Title: Intro. The Temple of Prophecy
Author: Federico Buono
Date: 2012
Source: Retrieved on June 19, 2012 from 325.nostate.net
Notes: Published by Edizioni Cerbero

In the second part, on judicial contests, we have described the subject-defendant in a double metaphorical and allusive way.

The structural method of this double way (which is an indication-way of coming to a joint simplification of the one-subject) makes the trial a process of ambiguous and programmatic explication.

The reduction of the one-subject to a ‘subject’ in an induction by structured form amplifies the terms of derivation in a limited time, where the one-subject is defined in a definite manner as ‘defendant-subject’, which becomes a limited ‘term’.

Clarifying signs of the subject in a definition given in a definite manner expresses their procedural clauses to the subject himself.

The amoral anarchist anti judicial attitude as said in the previous introduction hits the sacred altar of the ‘right law’, where the expression of the clarifying signs imprints the cancellation of any peculiar choice, and completely(not marginally) reshapes the contraposition of an approximate alternative of the use of the form of the law and its counterpart.

The amoral anarchist anti judicial attitude extends its negation to any minimum contact with ‘justice’, searching for experimentation of life at the extremes of this experimentation.

The composite form of a form in line with ‘jurisprudence’ establishes and redeems, by concealing, any choice that belongs to the individual.

In the negation of the ‘right-duty’, in amoral terms, any prophetic prophecy is nullified.

To each one their choice.

‘The Ego without Limits, and so we are originally and so we stay within ourselves, is the non suppressible criminal of the State.’ [1]

General principles

‘Incompatibility of the judge who pronounced the contested sentence to participate in the following grades of the trial, and to participate to the adjournment after reversal or revision of the proceeding (art. 34).


The course of ‘elapsing’ of a term that is a limited passing of time is a ‘limited time’ that passes through and incurs in the terms of ‘limited time’.

The elapsed time creates a therapy, which is the cure of the elapsing of a term.

The therapy is a term that establishes the elapsing, which is accomplishment of a composite and theoretical border.

A cure composes a boundary in decompressing an elapsed time and the theory confined between theory and composite.

Article 24 paragraph 1 affirms that “anyone can act in a proceeding for the defence of their legitimate rights and interests.” [2]

The means of judicial contest are typical (obligatory nature of the means of judicial contest).

The principle is exposed in art. 568, according to which

The law establishes the cases when a judge’s decision can be contested, and determines the means of this contest (objective obligatory nature)

A judge’s decisions concerning personal freedom and sentences are always subjected to appeal in cassation, where they cannot be otherwise contested.

The right to judicial contest only belongs to those to whom the law expressly confers it (paragraph 3, objective obligatory nature)


The boundary between theory and composite is the therapy that retraces the ‘boundary’ in an elapsed time, made by decomposed and accomplishment.

The methodological course accomplishes a theory that estimates the elapsed value between a time in ‘decrease’ and a ‘commencing’ term.

The parameter of value is a value in decomposition that retraces a boundary between therapy and cure, and which puts an end the deprecating decrease in a time with a commencing term.

Typology is the practicability of the elapsed term in a balance given by an indefinite term that has been defined and therefore it is definitely ‘defined’.

To collocate a definite time in a time that has been elapsed and defined in a definition of practicality.

‘I’m this way: as I don’t recognize any duty and therefore I don’t get tied or try to get tied.

If I don’t have any duty I don’t recognize any law.’ [3]

The principle of the prohibition of the reformatio in pieus [this is Latin]: the judge of a contested proceeding is forbidden from pronouncing a sentence that is more unfavourable than that of the first judge towards the defendant, when the latter only and not also the public prosecutor has contested the proceeding (art. 597, paragraph 354).


The definition of ‘trajectory’ cannot be split into a composing fraction in the elapsed time, along a boundary that is composed between an elapsed time and a commencing term in the passage from the limit which gives a boundary to the trajectory.

There is a divergence between the term ‘trajectory’ and the act of going through a limit whose passage is given by a practical decomposition.

The articulation expresses a meditation where the trajectory consists in putting the thinking of a ‘viable’ trajectory into a temporary enacting of a time determined by the thinking.

The thinking flows within the boundaries between an elapsed time and a decreasing term in a decipherable and indivisible composition between therapy and cure.

‘As soon as man conceived the idea that those who violate other’s rights must be punished for this, it was a logic necessity that judgement in an objective sense immediately sprang up, i.e. that an intellectual operation was carried out, with which – once it was ascertained that someone has violated a right – the consequence of the punishment to be inflicted was made clear.’ [4]

Convertibility of a contested proceeding.

This complies with three profiles logically connected to each other:

The erroneous qualification given by the party who is contesting the proceeding is not an obstacle to its automatic conversion (ope legis [Latin]) to an appropriate means.

If the contested proceeding has been proposed to an incompetent judge it is considered as formulated in a correct way before a competent judge to whom the documents must be transmitted by the first judge (art. 586, paragraph 5).

A contested proceeding becomes appeal when different means for the contest of the sequence of the grades of judgement prevails (art. 580). However, the conversion of a contested proceeding into appeal is admissible only if the connection as exposed by article 12 of the penal code exists.


A consequential prologue is the epilogue consequent to consequentiality. It is a prelude to the premise in a prophetic thinking which utters a:’so that’.

Mediated epilogue between meditation and medication.

A claimable ‘epilogue’ is a prologue of an affirmation that serves the consecration of a meditation that adheres to the mediation between prologue and epilogue.

A profane proffering is similar to the mediation between the meditated and medication.

It is consecrated in an identical medication which is similar to the final premise in the prelude shaped according to the medium between the meditated and medication.

The premise between prelude and the final mediated is congruent between meditation and mediation and the identical epilogue of the permitted prologue.

The adjournment relates to a permitted medication of a similar prologue linked to a logic therapy.

A prophetic meditation outlines a consequential being in a similar mediation between therapy and cure.

A mediate prophecy of a profane medication, which is the goal of the congruent temporariness congruent to the mediation between therapy and cure, is assimilated to the anteposition.

This medication consists in the dilatation of a proffering in a similar final premise of a prelude of the consequent ‘assimilated’ limbo.

A stand-in [5] exposing himself is an imposition on the word ‘defendant’ in a prophetic time.

A mediated recurrence between mediation and medication can be compared to the word ‘defendant’.

The consequential term passes through the border between time limit and limiting time.

A stand-up intervenes in the elapsing of a course between ‘meditated’ mediation and ‘meditated’ medication in a prophetic time.

The word ‘defendant’ penetrates a time limit in the boundaries of the terms of a ‘limited term’.

Rebuilt in a limited time, a stand-up stands inside the hospitalization concerning the mediation between the meditated and medication within a temporary cure.

The therapy is given by a stand-up referring to a hospitalization going through a boundary where the time limit is a time limited between the word ‘defendant’ and the limited term that can be assimilated.

Once it deduces a ‘term’ it identifies it in the rebuilding that has given a form to the mediated structure of a temporary limbo, all within a proffering time that proffers a need of amputation.

‘It is a call for cure.

To be guilty is the being that we call cure.

In this confusion the fact of being is in an original relation with oneself.

The confusion brings the being before an unequivocal nothingness, which is part of its ability to be oneself, for in the being as a cure is the essence of the being. It is from the confusion that the being calls oneself as a derelict oneself and then wakes up to its ability of being oneself. This call is a call backwards by calling forwards.’[6]

Immediate reproducibility in cassation

‘According to the first paragraph of art. 56B, when the concerned party detects law faults in a sentence, it can make appeal to the cassation only as concerns that grade of the appeal (appeal for saltum [Latin]. However it is necessary that all parties who have already manifested the will of making recourse to the appeal adhere to the appeal in cassation, art. 569, paragraph).’


The prognosis of the word ‘defendant’ consists in putting this word into an identity of stand-up following a whole and indivisible line.

The move of a stand-up demands the lining up of the word ‘defendant’.

The identification of the word ‘defendant’ takes place in the premised ‘premise’ of a mediation between mediated and medication.

Its form is a whole and indivisible one because it is formed by a time limit and a limiting term.

A stand-up rebuilds a whole and indivisible form, which is inseparable from a structural integrity confined in a time limit inside a prophetic temporality determined by a ‘term’.

The course of a resolution of a ‘time limit’ determines a ‘term’, which runs along the boundary between meditation and medication of a temporal limbo.

This term is the deduction of the meditation in its approaching the medication.

Once the ‘passage’ is passed through, the lining up of the structure of the mediation exacerbates the behaviour of the word ‘defendant, while the prognosis deducts the course as the approaching of the epilogue premised by a prologue in a distinctive sign deduced by the recurring being: the amputation.

Cohesion is given by the analogy between the deduction of the course of the boundary of a time limit and a limiting term.

A stand-up expresses the need of a boundary between a time and a limit in a term.

The boundary is given by the word ‘defendant’, which now – having passed through the course – expresses clear signs of identification of structure and form in a word that is ‘mediated’.

Cohesive between identification, structure and form, the stand-up – which is ‘structural form’ – expresses the docile deduction of a meaning which runs parallel along a boundary between time and limit.

‘The Labyrinth of the guilt is a labyrinth of words. It is in the speeches of this “not guilty” that an attempt is being expressed not so much at carrying out a given defensive strategy as at removing the guilt from one’s conscience. At this point the theme of judgement and that of the guilt result inextricably intertwined, especially as the former cannot be comprehended independently from the latter. The one finds its speculating reflex into the other.’

Renunciation of a contest

‘In a trial it is natural that the concerned parties can renounce the imposed burden. In that case the public prosecutor by the judge ad quem [Latin], if he cannot substitute the prosecutor below him, he can nevertheless renounce the imposed burden put in action by the previous prosecutor as soon as the trial is carried out (art. 589). In this case the contest is declared inadmissible (art. 591).’


The above mentioned paragraph expresses a declaration similar to the parameter of the word ‘defendant’.

This declaration declaims and refers to the structure of the identifying form.

A digression is the boundary triggering the search for a structural form which becomes and extends its bases between a time limit and a limiting term of a limbo in a prophesized temporality.

The connexion between an identifying structure and a structural form unravels itself in a parallel whose measure is the threshold in which the term is defined in the ‘stand-up’.

The structure of the identifying form intervenes in the time limit under the form of a proposition of prophylaxis.

The mediation between mediated and medication defines the structural form since its bases and leads it to a conclusion in a prelude that runs in the time limit and that searches for a prophesised limiting term in a consecrated limbo.

A stand-up defines the definition ‘structural formation’.

The therapy is a mediation of the cure in the course which is the prelude of an epilogue.

The reflex of an identifying structure becomes a synthetic form of the temporary limbo in a prophetic time and in a temporal consecration.

A summary scheme is a simulacrum of an invocation which becomes composition of the medication, in the decomposition of the prophecy into prophylaxis.

A proposed measure is the lining up of the crossing of a boundary, where the course is limit subjected to an indivisible procedure of a scheme similar to the preceding one, which is premised to the final end by an invocation in a limbo where the ceremony is prophesised in an amputation.

‘The people who are absolutely necessary to the penal judgement are three: prosecutor, defendant and judge.’[7]

Those entitled to power of contest

In theory those entitled to the right of contest are the parties, i.e. the defendant (art.571), PM (art. 570) and the plaintiff (art. 572). Nevertheless the right to contest also pertains to subjects who are not parties, for example:

Kinsmen of the defendant (or heirs in case of death) are entitled to the right of contest.

The plaintiff condemned to repaying expenses or damages is entitled to the right of appeal and cassation appeal.

The defender, parents for children subjected to their guardianship and the guardian for the people subjected to his tutelage are also entitled to the right of contest. Even if the defender is contumacious his defender is entitled to contesting the sentence (art. 571, paragraph 3).


The course ‘premises’ the epilogue of an amputation in an indivisible structure.

The consecration is the derivation of the stand-up, whose sign is the ideogram which runs along the boundary between a time limit and a limiting term in the Temple of prophecy.

A disruptive incepts reduces the sign of a symbolic representation, between a temporal limbo and a temporary prophesised ceremony.

The imaginative symbol crosses the boundaries between time and limit in search of the amputation.

The examined form becomes again a mediation between mediated and medication.

The stand-up urges to the reflux through the definite prophetic consecration in an adjoining limbo.

The word ‘defendant’ transmits the allocution of ‘although’ to the ‘at least’.

The intercalating of the consecration defining the ‘at least’ deducted by the ‘although’ is complementary to the identifying structure.

As it is deducted by the ‘although’, the ‘at least’ exteriorizes the meaning of the intrinsic sign inside the word ‘defendant’.

The representation of a symbolic representation is the ‘although’ deducted by the ‘at least’.

The hospitalization has an effect of speculating affection when it deduces that the ‘at least’ is on the line of representation of an allocution in the ‘although’.

The course is the imaginative symbol that crosses the boundaries in a search between time and limit and exploration of the amputation, and it finds its stand-up in a prophetic time.

The flowing is the deduction that consecration gives a clear sign to the word ‘defendant’, a sign that pushes to the structured form of the stand-up in prophesising a temporal consecration.

The representation of a symbolic representation attains the word ‘defendant’ while showing the sign as the stand-up of a sign decomposed in the temporal depiction of an amputation.

The line of transmission between a word and a sign is the identification in the prophetic celebration, which becomes again a representation of the symbolic representation of the proffered hospitalization, in the prominence of a sign composed in the decomposition of the deduction of a prophetic profile.

The flowing is the amputation consecrated in a limbo of the Temple of prophecy.


1 Adj ‘That goes along, that is done following an axis, without bending on either side’.

2 Noun ‘Of a thing with two faces, a faces that shows itself because it is more beautiful or somehow more meaningful.’

3 Adv ‘Following a straight line’.[8]

Contest by the contumacious

‘The recent law number 60, in implementation of community instructions, has widened the guarantees to allow contest of contumacious sentences. By modifying article 175 of the penal code, it has been established that on request of the contumacious defendant the latter can contest the trial, unless it is proved that he has received actual knowledge of the trial or of the measure (…) The new aspect is in the fact that the defendant is no longer obliged to demonstrate that the lack of trial was not due to his fault’.


The bases of a structural formation that are collocated between a time and a limit have a definite but elusive principle, where the base is the ‘being collocated’ in a temporal limbo.

A synthetic levelling poses the material for the symptomatic bases in the essence of the ‘elusive’ but with a ‘definite’ principle.

The rebuilding of a base of an ‘elusive definite’ is a principle of the essence which stays in the cause searched between a time and a limit intrinsic to the temporary consecration in the Temple of prophecy.

To erect the foundations of a structural formation results in the collocation of the essence in a principle through the consecrated amputation.

The manifestation of the word ‘defendant’ contains the same base as can be found in the essence of the stand-up.

The limit of the principle is a passage between a mediation and a medication, which become the essence of a consecration proffered and composed in a decomposition decomposed in a decomposing structure.

Coherent in its acknowledgment of the consecration, the stand-up goes through the flow of a structure systematic to the fathoming of the principle and its essence, but it does not recognize the values in the reconsideration of the principle intrinsic to the value itself.

The reflux is a value in its principle and substance, from a value to the essence of an amputation consecrated with a decomposed and recurring form.

By isolating the principle of the essence of a ‘systematic structure’ on one side and the essence of the principle ‘consecration’, the collocation of the stand-up is defined.

The essence in the principle of individuation in an affirmable profiling.

The centre of the base unravels in a constant flux that flows again in the rivulets of its essence in search of a temporal limbo in the Temple of prophecy.

The rivulets flow and flow back again systematically inside and outside, outside and inside, in a continuous circle in a constant search of a determined need of an interlacement between a principle having is essence in a ‘goal’ and the essence of the principle ‘means’.

The goal of the principle goes through the means of its essence.

Amputation consecrated in a decomposing flux of a decomposed ceremony.

‘It must be properly understood so as not to generate misunderstandings. When we say that prosecution and defence are on the same level in the new trial (even as concerns the distribution of the places in the courtroom, see art. 146) we mean that with reference to the running of the trial, when the confrontation between public prosecutor and defendant takes place before a judge.’[9]

Contest not permissible (terms of contest)

‘If request for contest is presented when the date has expired, such contest is not permissible. In particular a contest is not permissible when:

A) There are no legal assumptions or interests.

B) The proceeding cannot be contested (obligatory nature)

C) Terms and conditions for the contest have not been complied with (art 581, 582, 583, 585, 586).

D) A renouncement is presented according to article 589.


To invoke a principle and its essence in a fatal ceremony is to express oneself through an emphatic dogma in a structural form between limbo and the decomposition going through the compression of the devotion deduced by the course of the invocation.

The ramification is a balanced imprinting of the formal structure in a synthesis during the course that widens the terms of behaviour with clear signs of a fatal ceremony, which collocate the word ‘defendant’ at the centre of a representation of a symbolic representation.

The expression of the clarifying signs brings an amorphous form of the stand-up out of the word ‘defendant’. This is a temporal limbo composed by a form decomposed between ‘composing’ and ‘decomposition’.

The essence of the nucleus of the form imprints a sign that progresses and intensifies at the approaching of the beginning of the fatal ceremony in the Temple of prophecy.

The completion of the ceremony is a shapeless and amorphous beginning of the clarifying sign, which is the focus essence of the nucleus of the form structured in the stand-up, composed, decomposed and formed in a prophesised temporal limbo.

The nucleus grows and ends up in glimmers of resolution of formative contact and in occlusions of undefined and not viable ravines.

Inserted in a prelude at the principle of individuation.

Composed in the course of a temporal ceremony proffered in a profanation.

The more the sign grows and intensifies the less the word ‘defendant’ determines the prophetic signs composed in a meaningfulness of junctions intervened between decomposition and composition of guide lines of the prophecy between a therapy and a cure.

The nucleus of the identifying structure emerges, erects the accomplishment of its power and limits the spaces. It then takes the essence and principles of these spaces. The principle establishes the ‘definite character’ of the shapeless and amorphous material in the resolution of a consecrated and prophetic amputation.

‘What that no longer has a pure “let live” form but makes recourse to something different, in order to show something, and in so doing it lets something else be seen in the form of something, assumes the possibility of a covering through this synthetic structure.

The truth of “judgement”, however, is not the opposite of this covering, i.e. a phenomenon of the truth having a base derived from more aspects. Realism and idealism fail in the same way.’[10]

The C.D. Incidental Appeal

‘A special mention must be reserved to the c.d. incidental appeal (article 595), which can be proposed every time that a party that did not make recourse to a contest, according to his or her will, finds himself or herself facing an appeal trial proposed by the other party in the terms that nonetheless keep their precise peculiarities, namely that the party authorized to make recourse to the incidental appeal and therefore acting following the contest of the other party, remains somehow linked to the outcome of such appeal.’


The nucleus of the identifying structure measures the principle and essence of the clarifying signs and it calls them and pushes them to a favourable as well as ominous prophetic event.

At the centre of the fatal ceremony, the representation of the symbolic representation induces in the flux of ‘concentric circles’ in attraction. These ‘concentric circles’ encircle the identifying structure in which glimmers feed the material of the base of the structure itself.

The essence of the principle of the glimmers presents countless cracks from where one gets out by getting into a limb composed in a decomposed preaching and in a ‘preached’ limbo.

The structured form of the stand-up examines and catches a glimpse of the glimmers but it only identifies the principle and not the essence, which is a temporary vision where the influx is a formative occluding of the time-space-limit.

The nucleus of the identifying structure absorbs the influxes of the stand-up and expresses an invocation expressed in a prefix: the amputation.

The reciprocity between form and structure inhibits the identifying principles even if the clarifying signs express the being ‘essence’ of the substrate of the word ‘defendant’.

The marginal deductibility, which is significant, ascends the reflux on the border between time and term; both of them are lined up and induced by the limiting, and are composed in the decomposed affirmation of a formative occlusion of the proceeding in the Temple of prophecy.

At the ‘centre’ of the ceremony of the prophetic consecration, the stand-up expresses the principles and the essence of the consecration to the essence itself of the stand-up: the word ‘defendant’.

The knotting of the clarifying signs gives the comparison with its principle to the identifying structure: structured form.

The absent being is a manifestation with a code and an access.

As it ascends a border between time and term, the word ‘defendant’ finds its structural bases in a ‘limiting’ limit, composed in the course of a temporal form decomposed in current transfiguration.

The code is transported around the boundary of the structure and in its countless holes.

The word ‘defendant’ searches its code of access in the principle of the essence of the stand-up and in the Temple of prophecy, in an immanent ceremony.

The beings which is absent in the word ‘defendant’ differs when converging with a code of access in a coexistence between a time and a term, in a limbo run through by the composed form of the decomposed effect.

The effects are adumbrated and eluded by the ‘concentric circles’, which are the boundaries of countless representations of symbolic representations that impress and extend the meaning of the fatal ceremony where the essence of the stand-up is the principle of the word ‘defendant’.

The essence of the word ‘defendant’ is the essence of the principle of a stand-up, which is the limbo that runs through a temporal trajectory in search of the transportation of the ongoing ceremony in the Temple of prophecy.

‘First look for the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things will be given to you as an extra. Therefore don’t get sunk for tomorrow, because tomorrow already has its worries. Each day has enough sorrow.’ [11]

Closed hearing and ‘settlement’ in appeal

The need to simplify and therefore accelerate the course of the judgment of a contest is reflected in the possibility of closed hearing along with that of a trial. A closed hearing is easier and more agile, and it also offers more guarantees to the defendant. In fact the cross examination is merely possible. The recourse to a closed hearing rather than a trial is imposed by the law if the object of the appeal is exclusively centred on the kind or measure of the sentence, or the applicability of bail conditions or of other alternative measures.


The approaching of the celebratory function gives the word ‘defendant’ a possible but questionable vision of the structural form collocated on a border where the limit is the time of a limiting time because it is a border where an identifying structure is collocated.

The form is where the principle is essence and ‘time’, and the essence of the principle is the ‘limit’: limb run by a temporary form in a time with a term.

The search of a code of access gives the word ‘defendant’ back to the principle of a stand-up. Its essence is a ‘limbo’ in the running of the decomposition.

The arrangement of a series of procedural rules induces and reduces, hides and manipulates the structural form and widens its ‘hypothesises’, which express the parabola required in a prophetic imminence.

While proposing a principle and an essence in search of a code of access, the ceremony and the function find the consequence of the structural form in the hypothesises.

In an awkward situation, in an unforeseen ‘manner’, the principle of the essence of the word ‘defendant’ emerges.

The stand-up poses questions (?) in a myriad of interpretable allusions, while it suggests a hypothesis between an imperfect ‘imperative’ and a determined composted.

‘Interpreter’ is the fatal ceremony where the nucleus is the representation of the symbolic representation, composed in the decomposed form between essences in search of the fatal form. All this in the proffering of a term evoked between therapy and cure.

The trajectory run through reduces itself to simple premises in an organic disposition of the proposed questions.

The epilogue is a premised prologue.

As the stand-up is the essence of the principle of individuation of the word ‘defendant’, it asks questions (?) by resurfacing in the transpositions of the structural form.

The pathogen induces transmitting links while it conceals the multitude of hypothesises.

The stand-up withdraws itself and exposes and ‘expresses’ (in an expressive term) the principle of its essence.

Some limiting hypothesises impressed in a catalyst lead to the essence of the ‘hypothesis’ in the limbo of a temporal form between decomposition and transposition.

Sometimes it emerges (structure and Hypothesis? Structure is hypothesis), some other times it withdraws, but it is still the principle of the individuation of the word ‘defendant’.

It exposes, imposes and impresses marginal lines of its principle of individuation of the word ‘defendant’ as essence (hypothesis and structure? Hypothesis is ‘structure’).

The celebratory function extends the trajectory in an assignment of devotion, in search of the border between time and term, where the identifying structure has its composed and decomposed bases in a decomposing form.

‘A penal proceeding is nothing more than the exercise of activities that belongs to the law for its assertions, and by law these activities must last until they attain their goal.’[12]

‘If the appellant is only the defendant and not also the prosecutor, the judge cannot apply the reformatio in pejus [Latin] so that as concerns a guilty verdict or other sanctions he can only operate in favour of the defendant when making a decision. Therefore, if the prosecutor has not presented request for appeal the judge cannot increase the sentence or decide for new and more serious measures, acquit the defendant through a less favourable formula or revoke benefits.’


The intercalating in a fatal ceremony retraces the clarifying signs in a programmatic manner, through a wide interpenetration in the proffering of a prelude of the prologue of the consecration.

The word ‘defendant’ poses itself in the fatal ceremony in the immanence of the consecration.

The representation of the symbolic representation stands at the centre (being and essence). This representation expresses the message of the principle of the essence of the stand-up.

The ‘concentric circles’ strengthen the borders in an intuition of movements, while approaching the prelude of the epilogue. All this happens in a similar complement of similarity between prologue and epilogue, between temporal limbo and decomposed allusion of the celebratory function in the temple of prophecy.

The word ‘defendant’ is in touch with the essence of the principle of a stand-up in a transposition placed to the reversible prelude.

The stand-up is the essence itself of the principle and essence of the word ‘defendant’.

A parallel trajectory where the transfiguration of the essence confounds itself with, diverges and inhibits the word and the stand-up, adding to an assimilating force where the one is the alter ego of the other one.

The stand-up impresses the clarifying signs in the word ‘defendant’ with a code of access by paraphrasing the meaning in the limbo of the composed form of a prophecy.

Sometimes the identifying structure is placed at the ‘centre’ of a fatal ceremony, some other times it visible in a perceptive way. It expresses the clarifying signs of the essence of the representation of a symbolic representation in the immanence of the approaching of the prophecy.

The stand-up stretches out (or pretend to?) towards the codes, and it expresses them in a marginal but complex procedure in the principle of individuation of the word ‘defendant’.

In the access the two parties split and melt in a continuous circle where the stand-up is the alter ego of the word ‘defendant’.

The structure is identified.

The prelude of the prologue begins, composed in a decomposition of the decomposed limbo.

The ceremony is mediated in a meditation and a medication.

The nucleus is the representation of a symbolic representation that comes along and melts the principle and essence between the word and the stand-up.

The hospitalization advances the allusion: amputation.

‘And remember that you must recognize that the origin of a penal judgement does not stay in the necessity of defending society but in the necessity of defending the law.’[13]


Non permissible

A) ‘It is generally pronounced in closed session on request of the attorney general of the same court. It constitutes a sanction determined by the violation of procedural rules (obviously unfounded motives, failure, and forms of contest), i.e. of the inexistence of subjective or objective assumptions (fault in the contest, renunciation of the contest, non application of the proceeding, article 591.606, paragraph 3.615, paragraph 2).


B) Rejection

‘This occurs when the appeal is unfounded, in the sense that the deduced reasons, even if they do not appear openly inconsistent, reveals themselves as such after the assessment of the judge.’


C) Rectification

‘It responds to an existence of conservation of the contested decision, and it occurs every time that errors in the law when indicating texts of reference affect the decision but not its accuracy (errors of denomination, calculation of the sentence, etc, which can be eliminated without requiring discretionary evaluations of the judge in charge).’


D) Cancellation without postponement

‘Cancellation without postponement consists in the cassation of the sentence in its integrity (in some parts with definition of the trial). In case of partial cancellation, the non announced party becomes definitive (article 624). It clearly implies the superfluity of the postponement because it exhausts the Thema decidendum [Latin] of the same court.’

[1] Second part The Ego’ in The Ego and its Own, Max Stirner.

[2] The Right to Juridical Defence – Criminal Procedure

[3] Second part The Ego’ in The Ego and its Own, Max Stirner.

[4] Historical Origin of the Penal Code

[5] A person taking on the role of an actor in particularly dangerous shots or when specific skills are required. A person who looks very much like another person.

[6] ‘Understanding of call and guilt’, Being and Time, Heidegger

[7] ‘Essential conditions of the penal judgement’

[8] Dictionary of the Italian language, Anonymous (‘Final orifice of the rectum from where faeces are expelled’).

[9] Principle of equality between prosecution and defence, ‘Procedural criminal law’.

[10] ‘The concept of logos’, Being and Time, Heidegger.

[11] Matthew (6.33–34).

[12] ‘Pamphlets of criminal law’

[13] ‘Philosophical origin of the penal law’