Back to index

res judicata is a fallacy, because judgments have no force of right other than that of the law itself, meaning if a judgment is illegal and illogical, either one meaning breaking the syllogistic validity laws or the law itself, it is inherently void of right, or unfounded meaning ungrounded in truth or logic. Demonstration: the law if any that states a judgment is obligatory is first of all redundant because the law is obligatory, therefore if a judgment is legal it is also obligatory, meaning all judgments should conclude like: ~”x shall restore the order of right by obeying the law, by doing such and such, because such and such restores the rule of law as it was before it was disturbed” or “x shall compensate y for the irreparable damage done to its rights, thus restoring and hopefully preventing another disturbance to the state of right”. If there was a law that makes all judgments obligatory, even illegal ones, logically that law would declare that it is obligatory to break the law, which is an aberration and a paradox which cannot exist under the rule of law because it would dissolve the rule of law itself by virtue of the paradox of a law being in contradiction with itself. Therefore no judgment comes with a “res judicata” quality. A judgment is merely legal, and a “judge” is merely an observer of the legal process, and a judicial investigator within the confines or juridical context of the petitions he receives. Proof: if res judicata would exist, there would be no right to appeal, therefore it is universally admitted res judicata is an aberration. In fact the right to appeal is risible because there is the right to an effective remedy, meaning regardless of the illegalities a so-called judge would commit, there is always another judge. Furthermore res judicata is impossible to contain a subject because one can always invoke the judge has falsified the reality of the dossier, and by attacking the judge’s act, the claimant exits the domain of res judicata being thus able to infinitely sue for justice. In short, the right to access justice cannot be impeded, which is in fact a fundamental right which I’ve just proven, fundamental because it cannot be impeded being tied to the immutable universal logic laws, and inherent natural rights

There is no such thing as the concept that justice of rights expire, or that a decision is definitive and irrevocable and other such non-sense. Demonstration: according to the fundamental principle that no law can impede justice, which I've just demonstrated in the "rex judicata is a falacy" argument that it derives from the universal immutable logic laws and is a natural right, that is the right to restore all and any right, there is no such thing as the notion of justice or rights becoming obsolete, not even when the victim of rights deprivation dies because justice is performed in the name of the law, which is the will of the people, which is public interest. In other words if any person is wronged, all the public is damaged from loss of the wronged's person contribution to general welfare, for being deprived of the means to contribute, or as retribution for being wronged as for instance I refuse to contribute any technology to the world because it is governed by evil and therefore the technology that I invent would be used by evil for evil. The logic of performing justice in the name of the law or public interest, is that regardless if the victim died, the culprit is still at large and likely to recidivate if not caught, or, justice has also a prevention function, not just inherently through the act of punishing the criminal after the crime has been committed, but preventing the crime phenomena in the first place. Without justice, there can be no peace. Without peace there can be no trade, no prosperity, no welfare. It is logical that the growing order or wealth, spiritual and material, and stability or lack of disorder, correlate. In technical terms, that justice is performed in the name of the law is article 124 from the Romanian constitution which proves is a recognised social direction, and that no law can impede justice is article 21 from the Romanian Constitution. Because the Romanian "state" is as proven in this "truthjustice" portal run by criminals, in fact a criminal colonial government run by even bigger criminals - the evil clandestine USA empire and its vassals, because the Romanian nation is a criminal worshipping culture which explains perfectly its government since no government is able to resist the will of its subjects notoriously, meaning the totalitarian Romanian "state" mafia regime is in fact a result of Romanian culture, inevitably these governing criminals attempted to twist the law to serve themselves by lying that justice and rights expire and other such non-sense, which is evidently not the manifestation of will of honest people through their elected leaders, but the manifestation of will of criminals, the only ones who have an interest in not being punished for their crimes, and have the interest in creating chaos in order to profit themselves at the expense of other's lives, which should sound familiar since it's the motto of the masonry type organized crime as seen on the dollar currency of the evil clandestine USA empire, so these criminals enacted laws and procedure to support this by themselves, proving the "magistrates" who actually wrote these aberations, and the Parliament who passed them as law, are also occupied by the mafia, as already proven. This however is an obvious antinomy with the supreme law which is the Romanian Constitution, supreme law according to article 1 paragraph 5 no less. This antinomy is solved according to the multimilenary adagio lex superior derogat lex inferiori - meaning the superior law derogates from the inferior law, because an adagio is simply an observance of an universal immutable logic law in practice, which I explain: because norms meaning laws (acts) that administrate rights, are enacted to administrate the realization of rights not to impede them, and procedure (rules) is enacted to explicate how norms realize rights and therefore obligations, meaning from the fact laws and procedure can't contradict their purpose, their sole force of right of laws logically derives from the supreme law representing the rights of the people which is an indefinite armistice in reality in order to achive peace, therefore no law can contradict the law it derived from, and all law must correlate with constitution and ratified international law, whilst any already existing law or custom if kept must conform to the supreme or fundamental law which is the Constitution, and to international ratified treaties by that country meaning ratified by the people, because people's rights is the only spring of right, meaning the will of the people - in a democracy, whilst in totalitarism the spring of right is the authority of fear which enforces the will of the ruling class, which infringes on the right or the will of the ruled class that is to the limit the ruled class conforms as where it does not, totalitarianism falls, this being the fundament of class warfare and the short demonstration of why democracy is the closest system known and able to achieve peace or justice, because it annihilates the power of the parties involved thus maximizing the rights and freedoms of the people as a whole. In conclusion any laws that claim the act of justice can be impeded in any way are void of right because they contradict the supreme law. As another consequence, requesting in court the acknowledgement of the illegality of an act even by demanding the recognition of one's right by the court, is identically to requesting the court it annulls that act, because to acknowledge the illegallity of an act automatically voids that act's force of right, which is its legal obligativity foremost, however it is not necessary to petition a court to acknowledge an act is illegal - everyone can do that, the purpose of courts being to settle disputes, not to define reality, or even legality, which is the job of the Parliament, not judiciary, nor government who doesn't get to have a say on your rights. Don't be fooled by the criminals because they depend on your consent or ignorance to win! See "Manufacturing Consent...", which is a syntagm that expresses the notion that government should illicit in any way the consent to be governed, which is in fact an insidious totalitarian or orwellian type dictatorship, as the only laws one needs to observe is the logical laws which man cannot bend in physical reality, which include the ancient intuitive, meaning built in ancestral memory, motive of do onto other as you'll have the other do onto yourself, and love your neighbor as yourself - The Bible, thousand of years old observance of this reality, because otherwise you'll suffer the consequences. This should be obvious to any sane human being especially today that we know we are physically virtually identical, 99.9% genetically identical in form even, and that spirituality is one, because truth is one. This is the first law everyone should be educated in, and the fact the fundamental law is that of causality, which is the spring of simmetry, duality, reciprocity, good and evil, light and darkness, tyranny and democracy and other such concepts resulting socially in the ancient reality of retribution and its resolution in the name of peace, justice

Excerpt from my claim at CJEU regarding total infringement of GDPR by Romania - "illegal juridical or judicial acts are immediately void of right and produce no legal effect (evidently) because everyone is obligated to obey the law (according to article 1 paragraph 5 from the Romanian Constitution) not illegal juridical or judicial acts, because the only force of right of such acts derives from the law, which is the will of the people, in theory... in practice, the Romanian “state” mafia derives force of right in totalitarian fashion, through the authority of fear - monopoly on violence through its mafia “police” and “gendarme” soldiers, not to mention interlopers recruited to commit crimes in exchange for favors; and corruption, that is by blackmail and bribery in principal, occupies all the Romanian institutions. The illegal act which I’m attacking produces illegal effects solely because that is the totalitarian will of the mafia, and this is also the reason there is no such thing as effective remedy in Romania, and why I am an UNHCR recognized political refugee fleeing to save my life, which is the first condition of my road to justice... The law may state somewhere that juridical or judicial acts are obligatory, and since the law is obligatory so are those juridical or judicial acts, except when those juridical or judicial acts are in fact void of right for being illegal, then logically the aforementioned law’s logic would sound like the obligation to break the law which can’t exist in the state of right. This perfect argument is not known because all the totalitarian states in the world do not make law and logic obligatory education for the people, in order to exploit the people by infringing on their rights, because capitalism’s mode of production as the scientist Karl Marx observed, is expropriating the people, first of all of themselves, first of all of their minds, because an animal like or sub educated and impoverished person will basically work for sustenance (food) and security (housing), which is basically slavery, a state of rights deprivation". In conclusion logically there is no need for legalized attack means against juridical and judicial ways, corroborated with the fundamental principle no law can impede justice, meaning any criminal government that enacted such restrictions to the right to justice did so to rob the people of their rights. One can sue without an object leaning on the principle that a judge can't refuse to judge on the reason the law doesn't foresee such a situation, and request the acknowledgement of an illegal juridical or judicial act, not its annulation, which is the same as requesting the court to settle if the claimant has a certain right in a particular situation which is actually a regulated claim, obtaining in the end the recognition of injustice without having to attack annull the illegal act in question, but being able to request damages as a result anyway, which logically reinforces the reality that an illegal act has no force of right and is not to be enforced else the enforcer authors at least a felony as the falsifier of the act did in the form of instigation

Back to index