Legal technicality

Paradoxically and ironically, until this evident technicality is fixed, the victim in severe cases, but in principle all cases, feels the same ‘exclusion’, from the same deficiency, in the same structural measures implemented, with which the criminal actually can thrive – predominantly and persistently in exclusion, but able to avoid blame,  and responsibility to reimburse stolen money, and prosecution.


Furthermore, given the purpose is to apply the Law, and therefore communicate it, the entire premise of my notion (and request for clarity, recourse and intervention) is most clearly seen in the grammar of our languages – the very fundament of communication, and therefore the Law, which is now confounding us!

There is unquestionably a legal tangle somewhere – a ‘bewildering befuddlement’. It’s not a Tower of Babel, nor an edict of a Tyrant that needs deciphering – but just the letter of the Law.

In all its splendour of pomp, wigs, gowns, gavels and gander, the pedantry to the letter and rhetorical performances – the minor details are exposed as examples of precedent and practice. The Prosecution’s pleasure, the Defence’s delight – pure and simple, no more, no less – Everyman’s Right.

No offence intended, no libel nor insensitivity, nor joke or pun, but lack of attention to my words has already got me into deep water. My apologies , Your Honour, members of the Jury, fellow citizens.

You see, it does matter what words you use, because the subtleties of speech and their innuendo  can leave you wide-open to criticism and misunderstanding.

Not so in the corridors of power and justice. The etiquette of expression belongs to the power invested in those privileged, correct, proper and faithful to the dignity they deserve from whom they are allowed to guide and judge. It would be unjust to take the Scales of Justice to mete out misjudgements, therefore; and by the same count, unwise of us benefactors to take the Sword of Damocles and without due diligence, carelessly cut through all the red tape.

So let’s keep to the point and the basics.


  • The linguistic basis of understanding ‘who did what’ in the notion of blame in language is indisputably clear:
  • Consider the grammatical rule of the Active to Passive transformation of ‘mood’ in a sentence (‘a meaning or notion’), and specifically how the action (verb) is described with different ‘mood’ or mode of emphasis….

ACTIVE: expresses clearly a complete grammatical sentence: who (Subject) did (verb) what (object).

BUT, transformation to

PASSIVE: now expresses a complete grammatical sentence: what (subject) was done (verb).


NB! What was the ACTIVE subject (e.g. ‘ I’) now becomes the PASSIVE ‘agent’ = [by whom (agent)] – notably the agent (‘me’) is not even necessary to formulate a complete sentence grammatically. The emphasis is now simple ‘what is done’ (and we don’t even need to know grammatically by whom – so no one is to blame – semantically!).

Given    Active: I wrote this (S + active V + O) = you know who to blame – irrefutably and  grammatically fact, grammatically speaking. The sentence/notion is complete.


Passive: This was written (S + passive V) = you know someone is to blame  –  but the grammar ‘has stolen’ the culprit or the ‘agent’ because it is not important to describe who did it. The sentence is complete, BUT the notion is NOT.


this distinction leaves us to ponder the notion – ‘who really wrote it?’ Or,

Who is to blame?

Herein lies the puzzle, but as much confounded by the law of grammar, as by the contortions of the Law of the Land!

We must communicate our joint interests, citizens and State alike to solve this puzzle, and in the Wild West of cybercrime where there are no rules, only anarchy. Do as you please and please as you do, who cares? A binary option.


We learn our languages to communicate our professional competences. We consume and we judge according to our authorities of grammar and the Law, respectively and harmoniously, as we express those competences. Ignorance of these authorities causes imbalance, unfairness, trouble and strife, and mutual challenges.

  • Upon whom rests the notion of default, according to the Latin maxim ignorantia legis non excusat, with which we challenge the judge in our in favour?
  • Upon whom rests the notion of default, according to ignorantia legis non excusat, with which the victim challenges us to waiver?

To solve either of these riddles we communicate and judge:

  • What, though, is the consequence of imperfect grammar?


  • What, though, is the punishment for the crime of ignorance?

Fixed variables

Yet, this is no rocket science, some unfathomable quadratic equation,

With an elegant solution to which our knowledge is elusive!

“We are all innocent ‘til proven guilty” –  another notion,

To which we all agree, makes knowledge conclusive!

Ignorantia legis non excusat

Case closed.

Now that is an elegant solution, looks neat too.

Unfixed variables

And now to the Law, likened to an Ass, by none other than the Victorian social commentator with an inventively laborious way of revealing the social injustices, contradictions and hypocrisies of his day.

Dickens. He might well have come up with the Ass, in what was once before him, an outpost that dished out Roman Law as we know it today.


There is, therefore, no room for manoeuvre really, if the letter of the law is written. It’s down in black and white, a binary option.

  • “To be, or not to be blamed, Your Honour…” proffers the Donkey.
  • “By Jove! that true?” enquires the Ass.
  • “Yes, Your Honour, by my word, the honest truth, Guv!” reaffirms the Donkey.

The riddle of the Honourable Judge Blame is simply –

Who is to blame? and Who is to judge?


“I am the Word” – Truth.

Some 500 years before that, Socrates still today our guiding light of wisdom, thought and reason – the great abstractor, the great philosopher, professed he was opposed to the written language.

He was all in for discourse, and must have really burned the ears of his all-grade-A student Plato, who wrote extensively. That must have been one helluva battle. What remains of it is, ironically, the written word of the witness after disobeying his mentor!

The written word is more permanent than the spoken word – as is the letter of the law – and mere hearsay is subject to misinterpretation, if you are subjectively, or selectively deaf, or even stubborn.

It’s ‘gospel truth’ – and sticks. Like a stubborn Ass or a stupid Donkey,  you must take a stick to the Law, and persuade, with kindness and respect the into Donkey submission.

From the collection ‘Black-Box Blues’  (NK, art work by BA 24.07.2020)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.