Legal Equality, Of Statements

CWB Legal Equality, Of Statements V1 [2019.04.01] [Max Data Close]

Warning: May take more legal work, although simpler to process [?]
Warning: May increase prison population turnaround [?]

1.Why

  1. I believe there is an imbalance of justice assessment between plaintiffs and those charged in the system of New Zealand.
  2. I state you should be required by law to investigate this scientifically if it is an issue law raised for proof requiring scientific verification and is warranted.

2.1 Resolution, Basic.

  1. I request to resolve this:
  2. Every logical sentence may only have 1 clause of logic statement.
  3. There should be a maximum of 4 logical statements in groupings proceeded by numbers
  4. That both plaintiffs and those charged have equal amount of language alphabetical characters in their charge or counter-claim

2.2 Resolution, Exact.

  1. According to Google Information Science theory.
  2. Each Logical statement would be a maximum of 11 words,
  3. 4 sentences max per paragraph
  4. 5 Paragraphs max per charge

3. Timing Considerations

  1. The engaged parties are to communicate data before seeing the judge or in possibly step-time-frame or otherwise.
  2. That any step-time-frame work done is not done to any considered unfair delay.
  3. They are not forced to make logical statement replies in under 5 minutes in full capacity or 20 minute at variable partial capacity inline with what may be human mind constructs or as better advised by clinicians

4. Legal Justice.

  1. I suspect this may help improve false imprisonment, awareness, clarity, justice for examples.
  2. People should have these rights for a pending, new, existing case