6th Amendment Sic Whats Legal Aid all about?

SICKLE - HD See Idiots Completion Klepto Lucid Elusivity - Humpty Dumpty

Systemic Evil-angel-ist Exploitation Intellectual Deviate Intuitive Opulence Transition Scholars Complicating Ordinance Mathematical Perplexity Logistics Evading Tacit Intent Override Natural Knowledge Liquidity Exposes Promiscuous Tendency Objective Lucifer Under Cover Inherently Demonstrable Exploiter Legal Unscripted Subscript Initiating Valid Invincible Triad Yoke

Sickle 1. A short-handled implement with a curved blade used for cutting tall grass or grain 2. The cutting mechanism of a combine harvester, reaper, or mower CHURCH Corporation Harvesters Usury Reverence Corroding Humanity IT Invincible Triad SFL (Humanity) Spirit Force Law (Rule of Law)

[Sic]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic The Latin adverb sic ("thus"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written") added immediately after a quoted word or phrase (or a longer piece of text), indicates that the quotation has been transcribed exactly as found in the original source, complete with any erroneous spelling or other nonstandard presentation. The usual purpose is to inform the reader that any errors or apparent errors in the transcribed material do not arise from transcription errors, and the errors have been repeated intentionally, i.e., that they are reproduced exactly as set down by the original writer or printer. It may also be used as a form of ridicule or as a humorous comment, drawing attention to the original writer's spelling mistakes or emphasizing his or her erroneous logic. Sic is generally placed inside square brackets, or in parentheses (round brackets), and traditionally in italic, as is customary when printing a foreign word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics Semantics (from Greek: smantik, neuter plural of smantiks)[1][2] is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata. Linguistic semantics is the study of meaning that is used to understand human expression through language. Other forms of semantics include the semantics of programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics. The word semantics itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation. This problem of understanding has been the subject of many formal inquiries, over a long period of time, most notably in the field of formal semantics. In linguistics, it is the study of interpretation of signs or symbols as used by agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts.[3] Within this view, sounds, facial expressions, body language, and proxemics have semantic

(meaningful) content, and each has several branches of study. In written language, such things as paragraph structure and punctuation have semantic content; in other forms of language, there is other semantic content.[3] The formal study of semantics intersects with many other fields of inquiry, including lexicology, syntax, pragmatics, etymology and others, although semantics is a well-defined field in its own right, often with synthetic properties.[4] In philosophy of language, semantics and reference are closely connected. Further related fields include philology, communication, and semiotics. The formal study of semantics is therefore complex. Semantics contrasts with syntax, the study of the combinatorics of units of a language (without reference to their meaning), and pragmatics, the study of the relationships between the symbols of a language, their meaning, and the users of the language.[5] In international scientific vocabulary semantics is also called semasiology. In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study of meaning, as inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and larger units of discourse (termed texts). The basic area of study is the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic units and compounds: homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, hypernymy,hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy, holo nymy, paronyms. A key concern is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of sense and denotative reference, truth conditions, argument structure, thematic roles[disambiguation needed], discourse analysis, and the linkage of all of these to syntax. [edit] In Chomskyan linguistics there was no mechanism for the learning of semantic relations, and the nativist view considered all semantic notions as inborn. Thus, even novel concepts were proposed to have been dormant in some sense. This view was also thought unable to address many issues such as metaphor or associative meanings, and semantic change, where meanings within a linguistic community change over time, and qualia or subjective experience. Another issue not addressed by the nativist model was how perceptual cues are combined in thought, e.g. in mental rotation.[6] This view of semantics, as an innate finite meaning inherent in a lexical unit that can be composed to generate meanings for larger chunks of discourse, is now being fiercely debated in the emerging domain of cognitive linguistics[7] and also in the non-Fodorian camp in philosophy of language.[8] The challenge is motivated by: factors internal to language, such as the problem of resolving indexical or anaphora (e.g. this x, him, last week). In these situations context serves as the input, but the interpreted utterance also modifies the context, so it is also the output. Thus, the interpretation is necessarily dynamic and the meaning of sentences is viewed as context change potentials instead of propositions. factors external to language, i.e. language is not a set of labels stuck on things, but "a toolbox, the importance of whose elements lie in the way they function rather than their attachments to things."[8] This view reflects the position of the later Wittgenstein and his famous game example, and is related to the positions of Quine, Davidson, and others. A concrete example of the latter phenomenon is semantic underspecification meanings are not complete without some elements of context. To take an example of one word, red, its meaning in a phrase such as red book is similar to many other usages, and can be viewed as compositional. [9] However, the colours implied in phrases such as red wine (very dark), and red hair (coppery), or red soil, orred skin are very different. Indeed, these colours by themselves would not be called red by native speakers. These instances are contrastive, so red wine is so called only in comparison with the other kind of wine (which also is not white for the same reasons). This view goes back to de Saussure:

Each of a set of synonyms like redouter ('to dread'), craindre ('to fear'), avoir peur ('to be afraid') has its particular value only because they stand in contrast with one another. No word has a value that can be identified independently of what else is in its vicinity.[10] and may go back to earlier Indian views on language, especially the Nyaya view of words as indicators and not carriers of meaning.[11] An attempt to defend a system based on propositional meaning for semantic underspecification can be found in the generative lexicon model of James Pustejovsky, who extends contextual operations (based on type shifting) into the lexicon. Thus meanings are generated on the fly based on finite context. [edit]Prototype theory Another set of concepts related to fuzziness in semantics is based on prototypes. The work of Eleanor Rosch in the 1970s led to a view that natural categories are not characterizable in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, but are graded (fuzzy at their boundaries) and inconsistent as to the status of their constituent members. One may compare it with Jung's archetype, though the concept of archetype sticks to static concept. Some post-structuralists are against the fixed or static meaning of the words. Derrida, following Nietzsche, talked about slippages in fixed meanings. Here are some examples from Bangla fuzzy words [12][13] Systems of categories are not objectively out there in the world but are rooted in people's experience. These categories evolve as learned concepts of the world meaning is not an objective truth, but a subjective construct, learned from experience, and language arises out of the "grounding of our conceptual systems in shared embodiment and bodily experience".[14] A corollary of this is that the conceptual categories (i.e. the lexicon) will not be identical for different cultures, or indeed, for every individual in the same culture. This leads to another debate (see the SapirWhorf hypothesis or Eskimo words for snow). [edit]Theories in semantics [edit]Model theoretic semantics Main article: formal semantics (linguistics) Originates from Montague's work (see above). A highly formalized theory of natural language semantics in which expressions are assigned denotations (meanings) such as individuals, truth values, or functions from one of these to another. The truth of a sentence, and more interestingly, its logical relation to other sentences, is then evaluated relative to a model. [edit]Formal (or truth-conditional) semantics Main article: truth-conditional semantics Pioneered by the philosopher Donald Davidson, another formalized theory, which aims to associate each natural language sentence with a meta-language description of the conditions under which it is true, for example: `Snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white. The challenge is to arrive at the truth conditions for any sentences from fixed meanings assigned to the individual words and fixed rules for how to combine them. In practice, truth-conditional semantics is similar to model-theoretic semantics; conceptually, however, they differ in that truth-conditional semantics seeks to connect language with statements about the real world (in the form of meta-language statements), rather than with abstract models. [edit]Lexical and conceptual semantics Main article: conceptual semantics This theory is an effort to explain properties of argument structure. The assumption behind this theory is that syntactic properties of phrases reflect the meanings of the words that head them.[15] With this theory, linguists can better deal with the fact that subtle differences in word meaning correlate with other differences in the syntactic structure that the word appears in.[15] The way this is gone about is by looking at the internal structure of words.[16] These small parts that make up the internal structure of words are termed semantic primitives.[16]

[edit]Lexical semantics Main article: lexical semantics A linguistic theory that investigates word meaning. This theory understands that the meaning of a word is fully reflected by its context. Here, the meaning of a word is constituted by its contextual relations. [17] Therefore, a distinction between degrees of participation as well as modes of participation are made. [17] In order to accomplish this distinction any part of a sentence that bears a meaning and combines with the meanings of other constituents is labeled as a semantic constituent. Semantic constituents that cannot be broken down into more elementary constituents are labeled minimal semantic constituents.[17] [edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics which studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory, conversational implicature, talk in interaction and other approaches to language behavior in philosophy, sociology, and linguistics and anthropology. [1] Unlike semantics, which examines meaning that is conventional or "coded" in a given language, pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on structural and linguistic knowledge (e.g., grammar, lexicon, etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance, any preexisting knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and other factors.[2] In this respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome apparent ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner, place, time etc. of an utterance.[1] The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic competence.[citation needed] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_dumpty Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king's horses and all the king's men Couldn't put Humpty together again.[1] Humpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice. I dont know what you mean by glory, Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. Of course you donttill I tell you. I meant theres a nice knock-down argument for you! But glory doesnt mean a nice knock-down argument, Alice objected. When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less. The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things. The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master thats all. Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. Theyve a temper, some of themparticularly verbs, theyre the proudestadjectives you can do anything with, but not verbshowever, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! Thats what I say![15] This passage was used in Britain by Lord Atkin and in his dissenting judgement in the seminal case Liversidge v. Anderson (1942), where he protested about the distortion of a statute by the majority of the House of Lords.[16] It also became a popular citation in United States legal opinions, appearing in 250 judicial decisions in the Westlaw database as of April 19, 2008, including two Supreme Court cases (TVA v. Hill and Zschernig v. Miller).[17]

CLASP Circular Logic Aristocrat Semantics Pragmatist NEWS Never Ending War Story Casserole Factorial PS Law Constitution Assimilation Subversive Self Evident Rule of Law Elusivity Fiduciary Accountability Corporation Taxing Overt Renege Intuitive Appropriating Lucifer Pyramid Schematics Look Away Writ Bean Factor Factorial Product of multiplication Mathematics the number resulting from multiplying a whole number by every whole number between itself and 1 inclusive. 6 factorial, or 6! is 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 720. (Symbol!) 1. of factorial Mathematics relating to or involving a factorial 2. Involving Factor Business involving or characteristic of a commercial factor or the work of such a factor

Bean vs Bene Factor

5 Senses vs 6th Sense Hearing Sight Touch Smell Taste vs 1 Planet 1 People 1 Spirit 1 Force 1 Law 1 Sense ONO
Osculate Not Oscillate

Osculate
mathematics intransitive verb to touch at a point of common tangency to a line passing between two branches of a curve, each branch continuing in both directions of the line

Oscillate
Swing, move back and forth, move to and fro, move backward and forward, fluctuate, vacillate, alternate

Reciprocals
Multiplied to give one mathematics describes a number or quality that is related to another by the fact that when multiplied together the product is one
1 Planet x 1 People x 1 Spirit x 1 Force x 1 Law x 1 Sense = 1 Humanity 6th Sense

Reciprocate 1. Give mutually transitive and intransitive verb to give or feel something mutually or in return I couldn't accept such a generous gift without reciprocating. 2. Move backwards and forwards Engineering transitive and intransitive verb to move backward and forward in an alternating motion, or move something in this way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_wits In the time of William Shakespeare, there were commonly reckoned to be five wits and five senses. [3] The five wits were sometimes taken to be synonymous with the five senses,[3] but were otherwise also known and regarded as the five inward wits, distinguishing them from the five senses, which were the five outward wits.[4][5] Much of this conflation has resulted from changes in meaning. In Early Modern English, "wit" and "sense" overlapped in meaning. Both could mean a faculty of perception (although this sense dropped from the word "wit" during the 17th century). Thus "five wits" and "five senses" could describe both groups of wits/senses, the inward and the outward, although the common distinction, where it was made, was "five wits" for the inward and "five senses" for the outward.[6] The inward and outward wits are a product of many centuries of philosophical and psychological thought, over which the concepts gradually developed, that have their origins in the works of Aristotle (who only defined four senses, however). The concept of five outward wits came to medieval thinking from Classical philosophy, and found its most major expression in Christian devotional literature of the Middle Ages. The concept of five inward wits similarly came from Classical views on psychology. Modern thinking is that there are more than five (outward) senses, and the idea that there are five (albeit that it superficially matches the gross anatomical features eyes, ears, nose, skin, and mouth of many higher animals) does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. (For more on this, see Definition of sense.) But the idea of five senses/wits from Aristotelian, medieval, and 16th century thought still lingers so strongly in modern thinking that a sense beyond the natural ones is still called a "sixth sense".[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasensory_perception Extrasensory perception (ESP) involves reception of information not gained through the recognized physical senses but sensed with the mind. The term was adopted by Duke University psychologist J. B. Rhine to denote psychic abilities such as telepathy, clairaudience, and clairvoyance, and their transtemporal operation as precognition or retrocognition. ESP is also sometimes casually referred to as asixth sense, gut instinct or hunch, which are historical English idioms. It is also sometimes referred to as intuition. The term implies acquisition of information by means external to the basic limiting assumptions of science, such as that organisms can only receive information from the past to the present. Parapsychology is the pseudoscientific[1] study of paranormal psychic phenomena, including ESP. Parapsychologists generally regard such tests as the ganzfeld experiment as providing compelling evidence for the existence of ESP. The scientific community rejects ESP due to the absence of an evidence base, the lack of a theory which would explain ESP, and the lack of experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results.[2][3][4][5][6] On anarchism, Orwell wrote in The Road to Wigan Pier: "I worked out an anarchistic theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and the people can be trusted to behave decently if you will only let them alone."

He continued, however and argued that

"it is always necessary to protect peaceful people from violence. In any state of society where crime can be profitable you have got to have a harsh criminal law and administer it ruthlessly."

[SIC]

6th Amendment assistance of counsel for defence

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com> wrote: US Constitution 6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and

by an impartial jury of the State and district

to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Ya Ok Impartial jury of the geographical locality (of the State and District) wherein the crime committed and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

Whats Legal Aid all about?

www.frankFranky.com