust' by Plato). Every human being thus only acts out of self-interest!

Given the absence of moral criteria, it is possible to put Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler on one and the same line, although their motives and underlying thoughts differed. In the light of the above-said, neither of them was good nor bad, they only did what they considered useful to themselves. In other words: they acted as human beings.

Mother Theresa saw it as her task in life to help the poorest of the poorest. Her motives were of a religious nature, and the underlying thought was that it is good to help poor people. In reality though, she only did what she did, because she found it useful to herself, it was in her own interest to act the way she did (maybe to secure a place in heaven for herself), and for no other reason!

Adolf Hitler saw it as his task in life to clean the German(ic) people of foreign elements and to create "Lebensraum" for them. His motives were worldly, and the underlying thought was that it was good to create a people of 'Übermenschen'. In reality, however, he only did what he did, because he found it useful to himself, it was in his own interest to act the way he did (maybe to secure a place in history for himself), and for no other reason!

One of the many problems we face today is that of what is called pointless or useless violence, which however does not exist. This form of violence may indeed be useless to others (wherefore they don't use it), but most certainly not to those who employ it (otherwise they would leave it). One can thus not rout 'useless violence' by simply putting the culprits behind bars, but only by (first) finding out what makes this type of violence useful to them. In plain terms: not the symptoms should be fought, but the disease itself. This applies to all forms of crimes and all other forms of misbehaviour.

What is erroneously called pointless or useless violence, should correctly be called immoral or illegitimate violence. This means that natural law is able to react to this type of violence, and eventually ban it.

In a purely scientific manner it is simply impossible to establish what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong. Thereby, norms (which contain what's right and what's wrong) change over times. For instance, during the early ages of our history, slavery was considered a good thing which was fully accepted, but this view later slowly changed, and slavery is now justly regarded as wrong or bad, and (thus) unacceptable (to natural law slavery has always been illegitimate and thus immoral).

Whether someone or something is good or bad can only be determined by the human conscience and (what is morally acceptable) by reason. The often heard assertion "He has no conscience" is untrue, impossible even, because having a conscience is the essence of being a human being: no conscience, no human being. Every human being has therefore a conscience. If, however, the strive for usefulness of some kind and the maximisation thereof becomes stronger than the conscience, then this can result in undesired, immoral or even criminal behaviour, often without regret.

This form of criminal behaviour differs from criminal behaviour resulting from mental illnesses, from that resulting from desperation or from an emergency (which is generally not punishable under natural law), and that resulting from a simple mistake or misjudgement.

Given what is said above, it is the human conscience that prevents us from crossing the line.

Positive law is the result of the pure will of the politicians, and is solely based on what those politicians find useful for themselves. They will never make or pass any law which they consider not to be to their own advantage, but they will only make and pass a law they find beneficial to themselves, however stupid, unnecessary and unexecutable such a law may be (the object of their desire is often not the contents of the law, but the law in itself). And because they regard making and passing such laws useful to themselves, they will contuinue to do so. In short: politicians regard making laws as useful to themselves, and they maximise this usefulness or utility by making as many laws as possible (and through that choke the whole society).

How Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler would be judged under and by positive law can never be said with certainty: this depends on the persons (politicians) who have made the laws. Since positive law is man-made law, every state, every regime has its own system of positive law, and every system differs as to its contents from all the others. To the legal system in Nazi-Germany, which was based on positive law, the holocaust (ethnic cleansing) was fully acceptable and even seen as an laudable cause.

Natural law on the other hand, being based on reason (it is a rule of conduct which is inherent in man's nature (conscience) and discoverable by reason alone), considers freedom, justice and righteousness as the highest good and tries to maximise these values. Not by making as many laws as possible, for laws are not regarded as useful, but by writing only those rules of behaviour and the reactions in case of non-compliance, which are absolutely necessary, thus guaranteeing the highest level of freedom without making any sacrifices to security.

There are in fact two reasons why laws are considered a necessary evil:

1. the rules of natural law form a natural part of Man, so that the contents of natural law can be discovered by every human being (you could have known that ...);

2. laws conflict with the principle of freedom (too many of them anyway): individual liberty and respect are sacred and they may never be hindered by any government without a just(ified) reason based on the higher norm.

This means a lot of open norms (typical of a system under natural law), which must be filled in and then applied by the judge as required and appropriate, so that justice will truely be served. This implies that anyone who wants to become a judge under natural law must meet very high requirements!

Some assert that open norms create legal insecurity because the rulings of different judges will differ in regard to the same types of cases. This is not true, for,

1. there are no like cases, for all cases are different, and

2. judges are supposed to communicate with each other, so that each one of them knows what the ruling of his collegue has been in a near similar case.

Natural law is eternal, unchangeable and just law, given to Man by Nature (or God, as some prefer to say). Neither natural law itself nor its contents can be influenced by human beings. It is the highest law and therefore transcends positive law. There is thus only one (system of) natural law which is as old as mankind, the contents of which can be discovered by every human being.

Given the fact that natural law contains the natural (or inalienable human) rights, it must therefore be assumed that Mother Theresa would be judged as good by and under natural law, while Adolf Hitler would be judged as bad, though both only acted as human beings. Their strive for what they considered useful to themselves, and the consequent maximisation thereof, was of a pure human nature, but in the case of Adolf Hitler, conscience and reason (natural law) made unequivocally clear that his strive was immoral and thus utterly unacceptable, and should be deemed a major crime. It was not without reason that the Nuremberg trials took place under natural law!

Regardless whether good or bad, the laws in Nazi-Germany were valid laws. So if the trials had taken place with positive law as the starting point, no Nazi criminal could ever have been punished. A like situation arose after the collapse of the German Democratic Republic in connection with the shooting and killing of people who had tried to flee to West-Germany. These trials also had to be conducted under natural law, for under positive law, the GDR law that gave the border guards permission to shoot and if necessary kill fugitives was valid law.

ad b. Minimisation of pain implies that a human being will do everything that lies in its power to avoid pain by responding to a stimulus. In order to survive he will either act or not act. Again: self-interest.

This knowledge is often used to condition people, that is to teach them a certain behaviour (often against their own will) by rewarding them if they comply and by punishing them if they resist. In short: desired behaviour is rewarded and undesired behaviour is punished. One type of punishment is inflicting a certain measure of pain as a stimulus. Indoctrination is a very subtle form of conditioning, aimed at the mind, at the way of thinking, only. Torture is also based on inflicting pain as a stimulus, with the object to make people give away information against their will ('if I tell, then pain will stay away').

Lately the discussion has flared up again, whether it is allowed to smack and spank children by way of punishment when they continue to behave badly. Of course it is: this is just a normal way of teaching unwilling and rebellious children to behave themselves if anything else has failed.

However, smacking and spanking may be used for educational purposes only, and may never lead to child abuse or maltreatment: no harm may ever be done to a child! This is unnecessary, for a pat with a finger on the cheek is often already enough to bring a stubborn child into line. If not, a box on the ears may produce the desired effect, and if that doesn't work, then the last resort is to take such a child across one's knees for a spanking. One can/ may not go any further than that without the risk of maltreating the child: this would be a major crime under natural law.

It must also be well understood that smacking and spanking is the exclusive prerogative of the child's parents or guardians alone: nobody else (including teachers at schools) is allowed to use any form of (fysical or mental) violence against children as a form of punishment.

The conclusion of all that is said above must be that the majority of the human beings are good, because their strive for usefulness is under full control of their conscience, as a result of which they consider bringing damage to (the freedoms of) others as bad and not in their own interest. They are therefore morally and fysically free (not jailed).

To some human beings, though, their strive for usefulness (lust) is stronger than their conscience, through which they may be tempted to undesired, immoral or even criminal behaviour. Such people are therefore not morally free, and will at a certain moment also cease to be fysically free (removed from society by getting locked up).

In regard to the application of law, it would therefore be better to consider a human being as neither good nor bad, but as neutral. This also allows to treat criminal cases from an unprejudiced and unbiased point of view.

It should be noted though, that not all behaviour which (by some) is considered "undesired, inappropriate or immoral" is punishable, for everybody has the natural right to behave the way he likes, regardless of the subjective norms of others, as long as this behaviour does not infringe on the (objective) natural rights of those others. This means that no behaviour may ever cause unjustified damage to the mind, body or goods of any other. In short:

Don't do any harm to your neighbour;
having understood this well,
do as you please!

Virtually all countries suffer from obsolete legal (and other) systems, which have often fully lost their transparency. These legal systems (organisation, procedures) are based on 'ancient' traditions, and thus often so complicated that even experienced lawyers have trouble finding their way to the competent court, and moreover get lost in a jungle of prescribed procedures with their entangled rules. Traditions are fine and should be kept as long as they are valuable, but once they have turned into some kind of folklore that causes more damage than good, they should immediately be done away with. This applies to legal traditions especially.

Modernisation and simplification of the whole legal system (organisation, procedures, codes of law, other laws and regulations), turning it at the same time into a system of natural law, results not only in a truely righteous legal system, but also in a more flexible one, with far less, and far less detailed, laws and regulations. This proces will make the system (more) transparent for lawyers and citizens alike, without sacrifising legal security.

Designing a modern legal system with a simple yet effective and efficient organisation and easy to follow transparent procedures, that fits the modern age, is not that difficult. Where there is a will, there is a way, but to the disadvantage of the citizens the politicians (yes, them again) have neither the will nor the courage to make any changes. And in the rare case that there is a (good) will, it goes the wrong way, as is common in politics. One often gets the impression that the obsolete, complex and chaotic legal systems are only maintained to keep lawyers off the streets and to guarantee them magnificent careers with a lot of power! But all that has absolutely nothing to do with justice.

The organisation of a modern legal system could look as follows:

1. The Court of First Instance:

There are only three of these courts:

• Administrative Court, for administrative cases (disputes between a citizen and the administration as such);
  
• Criminal Court, for criminal cases (crimes and transgressions);
  
• Civil Court, for civil cases (disputes between two citizens, or between a citizen and the administration acting as a civil party).

Each of these courts consist of one or more chambers, with each chamber having its own exclusive jurisdiction. For instance, the Criminal Court will have a chamber which deals with major crimes, one which deals with minor crimes and a third which deals with simple breaches of the rules. So there are no courts of special jurisdiction, only chambers!

Note 1: The terms 'major crime' and 'minor crime' have a different meaning in natural law then they have in positive law.

Note 2: Most, if not all, states consider not paying taxes a crime. Refusal to pay taxes (which in some cases may even be justified) doesn't make anyone a criminal though, but only creates a dispute between the administration and a citizen. Tax disputes are therefore dealt with by a chamber of the Administrative Court, and not by a chamber the Criminal Court!

These chambers sit in fixed locations within the jurisdictions (counties) of the Appeal Courts as local chambers of a district court, but there can also be itinerant chambers, who travel to different parts of their districts.

2. The Court of Appeal

The first court of appeal from the administrative, criminal and civil courts. The Court of Appeal, which may have three separate chambers, re-investigates a case and can confirm or quash the verdict of a first instance court. The opinions rendered by the Court of Appeal are taken as precedents for legal rulings in the lower courts, so that uniform application may be achieved.

Courts of Appeal sit in fixed locations within their own counties.

3. The Court of Cassation (or Session)

This court is the highest judicial authority, and guards the unity in the administration of justice and in the application of laws. It also acts as the appeal court from the Court of Appeal (and thus the final court of appeal). As a cassation court, it only checks for errors in the procedures (technicalities) of the Courts of Appeal. If any are found, the verdict is annulled and the case is referred back to the Court of Appeal for retrial, else the ruling will be confirmed.

There is only one national Court of Cassation, which usually sits in the capital.

4. The High Court of Justice (the legal Institute)

(See the next chapter for a detailed description of this Institute).

This court is the supreme court of appeal. It's Chamber for Human Law acts as the safety valve outside (or above) the legal system, especially in case of suspicion of a miscarriage of justice. Appeal is not possible until after the complete procedure within the legal system has been run through, including the Court of Cassation in the case of assumed technicalities. If the Institute confirms the verdict of the Court of Appeal, then the case is closed. If not, it refers the case back to the Appeal Court together with its conclusion.

In addition, the Institute has a Chamber for Natural Law for the citizens and other residents of the member nations of the League of Independent and Oppressed Nations in Europe, and a Chamber for Arbitration, which settles disputes that have arisen between the member nations of the League.

4.3.3. Codes of Law, other Laws and Regulations

The existing Codes of Law should undergo the same proces of modernisation and simplification as the organisation and the procedures, whereby it is best to start fromn scratch. The existing Codes must be completed with a Code of Natural Law (see paragraph 3.1), which is the first task of the institute, and rewritten on the basis of natural law. The same of course applies to all other laws and regulations.

Voulez-vous avoir des bonnes lois? Brûlez les vôtres et faites en des nouvelles!

Do you want good laws? Burn yours and make new ones!

(Voltaire)

"I beg that you will draw your chair up to the fire and favour me with some details as to your case."
"It is no ordinary one."
"None of those which come to me are. I am the last Court of Appeal."

(Scott, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The five orange pips)

Currently, virtually all European and other states combine positive law with democracy, which is utterly impossible. These democracies are not real, but bogus democracies, for they were built by politicians for politicians, and to keep the crowds calm. All current democracies are no more than wolves in sheep's clothes, and thus all assertions by the politicians that "our democacies are under attack" are humbug: something that doesn't exist, can't be attacked.

The sole reason why politicians reject democracy and natural law is that both put the power where it actually belongs. in the hands of the people, while positive law supplies all power to the politicians alone. Which is typical of all totalitarian states.

Laws, regardless whether issued under positive law or under natural law, that are unjust or cause injustice, and/or those that are issued without the consent of the majority of the people (which is not necessarily the same as the majority in parliament) need not be obeyed (Lex injusta non est lex).

Dignitate vero ius naturale simpliciter prevalet consuetudini et constitutioni. Quecunque enim vel moribus recepta sunt, vel scriptis comprehensa, si naturali iuri fuerint adversa, vana et irrita sunt habenda.

Natural law, through its dignity, transcends the custom and the law. For everything that is accepted by custom or laid down in written laws must, if such is in conflict with natural law, be regarded as void and invalid.

(Decretum (±1140), Gratian)

There exists an eternal and immutable law which can be the object of our knowledge. The positive law is valid only to the extent that it respects the natural law and is based on morality.

(Natural Law (1994), A.P. d'Entrèves)

Not obeying laws for a legitimate reason may under positive law be (considered) illegal, but it is most certainly not illegitimate under natural law. After all, as Gratian clearly states (and many with him), natural law transcends positive law, which means that natural law is the highest law (in the relative as well as in the absolute sense).

Men make an arbitrary code, and because it is not right,
they try to make it prevail by might.

The moral law does not want any champion.
Its asserters do not go to war.
It was never infringed with impunity.

The law will never make men free;
it is men who have got to make the law free.
They are the lovers of law and order,
who observe the law when the government breaks it.

(Henry David Thoreau)

Given all that was said above, the conclusion must be that people today face two major hazards or threats in regard to their rights and freedoms:

1. Restrictions or even complete loss of the natural (or inalienable human) rights;

As a result of the increasing tendency of governments to ignore and show contempt for the natural rights, and to simply act as they please (typical of a totalitarian state);

2. No right to a renewed and indeep investigation after the final verdict, when there is a strong suspicion of a miscarriage of justice, but which is not taken seriously by the authorities.

With the result that a number of people will get jailed despite their being innocent, or that certain guilty people are acquitted.

An organisation is therefore very much required, whose task it is to guard the natural rights and to fight for freedom, justice and righteousness without any restraints. This organisation, hereafter referred to as institute, must operate on a European level and be a truely independent, impartial, trustworthy, loyal and incorruptible legal institution, in which all individuals can put their trust, knowing that their trust will never be betrayed, and that they can rely upon the institute doing anything that is in its power to supply a just and righteous solution in case they are unjustly caught and trapped within the legal or criminal system through no fault of theirs.

Since the institute, by its nature, must treat everything laid before them very discretely, it can also act as a confidential agent or trusted representative for whistle blowers, and other persons who can't say their piece without the danger of getting stuck in an akward position (to say the least), or who are left in the cold by the authorities and others, thereby giving them protection and ensureing their anonymity.

That whistle blowers indeed need the highest form of protection is proven by the reactions of the Nazi and maffia infested EU organisation. People who have blown the lid off certain cases of fraud or malversation, but who had too little knowledge to be really dangerous, were simply sacked. Others who did the same, but whose knowledge posed a real threat to certain Eurocrats, or to the rogue organisation as a whole, are now hiding out in some remote part of the world because they were (and still are) put on the maffia hitlist ...!

The institute must therefore stand outside (or above) the national legal system to enable it to act as a true safety valve. Only this way it can disregard and bypass national law (if necessary) and employ all legitimate means without exception it deems appropriate in the search for truth and justice. For instance:

• Any juridical (and if necessary a criminal) investigation can performed without restrictions, without allowing national or international laws or any other rules to obstruct the investigation(s) in whatever way.
  
• In the interest of the investigation the institute can, for instance, decide of its own accord to carry out a house search, tap a telephone, put a convicted and jailed person into its own custody (in order to withdraw him temporarily from the (claws of the) system).
  
• The institute can also operate in any foreign country, with or without the permission of that country (justice doesn't know any borders, least of all political ones); etc.

All this means that the institute must have an unlimited competence in connection with any case it investigates. The Institute is not passive, but has the right of initiative.

The Institute is the High Court of Justice for the League of Independent and Oppressed Nations in Europe, its member nations, and their citizens and residents. The Court acts as the Supreme Court of Appeal, and has three chambers, one for Arbitration, one for Natural Law and one for Human Law, and one of the objects of the Court is to promote unity in the administration of (especially) natural law.

Since the Institute grounds all its conclusions on natural law (or morality in the legal sense) alone, one of its first tasks shall therefore be to compile a universal and unrestricted Code of Natural Law. The Institute will besides perform other tasks on a European and on a national level.

1. European level

a. High Court of Justice:

i. Chamber for Arbitration

To settle any disputes which have risen between the member nations, or between a member nation and a European non-member nation.
Parties: Nations, represented by their governments.

ii. Chamber for Natural Law

To decide on issues concerning the application and/or the violation of the natural rights.
Parties: Persons, groups of persons, non-governmental organisations.

b. Tasks:

i. Coordinating task

To coordinate all activities of the Institute on European and national levels.

2. National level

a. High Court of Justice:

i. Chamber of Human Law

To deal with criminal cases when serious doubts have risen as to the correctness of the final verdict of the national judge.
Parties: Persons, groups of persons, non-governmental organisations.

b. Tasks:

i. Investigatory task

To re-investigate criminal cases which have yielded serious doubts as to the correctness of the final verdict of the national judge.

ii. Assisting task

To provide legal assistance to individual citizens and residents who have got stuck in the national legal system; to those who are not heard by the system; or to those who can not reveal dark secrets without danger to their own lives (e.g. whistle-blowers).

iii. Advisory task

To advise,

• the League of Independent and Oppressed Nations in Europe in all legal matters.
  
• the national legislators of the member nations on the necessity, desirability and substance of (new) laws to prevent conflicts with natural law beforehand.
  
• individual citizens and residents on all legal matters, in so far natural law is applicable.

iv. Watchdog task

To monitor the application of the natural rights by the European governments (including those of the non-member nations), and to react publicly in all cases a government illegitimately tries to restrict or abolish one or more natural rights or freedoms.

v. Diplomatic role

To supply diplomats, negotiators, couriers, envoys or emissaries, etc. in behalf of the League and/or of the member nations.

In case of suspicion of an incorrect final verdict (when all remedies provided by the system have been exhausted), the institute will perform an indeep investigation into the case at the request of the convicted person, his solicitor or advocate, of the public prosecutor, or of its own accord.

The investigation is done without restrictions, and aimed at the judicial investigation by the court and/or the criminal investigation by the police. If necessary, the institute will employ its own criminal investigators, for instance when the Institute is convinced that a police investigation will be hindered by legal restrictions. If the outcome of the investigation demands such, the institute will overrule the verdict of the jury and/or the sentence laid upon by the judge.

The conclusion reached by the institute takes the form of a binding public advice to the national legal or criminal authorities (courts, police, etc.), and shall be written in human language and not in legal jargon. The confirmation and execution of the conclusion shall be left to the national courts, who must comply.

A deviating conclusion has a threefold purpose:

a. an instruction to the Court to correct the initial verdict and/or sentence;

b. an advise to the Judicature to observe the conclusion in future, similar cases;

c. a signal to the Legislature to amend the law at which the conclusion is aimed.

The above implies that the Institute has the competence to create new law.

The institute shall base all its conclusions upon natural law only, for natural rights are universal, eternal and just rights, which transcend, and are independent of, national and international (man-made) laws; but, if national and international law can contribute to justice, their power shall also be used.

Note on jurisprudence under natural law

Jurisprudence, decisions that provide a precedent for similar cases, plays a major role in positive law, but is of minor importance in natural law. Positive law acknowledges the existence of similar cases for the simple reason that this injust system refuses to dig deep enough to find the differences. Positive law is 'ready-to-wear' law (one law fits all), and therefore not interested in the individual, who is regarded as just an object of law.

Similar cases don't exist however, for all cases are different. Every case must be imagined to be a celestial body, like planet earth, which consists of a large number of geological strata, with a core in the centre. On the surface two planets (cases) may look alike, but deeper down there will be differences. In order to find one or more differences between the planets or cases, it is essential to peel off stratum after stratum.

Positive law peels off one stratum, and finds no differences; maybe a second layer will be peeled off, and if it happens to be a sunny day perhaps even a third one. Then, if still no differences are found, positive law assumes this to be a similar case, and applies a previous decision to it, which is almost always to the disadvantage of the individual. This is (gross) injustice.

Natural law, on the other hand, is aimed at the individual which it regards as a subject of law. This 'made-to-measure' law pursues justice and righteousness, and therefore keeps peeling away stratum after stratum, until all the differences are found. Since the differences are often present in the core (of the case), natural continues to search, not to the core, but right through the core!

Under natural law it is quite useless (even unacceptable) to point to "a decision in a previous similar case", for natural law doesn't recognize similar cases, and therefore also no precedents. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for he gander, but under natural law both birds are regarded as different until proven otherwise, for the sake of doing justice to the individual.

For its services the institute will demand a fee in accordance with the client's pocket. This means that nations and the well-to-do will have to pay a considerable sum for the use of its services, but that needy people will only be requested to pay a small fee, or even no fee at all. After all, the objective of the institute is to serve freedom, justice and righteousness, and not to enrich itself at the cost of others, least of all at the cost of people who barely have enough money to maintain their families and themselves.

The institute as described gives thus cause for a thorough spring cleaning. The numerous civil rights organisations, for instance, can be dissolved and become an integral part the institute (actually they must be dissolved, for through their lack of knowledge and amateurism they have made a real mess of their job and caused a lot of injustice). Such an operation (of centralization) has a number of important advantages. To name a few:

• there is one central organisation where people can apply for legal help and advice in case of hopeless situations;
  
• the advice given is always of a professional standard, and of the same tenor in similar cases, which improves legal security.
  
• the costs of financial government support drops considerably.

Since the institute shall base all its actions, decisions and conclusions upon natural law alone, (though the power of national or international law may also be used if it contributes to justice), the members of the institute must consist mainly of lawyers and others who are advocates of, and experts in, natural law; who have sufficient knowledge of national and international law; who are in the possession of the required skills; and who acknowledge, and therefore reject, positive law as being hostile to man and to mankind. They must also be of the highest moral standards, impeccable, highly disciplined, and above all endowed with a natural feeling for justice and righteousness. But no career hunters (for there won't be any career to hunt for), and not politically correct (for that would prevent justice from being applied).

The institute will provide an education in law and a training in legal skills to potential members, give students of law the opportunity to get familiar with its working methods and to gain experience in the application of natural law in practice.

Since politics and religion always stand in the way of an impartial, unprejudiced investigation and judgement, the members may not overtly show any political and religious affiliations. The potential members must agree to, and existing members must comply with, the following special rules:

1. Members may have no political affiliations

Given the necessity to maintain full independence and impartiality, no member of the institute is allowed to also be a member of any political party, nor publicly or privately advertize his sympathies for any political party, nor publicly or privately support any political party in whatever manner. A member may of course have a personal preference for one or other party and vote for that party, which is natural (or inalienable human) right, but that is something that may only concern himself, and may never affect his decisions made as a member of the institute.

But every member is allowed, even obliged, to overtly support the strive for independence or cultural and linguistic self-determination of any nation, because these are universal and inalienable natural rights, which have nothing to do with (party) politics.

The above of course only applies to those nations who are not yet democracies, for a democracy is characterized by the absence of political parties. The formation of such parties is prohibited because to their destructive influence on a democracy.

2. Members may have no religious affiliations

What has been said above about a member’s relation to politics equally applies to religion. Every member has of course the full freedom to profess the religion of his or her choice and attend kirk services, for this too is a natural right. But since religion is something very personal, very private, a member’s religion may never ever affect people of other or of no beliefs, and no decision the institute or an individual member ever makes, may be based upon whatever religious views or prescriptions, but upon natural law only, which is of an eternal and universal character.

Besides, in a democracy there is a strict separation between religion (private life) and the state (public life).

3. New members must be independent

What was said above also applies the other way around. People in public functions (civil servants), and those who work for big(ger) private companies may never be accepted as members, so as to prevent any suspicions or accusations of partiality, biassed behaviour, conflicting interests, etc.

The institute may never run the risk that any of its members shall ever be pressed by his employer (be that a public institution, e.g. a government, or a private company, e.g. an oil company) to make any decision in favour of that institution or company. All decisions made by the (members of the) institute may only be made for the good of freedom, justice and righteousness, whether or not that decision suits a government or a private company.

The institute can only perform its roles well under the conditions that the institute,

• is an independent institute which takes a neutral and impartial stand in regard to politics and religion;
  
• is loyal to the universal natural rights or principles, to which each member must swear to be and remain true;
  
• is recognized as sovereign institute by Scotland and all other member nations of the League of Independent and Oppressed Nations in Europe;
  
• is fully protected by the Scottish Head of State and/or Government;
  
• is granted full and unlimited competence in connection with any juridical and/or criminal investigation;
  
• is granted full immunity from the administrative, criminal and civil jurisdiction of Scotland and of all other member nations of the League.

The institute will take the form of an Order of Chivalry under the patronage and protection of an influential and dedicated person, preferably of noble descend and a Scot. This supplies the institute with its own readily recognisable identity and authority, and prevents it from being, or becoming, “yet another human rights organisation” veiled in anonimity. This also allows to bind the members more tightly to the principles of morality or natural law (can also be found in the ancient Code of Chivalry) and the Order’s own strict rule, in order to prevent any abuse of power beforehand.

The Order will start as a small, modest organisation with only a small number of members, but should soon thereafter expand rapidly and contribute to the realisation of a fair and just society for all citizens, by supporting especially those people who are unjustly caught and trapped within the legal or criminal system.

A description of the organisation of the Order, which will have its own recognisable name, , has already been completed.

 The picture below shows an overview of a political and legal system, which on the one hand is simple, but on the other hand efficient and effective. Since this system recognizes and acknowledges the natural fact that all power is in the hands of the people, it is also truely democratic.

Note the strict separation of the three powers, and the fact that the legal Institute stands outside or above the system. It can therefore neither be influenced nor absorbed by the (members of the) system, thus allowing it to independently and impartially judge all cases laid before it. In a truely just and righteous way thus. 

The second picture shows shows the difference between a nation's membership of the League before and after the independence of that nation.