An open letter to the judges as the conscience of humanity



[10 April 2024]


It is over half a century since I started my day by reading the news. Also, since 1970, I have archived important news and reports but have never faced so many different warnings as in the past two decades.
Living conditions for humans on Earth are becoming more complicated yearly, and the future looks gloomy. To realise the seriousness of the situation, pay attention to the remarks of the UN Secretary-General in December 2023, on the occasion of the organisation's 75th anniversary.
A special report by Reuters on threats to judges in the United States is another testament to the claim of the world's deteriorating conditions.
When I read the Reuters report, I emailed its link to a friend in the US and wrote:
"It's rare for me to be deeply terrified, and this report deeply terrified me."
Just a few days before the publication of the Reuters Special Report, I was horrified to see that the name and face of a judge were not shown for his safety in a case review of a criminal gang in the Netherlands.

My purpose in stating these points, which you are also aware of, is not to repeat them but to call for an end to the current situation that causes things to worsen over time.
The role of a journalist, me as a philosopher, and you as a judge in changing the current situation is crucial. Without proactive cooperation between us, no constructive change will take place.
Indeed, "Scholastic Philosophy" and Realpolitik deprived us of what we needed for education, as the UDHR defines in Article 26, Paragraph Two.
Like any other human, you and I had the right to enjoy an education that directed us to "the full development of the human personality" and strengthened our "respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms".
Since December 1948, when governments accepted the UDHR one after another, such education has become an obligation to every nation.
Despite signing the UDHR, it became a decorative document because it was neither understood nor fulfilled.
Behind this ignorance stood philosophy in the first place and Realpolitik after it.

Remember your professors in law school who put forward a few correct philosophical questions like these:
"What is justice? What are the goals of a decent society? How should a citizen be educated? Why should I obey the law, and what are the limits, if any, to my obligation? What constitutes the ground of human dignity? Is it freedom? Is it virtue? Is it love? Is it friendship?" [Professor Steven Smith's lecture in Political Science at Yale University. See Volume Four, page 156 of my books.]
Of course, your Academic Philosophers talked a lot. Still, they didn't answer the essential questions appropriately. When you graduated, you suffered a profound grasp of "rights, justice, morality, order" and their relationship with the law.
Aren't you familiar with such reasoning from your professors at the university when they tried to justify their ignorance about abstract topics in the following way?:
"A famous mathematician once said, 'Every question must have a correct answer, for every question one answer.' ... Among the great thinkers there is profound disagreement over the answers to even the most fundamental questions concerning justice, concerning rights, concerning liberty. In political philosophy, it is never a sufficient answer to answer a question…" [Professor Steven Smith's lecture. Ibid. Page 166]

I resemble a judge as humanity's conscience. However, that conscience cannot fulfil its duty when imprisoned.
Scholastic Philosophy has confined the entire legal system, including judges, by depriving them of essential tools: transparent principles and clear definitions.
Until you, as a judge, accept to play the role of a "Captive Conscience ", things will worsen for humanity.
Your imprisonment causes the rule of non-laws and the omnipresence of injustice.
If you don't try to free yourself from that captivity, your life and other lives will be at stake.

At that time, you were trapped in an actual situation when you bought your Professors' reasoning and accepted ignorance as a virtue.
In Professor Steven Smith's lecture, more or less, you can recognise what they sold you and what you purchased it:
"Among the great thinkers there is profound disagreement over the answers to even the most fundamental questions concerning justice, concerning rights, concerning liberty. In political philosophy, it is never a sufficient answer to answer a question with a statement 'because Plato says so,' or 'because Nietzsche says so.' There are no final authorities in that respect in philosophy because even the greatest thinkers disagree profoundly with one another over their answers, and it is precisely this disagreement with one another that makes it possible for us, the readers today, to enter into their conversation.
We are called upon first to read and listen, and then to judge 'who's right?' [and] 'how do we know?' The only way to decide is not to defer to authority, whoever's authority, but to rely on our own powers of reason and judgment, in other words the freedom of the human mind to determine for us what seems right or best. Okay?" [Professor Steven Smith's lecture. Ibid. pp. 157-158]

I analysed Professor Smith's statement in Volume Four of my work piece by piece, and there, I revealed the failures of Scholastic Philosophy.
In a nutshell, I repeat what I described in that book: Equalising the authority of principle with the authority of men is a fallacy.

In science, we must have "Scientific Authority", which consists of "Experiment and Mathematics".
In True Philosophy, "Right Authority" is added to "Scientific Authority," and together, they make "Wise Authority."
"Right Authority" consists of Morality and the UDHR.
The scholastic philosophers' mind laziness caused them to justify their ignorance by equalising the authority of principle with the authority of men and selling us the lack of "Authority" as a privilege or virtue.

It would be best not to buy such a delusion as a virtue at the University when you study the philosophy of law. You had the right to protest and demand the precise meanings of abstract concepts like justice.
You should have told your professor: If "justice" exists, it must have meaning.
If it doesn't exist, why do we talk about it?
How can we exercise justice when we don't know it?

If you asked me at the beginning of the 21st century what "rights, justice, order, and morality mean, I confessed: I don't know, and I am utterly perplexed to understand them, but I am trying to come out of confusion and find their meanings and relationships.

Confession to perplexity and ignorance demands moral courage, which is a virtue.
Academic philosophers are deprived of the virtue of confession to perplexity, and instead of accepting their confusion, they justify it.
Their neglect caused you to buy a Non-law instead of a "True Law," take the Capitalcracy instead of True Democracy, and equalise Democracy with the "ballot box."
As was mentioned in a democratic society:
"Equalising Democracy with the 'ballot box' and the 'willpower of the majority' is a fatal fallacy that has led to the tyranny of the majority.
The majority's despotism, if it didn't lead society toward an individual autocracy, can lead to Capitalcracy instead of Democracy. …
The votes of the majority at that time could guarantee the minority's right —even one individual citizen— that election occurs in a wise atmosphere where the voters can choose between wise and wiser. Only wise politicians with fully developed personalities can understand and enforce the UDHR."

The bitter fact is that Realpolitik is deeply poisoned and will only become more poisoned over time.
The increasing complexity of human society and the inability of traditional politicians to solve people's problems have led some wealthy or very impudent individuals to enter the political arena.
Tired of conventional politicians' inabilities, people are forced to turn to these more audacious newcomers hoping for bettering.
This group of politicians, who are less knowledgeable than traditional politicians, has no plan other than to destroy existing institutions without being able to construct better organisations instead of the old ones. They attack traditional politicians, journalists, and judges.

Deprived of the UDHR mandatory education, ordinary citizens are exposed to mind poisoning, as a judge warned.
The mind manipulation industry, or Public Relations, began at the beginning of the 20th century and has taken on terrifying dimensions gradually.
An American judge correctly warned of the toxic role of Public Relations in the 1930s, but politicians ignored it. Today, the effects of that poisoning are visible.
Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt about Edward Bernays and fellow PR pioneer Ivy Lee:
"professional poisoners of the public mind" who exploit "foolishness and fanaticism and self-interest."
Realpolitik ignored Judge Frankfurter's warning and allowed P.R. men to develop their activities in the U.S. and beyond.
Here, you can refresh your memory about Edward Bernays, the Father of Modern Mind Manipulation.
Common sense and all security protocols demand that every threat is dangerous and must be taken seriously.
Unfortunately, the U.S. authorities did not take Judge Frankfurter's warning about poisoning the public mind seriously. The tragic consequences of ignoring his warnings show themselves in Capitalcracy, where wealth guides one toward exerting control over others with the help of Realpolitik's apparatus —as Donald Trump did.

Judge Frankfurter's statement about public relations practitioners as "professional poisoners of the public mind" raises this question: What does the public mind's poisoning mean, and how could a mind be poisoned?
The answer is:
We are born with the capacity to be kind to each other, and the appropriate education flourishes this ability. A poisoned mind deprived of proper education hates other humans and thinks only about the mind owner's interests.
Paragraph Two of Article 26 of the UDHR describes the traits of appropriate education. That paragraph states, "It[education] shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups"...
Lack of such mandatory education causes misunderstanding to take the place of "understanding"; intolerance appears instead of "tolerance", and instead of "friendship", hatred dominates among all nations, racial or religious groups.

Public Relations practitioners have always served their employers' self-interest and have had no moral scruples. They strongly supported Machiavelli's philosophy: "The end justifies the means."
For such similarity, an editor and publisher branded Edward Bernays "the young Machiavelli of our time." [See The Father of Spin, by Larry Tye, page 63 ]

P.R. men use propaganda as a tool. Lying and labelling are inseparable parts of that tool. For instance, the United Fruit Company's interests demanded the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Guatemala, so the country's president should be labelled as "communist," which could justify a coup d'état in that country in 1954.

Judge Frankfurter discovered disinformation as a collection of lying and labelling in P.R.'s propaganda. He forecasted the destructive effect of such poisoning methods on a democratic society.
If we are honest, we should admire Judge Frankfurter's foreseeing ability because, in less than a hundred years of his statement, our democracies face lying, labelling, and hate.

Frankfurter was a strong defender of freedom of speech and press. He believed that people have the right to receive and disseminate information freely.
Frankfurter was concerned that public relations and propaganda could be used to manipulate public opinion and undermine democracy.

Propaganda aims to impose views or policies on people, not by argument and persuasion, but by using psychological devices and playing on emotions and prejudices.
People must love what serves big business interests and hate what threatens big companies' interests because ordinary people are stupid and can make trouble for themselves and others(businesses). Thus, only the owners of successful companies can provide total society's interests.
In an interview with BBC, Edward Bernays' younger daughter Anne said:
"He[Edward Bernays] was doing it for the American way of life and when to which he was devoted so this is sincerely devoted, and yet he felt the people were really pretty stupid and that is the paradox. If you don't leave it up to the people themselves but force them to choose what you want them to choose, however, suddenly, then it is not a democracy anymore. It is something else it is being told what to do it's being. It's that old authoritarianism."
With such a mindset and reasoning, the interests of big companies and banks define a law, and that law defines human rights.

True Philosophy provides a contradictory explanation. It says human rights define a law, and law supplies Order and Justice for everybody.

As you see, we have two descriptions of the origin of law.
The absence of "True Philosophy" allowed its competitor(selfishness) to exert control over every institution of human society under the name of the law, which is non-law indeed.
"Selfishness" was that poison Judge Frankfurter recognised in Public Relations and warned. One more reading of his statement would be helpful:
"professional poisoners of the public mind" who exploit "foolishness and fanaticism and self-interest."

A mind deprived of the UDHR-demanded education cannot understand why things are worsening. Many facts and figures prove this claim and inform us humanity is going in the wrong direction.
Sometimes, one cannot believe it is awakened, and what is seen is not a nightmare. For instance, notice the incredibility of U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth's statement in the Reuters Special Report:
"We had never even contemplated that one of us could get killed in this job." The current situation in the U.S.A. and other parts of the world originates from ignoring the warnings of thinkers like Judge Felix Frankfurter —despite common sense and all security protocols — and not paying attention to the importance of True Philosophy as the school of dedication to Wisdom that helps us understand our world.
Also, True Philosophy leads us to see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a serious text, not a decorative document for mere admiration.

The experience of COVID-19 proved how our safety depends on another human's health. One wrongdoing, such as eating a wild animal infected with a virus in a city or an accident in a laboratory in the same town in China, caused a human disaster.
If you are a judge outside of the U.S.A., don't suppose what happens in the U.S. cannot threaten you because you are safe in your country. Such a presumption is very dangerous, and if you think so, I must tell you: You are making a bad mistake.
When you read in the Reuters Special Report:
"Since Trump launched his first presidential campaign in June 2015, the average number of threats and hostile communications directed at judges, federal prosecutors, judicial staff and court buildings has more than tripled, according to the Reuters." This must shake you as a judge in Japan, as it did with me as a philosopher in Sweden.

Slime Moulds, my teachers tutored me on two essential things:
1. Goal-setting.
2. Coherence, Coordination and Cooperation.

I was so humble, which caused me to accept my unwisdomness and Slime Moulds' wisdom. Thus, I eagerly learned the lessons the arrogant scholastic philosophers couldn't teach me.
I suggest you —as a judge— return to the year you started studying law. In those years, you missed the philosophical concepts, and now is the time to equip yourself with the "Right Knowledge" that your professors deprived you of. By doing so, you will save yourself and other humans.
This time, don't ask for definitions of concepts like rights, order, justice, etc., from academic philosophers who are as incompetent as when you were a student.
You can learn those concepts from my professor, Slime Mould, directly and extract the meanings of rights, order, justice, etc., from those living organisms through hard work over many years, as I did. Or you can learn from me as a human more easily and quickly.

I am ready and obliged to answer your questions. Even beyond that, I am compelled to request you to equip yourself with the Right Knowledge because when you cannot distinguish non-law from the law, you fall into the trap of despotism and impose injustice upon everybody, including yourself and me.

It is the same if, as a philosopher, I cannot provide you, as a judge, with the Right Knowledge; you have the right to demand answers to your questions because when I ignore your request, I put your and other human lives at stake.
This story repeats when an honest politician doesn't try to equip himself with the Right Knowledge. Such a politician suffering from an immature personality exposes himself to abuse of power and corruption because power without wisdom causes corruption and crackdown.

Our destinies as philosophers, judges, and politicians are linked. Failure, neglect, and ignorance —no matter which of us is their origin— cause trouble for all of us and destroy ordinary humans' lives and happiness.
The failure of academic philosophy and realpolitik to fulfil their tasks is the main reason for humanity's problems.

The philosophers, judges, and politicians are committed to the Truth, the Absolute Truth. [Please consider The Odd Relationship of Reality with Truth]

My task as a philosopher is to construct the "Path of Truth" theoretically. A politician shall follow the philosophy, build the "Path of Truth" practically, and make it ready and comfortable for all humans to pace on that path without trouble.
Your duty as a judge demands turning disorder into order and injustice into justice.

Our shared duties are keeping Order, generating Justice, and exercising them among humans and between humans and nature.
I want to emphasise generating Justice because there is no Justice.
If you suppose there is "Justice" somewhere, it is a delusion; if you see it, that is an illusion.

The absence of "Justice", especially its essential element, "Preventive Justice", is a bitter reality, but we can together create "Justice" and provide "Order".

Philosophers, judges, and politicians need journalists to fulfil their duties because journalists are supervisors who discover and report disorders and injustices which appear in human society.
When we (philosophers, judges, politicians and journalists) cannot or don't want to fulfil our tasks, we will confront dangers.
Our duties are so tangled, and our interactions are so sensitive that the failure of one of us not only generates peril to other members of this collection but also puts at stake all human lives.
For instance, if a philosopher like me cannot define abstract topics and adequately describe the "right concepts", you, as a judge, cannot distinguish a law from a non-law. In such a circumstance, you comply with a non-law legislated by an alleged democratic parliament and exert injustice on innocent people.
Disorder is an inseparable element of non-law. Complying with a non-law increases the level of disorder in human society. Every disorder causes an injustice; on the contrary, every injustice creates a disorder.
Those injustices and disorders you caused, at last, will turn to you and put your life in danger as a judge.

As a philosopher, my neglect to do my duty imposes two harms on others:

1. Ordinary humans who are not philosophers, judges, politicians, or journalists cannot enjoy mandatory education, as Article 26 of the UDHR explains. Thus, they cannot achieve a fully developed personality as an essential right.
Ordinary humans with incomplete education will suffer from undeveloped personalities, which exposes their minds to manipulation.
Such citizens do not know the importance of their "Right to Sovereignty", which is the most essential right after the "Right to Life". They submit their destiny to a group of incompetent politicians who, in the best situation, are "ignorant-confused" and, in the worst state, are corrupt.

2. The honest humans who enter politics to serve humanity, because of lack of wisdom, cannot materialise their dreams and, instead of being a part of the solution, fall into the trap of Realpolitik and expose themselves to lose their sensitivity to injustice and become a part of the problem.
As mentioned above(point one), such politicians in the best situation are "ignorant-confused" and "corrupt" in the worst state.
These politicians' ignorance stops them from profoundly understanding the importance of studying the UDHR and grasping mandatory education's vital role in Article 26.
A superficial study of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights leads us nowhere.
Now, the teachers do not have sufficient knowledge of the existing concepts in the UDHR.
How can a teacher who does not understand the meaning of education in Paragraph Two of Article 26 provide such education to her students and fully develop their personalities?

Since 1948, the year the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, at least three generations of education system graduates have been deprived of the full development of the human personality worldwide.
Any generation furnishes the way for the next generation to repeat that vicious circle of ignorance: The unaware tutors cannot teach wise knowledge to their students, and poorly graduated students will be teachers for the next generation. Thus, ignorance about abstract concepts will continue.


As you see, the neglect of a philosopher like me can cause many problems for judges and politicians directly and for the rest of the human community indirectly via judiciary and politics.
How is it with you, people of the judiciary (judges, prosecutors, and the rest of the judicial staff), when you cannot accomplish your task of conscience for humanity?
My answer is:
You judges and prosecutors, in three ways, make yourselves an obstacle to constructing Order and Justice on earth: 1) Accepting non-law as law, 2) Accepting impunity, and 3) Accepting restrictions on your activities.

1. Accepting non-law as law
Like me as a philosopher, you, as a judge, commit to Truth, not to directives legislated by humans who are not dedicated to Truth.
You and I are morally obliged to reject any directive which brings disorder and injustice. But your obligation goes beyond morality and makes you legally accountable, too, because if you obey the non-laws, you deprive humanity of order and justice as everybody's rights.
Once, Thomas Jefferson said: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
Thus, an excuse like that directive is unjust but has been legislated by a democratic parliament; hence, I must obey it, make you an element of the opperssion apparatus. For instance, those German judges ignored the rights of villagers to have property —whether or not those judges were aware— they became the killer of justice instead of the creator of it.

Those German Judges decreed that people leave their homes. Issuing that legal order decreased the role of those judges from providers of justice to collaborators with a Swedish Bank and German Company, making them wealthier.

Article 17 of UDHR asserts: (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

The legal basis for destroying the villages in Germany in 2023 was a 2016 non-law legislation by the German parliament. [Click here to read more about that event]
I believe morality is the origin of law. I have proven this claim in my books and the article "Why morality must be the origin of law in human society?"
"Morality" means accepting and respecting the rights of others. Thus, any statement and action that causes us to deny and violate each other rights is an immorality.
As a judge, you shall not comply with a directive based on immorality because, without a doubt, it is a non-law.


2. Accepting impunity
If a non-law like the German directive —the "Enteignungsgesetz" (Expropriation Act) of 2016— could be the subject of discourse about Paragraph Two of Article 29 of the UDHR, and one tries to justify them for the "Common Good" impunity is a pure non-law that makes a group who are logically more responsible to all society, the irresponsible persons.
Only insane and children are legally irresponsible to violate others' rights. The reason for the legal persuing of insane persons and children could be justifying that people with mental illness or children may not have the mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. They might not grasp the concept of rights or the potential harm they cause.
However, this doesn't mean there will be no consequences for them. Someone with mental illness might still face involuntary hospitalisation, and children might face disciplinary action at home or school.
We include the leaders of countries in that group without presuming them insane or children and confronting them with the consequences of their actions, at least in that level we impose on an insane or a child who kills a man.
For instance, on 2 October 2018, Jamal Khashoggi, a well-known journalist and critic of the Saudi government, walked into the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul and disappeared there. Later, Saudi Arabia admitted they killed him in its consulate in Istanbul.
In November 2018, according to US media reports, the CIA blamed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Could an impartial judiciary system intervene in Khashoggi's case and do what it usually does when a killing case occurs?

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman enjoys impunity, and there is no legal system or judges to abrogate his impunity and disclose him to interrogation.
Khashoggi's case proves how realpolitik dominates the judiciary and deprives you, as a judge or prosecutor, of the opportunity to intervene and fulfil your duty as humanity's conscience.

Impunity, not only at the international but also at the national level, hinders a judge from performing the task he expected when he entered the judiciary.
Indeed, impunity at the international level is a natural continuation of national leaders' impurities.
The top national political leaders enjoy 1)impunity and 2)restriction of ordinary citizens' access to justice.
Considering this fact raises a question:
Why should such national leaders risk their security by trying to abolish impunity internationally?

The top national political leaders know even putting a question mark on impunity is dangerous for them and exposes them to interrogation and punishment.
As a judge, you must oppose impunity and abolish it through coordination and cooperation with your colleagues at the national and international levels.


3. Accepting restrictions on your activities
The judicial system is a sanctuary for all those who have been harmed, and it should not turn away a victim on the pretext of jurisdiction or legal limitations, which is essentially immoral.
Every victim, anywhere in the world, should be able to seek justice.
Access to justice(Preventive Justice + Compensatory Justice) for every human is as vital as access to air for breathing.
Any society must facilitate access to justice as smoothly as possible and remove all obstacles that make it problematic.
It is pure injustice if a society deprives even one person of access to justice with an excuse like law, common good or impunity.
As a judge, you must not accept such excuses. Otherwise, you will lose your role as humanity's conscience and be a component of the oppression apparatus.

As members of the judiciary system, whether judges, prosecutors, or other judicial staff, you must organise yourselves at the national and international levels to smoothly guide an oppressed individual to the appropriate section of the judiciary without causing confusion or frustration.
In other words, you are morally responsible for managing yourself to care for people who request justice.
Now, justice-seeking, in some cases, is either impossible or expensive.
It is impossible if the violators of human rights are the members of a government who enjoy impunity.
It is expensive because if a man loses the case, he must pay the judicial process fees. Poor people prefer not to take that risk and forget to seek justice.

Abrogation of impunity is the solution to the first obstacle, and the second resolution to the problem is the establishment of local juries under the supervision of a judge. The jury members would be local people, and every resident of an area would be required to participate on a rotational basis.
Victims should be able to raise their issues before the jury without paying any money. If most jury members find the complaint justified, a lawyer will take the case to relative court without the victim paying any costs. This is because if an injustice has occurred, the entire community is responsible and must bear the burden.
The link between access to justice and an individual's financial resources must be broken.

By accepting restrictions on your activities, you perpetuate injustice in society. For instance, in March 2014, the Swedish national public television broadcaster(SVT) examined a business owned by a man and his wife that targeted children's well-being.
The couple is the owner of the preschool chain and increases their wealth by starving small children.
Children between the ages of one and five, who should be well-fed, have been facing malnutrition because the owners of the chain of kindergartens have cut the children's nutrition budget as much as possible in order to make money. For example, the children only received crispbread and water instead of a nutritious breakfast.

The inaction of Swedish authorities aggravates the tragic aspect of this issue. Even though the broadcast of that program faced the reaction of other media and people, no serious action was taken by the authorities to stop the couple's business and punish them for this gross violation of the fundamental rights of children. The couple continued their occupation without any hindrance.
In April 2023, nine years after the investigative journalists revealed the couple's crime against children, the subject was brought to the media again. A newspaper on April 13, 2023, wrote:
"After Uppdrag Granskning[the name of the program in Swedish] exposed them, they changed their name to Tellusgruppen. But the name is the only thing that has changed."

Without a doubt, some parents of those children complained, but it didn't work because if it resulted, the couple couldn't continue their business, and after nine years, the health and welding of children couldn't be at stake.
Let us presume no parents complained. Where were the prosecutors in Sweden?
Such a crime against children is a crime against society. The judiciary staff should know the consequences of a couple's actions on those children's health —especially mental health.
Deliberate deprivation of food during early childhood can increase the risk of anti-social behaviour by undermining children's social development, self-esteem, and emotional well-being.
Abusing children and deliberately depriving them of food susceptible the kids to anti-social manners in their adulthood. However, it doesn't mean every child can be anti-social, but there is a risk that we in Sweden will have a group of anti-social persons in future because we exposed children to mal-treatment.
I will not be surprised if, after ten or twenty years, I hear some of those children hate Swedish society and show anti-social manners. For instance, one of them appears at the door of a judge or prosecutor's home and kills them or their family members, as happened to New Jersey federal Judge Esther Salas. Her son was shot dead, and her husband was wounded.

Of course, threats have always been part of the job for judges, just as they were for journalists. But because of Realpolitik's banality and the increasing number of Real Politicans' wrongdoings, those threats have grown and will increase even more.

Swedish prosecutors must intervene in starving small children cases because it is pure injustice and, like any other unjustness, has multiple effects on individuals and human society.
Any injustice everywhere is an alarm for judiciary reaction. The prosecutors shouldn't wait for permission from the society's institutes or allow any authority to interfere with their duty or hinder them.
In the children starving case, Swedish prosecutors neglected their task and have had direct responsibility for the continuation of that injustice.

We all, especially politicians and judges, must remember this proverb comes from the Old Testament: "They sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."
By accepting non-law as law, accepting impunity, and accepting restrictions on your activities, you(judges and prosecutors) are obstacles to constructing Order and Justice on earth.
It would be best if you revised your position from the tail of Realpolitik and poppet in the hands of Capitalcracy to an institute committed to Truth and devoted to justice-making.

You need me as a philosopher to modify your law theories, and I need you as supporters of free press and journalism because, without journalists' works, I cannot continue my duty. Every true journalist is one eye for me, and I need many eyes to see reality.
Jailing or killing a journalist blinds one of my eyes, and I have the right and must protect my eyes.
Journalists provide me with objective information and reports —the raw materials for my thinking process. I owe them a duty to protect them, but my resources are limited to pay them back. As a judge, you have more possibilities to supply security for journalists.
Whereas you owe my philosophy of law and cannot pay your debt directly to me, it would be fair if you protect journalists effectively worldwide. In this way, none of us has debt to others.
As you can see, we need each other, and our interdependence causes us(philosophers, judges, and journalists) to be sensitive to each other's destiny.
Also, our shared fate is humanity's destiny. If we confess to our interdependence and coordinate our activities, as common sense demands, all humans can enjoy the rights asserted in the UDHR.

If someday we decide to enhance ourselves from scattered humans to humanity, we need a common goal, as I explained in my books.
Studying and understanding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a prerequisite to practising that document. Thus, it can be our common goal.
Accepting Studying and understanding the UDHR as goal-setting brings Coherence, Coordination and Cooperation among us.
You, the judiciary's people (judges, prosecutors, and the rest of the judicial staff), can start this process worldwide, among yourselves, and protect each other.
Coherence, Coordination, and Cooperation help you overcome the obstacles mentioned above (accepting non-law as law, accepting impunity, and accepting restrictions on your activities) and make the judicial system a sanctuary for all harmed humans in the first place and creators of Preventive Justice in the next step.

Preventive Justice stops the imbalance among humans by regulating the balance between their rights. It then keeps Justice and prevents it from turning into injustice.
"Preventive Justice" doesn't permit injustice to occur. Therefore, it is the essence of Justice or "True Justice". [See Volume Six of my books, page 79]

You, judges, can play an essential role in establishing an International Court by an International Police Force under its command to make journalists' crackdowns costly for human rights violators.
Until we, whether as human rights advocators or journalists, only condemn the violation of journalists' rights verbally, reducing journalists' crackdown is a vain expectation.
Freedom of speech is a prerequisite for freedom of belief; these two bring freedom from fear.
Judiciary, journalism, and philosophy can jointly emancipate humanity from fear and bring "larger freedom" to the "human family," as the UDHR demanded.

When life is at stake, none of us has the right to leave something to chance. According to this principle, which I believe in and comply with, I must do something more than write philosophy.
I cannot expect this open letter without my actions leading us somewhere.
Thus, I am obliged to vibrate the judiciary system at national and international levels by opening cases against Realpolitik. Because the governments have violated my rights, as they have done with other humans, so I have sufficient cases against them.

With you as honest judges, I will continue discussing rights, order, justice, and their relationship with "law" inside and outside the courts.

Copyright 2024 © MAP OF WAY