Absence of All Jurisdiction: In Legal that Sublimes into the Cardinality of Being the Nothingness and Philosophy of Null Set Theory – Number 13 is The Prime Number for this case, number 13 is everywhere during the trial since then and I was born on July 13, 1972.

21.       Seksyen 43 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 memperuntukkan seperti berikut:

Prosecution

“43.     Tiada pendakwaan berkenaan dengan apa-apa kesalahan d bawah Akta ini atau mana-mana peraturan yang dibuat di bawah Akta ini boleh dimulakan kecuali oleh atau dengan keizinan bertulis Pendakwa Raya.”

 22.       Sepanjang prosiding perbicaraan di hadapan Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur, pihak pendakwaan tidak mengemukakan izin pendakwaan secara bertulis dan ini adalah bercanggah dengan peruntukkan Seksyen 43 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002. Ini dibuktikan dengan senarai ekshibit Jilid 2 Rekod Rayuan-izin pendakwaan tidak dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah dan ditanda sebagai ekshibit.

23.       Walaubagaimanapun setelah menerima Rekod Rayuan pada 5.5.2011, pihak Perayu mendapati bahawa salinan izin pendakwaan telah dimasukkan ke dalam Lampiran Dokumen (mukasurat 115 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 1) dan ini merupakan kali pertama pihak Perayu melihat salinan izin pendakwaan tersebut.

24.       Terdapat kecacatan material pada izin pendakwaan tersebut di mana izin pendakwaan diberi oleh seorang timbalan pendakwaraya yang bernama Mazelan Jamaludin tetapi ditandatangani oleh seorang timbalan pendakwaraya bernama Nor Aizam.

25.       Adalah menjadi hujahan Perayu bahawa izin pendakwaan mengikut peruntukkan Seksyen 43 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 adalah mandatori dan ketinggalan untuk mengemukakannya menjadikan prosiding perbicaraan Kes Tangkap Tersebut satu (dengan izin) ‘nullity’.

26.       Pihak Perayu merujuk kepada kes Abdul Hamid v PP [1956] MLJ 231 (di mukasurat 3 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) Smith J membuat pemerhatian seperti berikut:

“There is an essential difference to my mind between a sanction and a consent. A prosecution can be sanctioned without any deep consideration of the particular case : full consideration is required for consent since “consent” is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side (Stround 3^rd Ediiton vol 1 page 582). The sanction was therefore no evidence of consent.”

 27.      Pihak Perayu turut bersandarkan kepada kes Public Prosecutor v Lee Chwee Kiok [1979] 1 MLJ 45 (di mukasurat 2 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa prosiding adalah terbatal apabila tiada kebenaran untuk pertuduhan yang dipinda :

“The question is whether the court has jurisdiction to proceed with the trial on the amended charge without a fresh consent by the Public Prosecutor. As the matter is res integra I proceeded with the trial to save the public expense, the witnesses and jury being present in court. It will be observed that although the original and amended charges are two distinct offences, they are both created by the same section of the law viz. section 39B(1) and both carry the same penalty. Both require the consent of the Public Prosecutor under section 39B(3). The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor argued that the amendment was technical and as the Public Prosecutor had given his consent on the original charge he was at liberty to amend the charges in the manner he did. I do not think so. It was held in Abdul Hamid v Public Prosecutor [1956] MLJ 231 that a consent to prosecute “is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side”. The Public Prosecutor has clearly exercised his mind in respect of the original charge when he gave his consent to prosecute some four months after the alleged offence. It was incumbent on him however to exercise the same degree of deliberation in respect of the amended charge. He has not done so. In Lim Seo v Regina [1962] MLJ 304 counsel was given sanction to prosecute undersection 379 of the Penal Code but he proceeded under section 381 of the Penal Code instead. It was held that counsel cannot depart from the specific authorisation of the Public Prosecutor. It seems to me that the same principles apply here. The facts of the case were fully before the Public Prosecutor at the time of giving his consent and he could have elected to proceed on the amended charge then. He did not do so. It would appear therefore that the Public Prosecutor has not given his consent to prosecute under the amended charge. That being so, the trial is a nullity on the authority of Lyn Hong Yap v Public Prosecutor [1956] MLJ 226.”

http://anticyberforensics.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/my-written-submission-for-the-reversal-of-malicious-prosecution-and-recalcitrant-of-magistrate-malice-defeats-immunity-judicial-immunity-2/

ab·sence

[ab-suhns]

noun

1.

state of being away or not being present: I acted as supervisor in his absence. Your absence was noted on the records.

2.

period of being away: an absence of several weeks.

3.

failure to attend or appear when expected.

4.

lack; deficiency: the absence of proof.

5.

inattentiveness; preoccupation; absent-mindedness: absence of mind.

Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English  < Middle French  < Latin absentia. See absent, -ia

Antonyms
1.  presence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absence

ab·sence  (bsns)

n.

1. The state of being away.

2. The time during which one is away.

3. Lack; want: an absence of leadership.

4. The state of being absent-minded; inattentiveness: absence of mind.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

---

absence [ˈæbsəns]

n

1. the state of being away

2. the time during which a person or thing is away

3.the fact of being without something; lack

[via Old French from Latin absentia, from absēns a being away]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/absence

Nothing is no thing,^[1] denoting the absence of something. Nothing is a pronoun associated with nothingness,^[1], is also an adjective, and an object as a concept in the Frege-Church ontology.

In nontechnical uses, nothing denotes things lacking importance, interest, value, relevance, or significance.^[1] Nothingness is the state of being nothing,^[2] the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

http://themathematicaltheoryofnothing.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/the-generalized-hypothetical-analysis-the-ontology-of-eternity-and-nihilism/

http://themathematicaltheoryofnothing.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/chicken-and-egg-the-anthropic-cosmologically-causality-dilemma/

The Philosophy of Null Set Theory (Empty Set {}): The Cardinality of Being the Nothingness

September 29, 2009 in Generalized Set Theory, The Anthropic Cosmological Principles
Tags: The Philosophy of Set Theory

The Mathematical Theory of Nothing

“The Universe, which, so elegant and self-contained fashionably explained in higher dimensions of mathematically topological spaces, is the creations out of nothingness. Indeed, the explanation demands, such diversification of “nothingness” in creativity. Whereas, the diversification of “nothingness” itself is creativity of God, is basically the fundamental of all forces and matters.” – Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim, 2002, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Die mathematische Theorie von nichts

“das Universum, das, also elegant und selbständiges fashionably erklärt in den höheren Maßen der mathematisch topologischen Räume,  die Kreationen aus Nichtse heraus ist. In der Tat verlangt die Erklärung, solche Diversifikation “des Nichtses” in der Kreativität. Während,  die Diversifikation “des Nichtses” selbst Kreativität des Gottes ist, im Allgemeinen ist die Grundlage aller Kräfte und Angelegenheiten.”  – Mohamad Izaham bin Mohamed Yatim, 2002, Cambridge, Vereinigtes Königreich.

La théorie mathématique de rien

“l’univers, qui, si élégant et d’un seul bloc fashionably expliqué dans des dimensions plus élevées des espaces mathématiquement topologiques,  est les créations hors de néant. En effet, l’explication exige, une telle diversification d’”néant” dans la créativité. Considérant que,  la diversification du “néant” elle-même est créativité de Dieu, est fondamentalement le principe fondamental de tous les forces et sujets.”  – Mohamad Izaham bin Mohamed Yatim, 2002, Cambridge, Royaume-Uni De.

*******************************************************************************************************

Abstract

The mathematical theory of nothing is the theory about nihilism, which the verdicts of quantum theory, general relativity theory and grand unified field theory have concluded that the universe as Non-Existence of the universe itself. The Universe, which, so elegant and self-contained fashionably explained in higher dimensions of mathematically topological spaces, is the creations out of nothingness. Indeed, the explanation demands, such diversification of “nothingness” in creativity. Whereas, the diversification of “nothingness” itself is creativity of God, is basically the fundamental of all forces and matters. For thousands of years, philosophers have tried to clarify, “Creator” and “Creations”, just like ancient cosmological argument about “Chicken and Egg”. The philosophies of eternity and the philosophies of nothingness rebut about the mathematical concept of energy and its equilibrium in the First Law of Thermodynamics. The law, which states that, “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed” is absolutely twaddling. The concept of the energy equilibrium is the logic that defines energy as eternal, no beginning and no end. Metaphysically and ontologically speaking, the conceptual logic of Eternity and the conceptual logic of Nihilism (Creations), will always contradict each other, as mathematicians and scientists used the the concepts of both logic vice versa. Likely, the hypothetical analysis, that all sciences are either “Cosmology” or “Kama Sutra”. Cosmological mind or cosmological forces and matters that either will be used to define the structure of our universe, when scientists started to gain entertainment upon such vague, yet substantial evidence of the “Non-Existence of Beings” (The Universe) against “The Absolute Existence of Being” (The Creator). Most of them suffer from a form of amnesia. Thus, the mathematical logic of Eternity and the mathematical logic of Nihilism can be distinguished between. Meanwhile, the concept of energy equilibrium, which used before, will be replaced from conceptual “zero” as the point of equilibrium into an “Empty Set” as new “Absolute Point of Equilibrium” with respect to “The Absolute Static Point of Equilibrium of Universe”.

Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim, and special words of thanks to Mick Mattis (of St. Leonards on Sea, Hastings, United Kingdom) for proof reading this Abstract and the whole thesis, September 2002, Cambridge CB3 0FD United Kingdom.

Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, “The Mathematical Theory of Nothing”, September 2002, Cambridge CB3 0FD United Kingdom.

Al-Quran Karim

For a statement P(x) that is false for every possible value of x, nothing within the universe can pass the elementhood test for the truth set of P(x), and so, therefore, this truth set must have no elements.

Since the truth set of P(x) has no element, this result of

statement, which is always false.

Therefore,

Theorem 1:

Any theory T generated from this statement including basic arithmetical nihilism and  T will always contradict to almost all Physics Laws and Cosmological Principles.

(Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim , First Published January, 1992)

Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, “The Mathematical Theory of Nothing”, September 2002, Cambridge CB3 0FD United Kingdom.

(Proof of this mathematical theorem will not be shown in this blog).

To be finalized soon…

This Theorem is dedicated To:

M.J. Giles, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Engineering, Science and Technology, Ellison Building, The University of Northumbria, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 8ST, UK

*******************************************************************************************************

Theorem 2:

“Time present and time past

The end precedes the beginning

And the beginning were always there

Before the beginning and after the end

And All is always now”.

(“Time”, By Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim, First Published September 6, 1991)

Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, “The Mathematical Theory of Nothing”, September 2002, Cambridge CB3 0FD United Kingdom.

*******************************************************************************************************

Theorem 13:

“[N]othingness is the highest dimensions of mathematically topological spaces.”

Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, “The Mathematical Theory of Nothing”, September 2002, Cambridge CB3 0FD United Kingdom.

*******************************************************************************************************

Abstrakte

Die mathematische Theorie von nichts ist die Theorie über nihilism, dem die Urteilssprüche der Quantentheorie, der allgemeinen Relativität Theorie und der großartigen vereinheitlichten Feldtheorie daß das Universum als Nicht-Bestehen des Universums selbst festgestellt haben. Das Universum, das, also elegant und selbständiges fashionably erklärt in den höheren Maßen der mathematisch topologischen Räume, die Kreationen aus Nichtse heraus ist. In der Tat verlangt die Erklärung, solche Diversifikation “des Nichtses” in der Kreativität. Während, die Diversifikation “des Nichtses” selbst Kreativität des Gottes ist, im Allgemeinen ist die Grundlage aller Kräfte und Angelegenheiten. Für Tausenden Jahre, haben Philosophen versucht, zu erklären, “Schöpfer” und “Kreationen”, gerade wie altes kosmologisches Argument über “Huhn und Ei”. Die Philosophien der Ewigkeit und die Philosophien des Nichtses widerlegen über das mathematische Konzept von Energie und von seinem Gleichgewicht im ersten Gesetz von Thermodynamik. Das Gesetz, das das angibt, “Energie machen weder wird verursacht ein, noch zerstört” twaddling absolut. Das Konzept des Energiegleichgewichts ist die Logik, die Energie definiert, wie ewig, kein Anfang und kein Ende. Metaphysisch und ontologically der Ewigkeit sprechen, die Begriffs-Logik und die Begriffs-Logik von Nihilism (Kreationen), widersprechen sich immer, wie Mathematiker und Wissenschaftler die Konzepte von beiden Logik umgekehrt verwendeten. Wahrscheinlich die hypothetische Analyse, daß alle Wissenschaften entweder “Kosmologie” oder “Kama Sutra” sind. Kosmologischer Verstand oder kosmologische Kräfte und Angelegenheiten, daß irgendein verwendet wird, um die Struktur unseres Universums zu definieren, als Wissenschaftler begannen, Unterhaltung nach solchem vagem zu gewinnen, dennoch überzeugender Beweis des “Nicht-Bestehens der Wesen” (das Universum) gegen “das absolute Bestehen des Seins” (der Schöpfer). Die meisten ihnen leiden unter einer Form von Amnesia. So können die formale Logik der Ewigkeit und die formale Logik von Nihilism bemerkenswert zwischen sein. Unterdessen wird das Konzept des Energiegleichgewichts, dem vor verwendete, von Begriffs”null” als der Punkt des Gleichgewichts in “leeren Satz” als neuer “absoluter Punkt des Gleichgewichts” in Bezug auf “den absoluten statischen Punkt des Gleichgewichts des Universums” ersetzt.

Mohamad Izaham bin Mohamed Yatim und spezielle Wörter des Dankes Mick Mattis (von Str. Leonards auf Meer, Hastings, Vereinigtes Königreich) für Beweismesswert dieses abstrakte und die vollständige These, September 2002, Cambridge CB3 0FD Vereinigtes Königreich.

http://themathematicaltheoryofnothing.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-philosophy-of-empty-set-cardinality-of-being-nothingness/

Nihili Algebra {}-Generated By Distributive Lattices in Null Set Theory (Hybridized Null Set Theory with Fuzzy Set Theory on The Application of Artificial Intelligence and Neural-Null-Fuzzy Systems)

http://themathematicaltheoryofnothing.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/nihili-algebra-generated-by-distributive-lattices-in-null-set-theory/

The Prime Number for this case is 13

Basic Lists of Prime Numbers

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251, 257, 263, 269, 271, 277, 281, 283, 293, 307, 311, 313, 317, 331, 337, 347, 349, 353, 359, 367, 373, 379, 383, 389, 397, 401, 409, 419, 421, 431, 433, 439, 443, 449, 457, 461, 463, 467, 479, 487, 491, 499, 503, 509, 521, 523, 541, 547, 557, 563, 569, 571, 577, 587, 593, 599, 601, 607, 613, 617, 619, 631, 641, 643, 647, 653, 659, 661, 673, 677, 683, 691, 701, 709, 719, 727, 733, 739, 743, 751, 757, 761, 769, 773, 787, 797, 809, 811, 821, 823, 827, 829, 839, 853, 857, 859, 863, 877, 881, 883, 887, 907, 911, 919, 929, 937, 941, 947, 953, 967, 971, 977, 983, 991, 997, …

*****

List of Fibonacci numbers

The first 21 Fibonacci numbers F_n for n = 0, 1, 2, …, 20 are:

F0	F1	F2	F3	F4	F5	F6	F7	F8	F9	F10	F11	F12	F13	F14	F15	F16	F17	F18	F19	F20
0	1	1	2	3	5	8	13	21	34	55	89	144	233	377	610	987	1597	2584	4181	6765

The sequence can also be extended to negative index n using the re-arranged recurrence relation

which yields the sequence of “negafibonacci” numbers satisfying

Thus the complete sequence is

F−8

F−7

F−6

F−5

F−4

F−3

F−2

F−1

F0

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

F7

F8

−21

13

−8

5

−3

2

−1

1

0

1

1

2

3

5

8

13

21

*****

“Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.” Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)

A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts. Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)

Generally, judges are immune from suit for judicial acts within or in excess of their jurisdiction even if those acts have been done maliciously or corruptly; the only exception being for acts done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F2d 59 (C.A. Ariz. 1974)

When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction. State use of Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697.

“… the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803).

**

“The doctrine of judicial immunity originated in early seventeenth-century England in the jurisprudence of Sir Edward Coke. In two decisions, Floyd & Barker and the Case of the Marshalsea, Lord Coke laid the foundation for the doctrine of judicial immunity.” Floyd & Barker, 77 Eng. Rep. 1305 (1607; The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (1612) were both cases right out of the Star Chamber.

Coke’s reasoning for judicial immunity was presented in four public policy grounds:
1. Finality of judgment;
2. Maintenance of judicial independence;
3. Freedom from continual calumniations; and,
4. Respect and confidence in the judiciary.

The Marshalsea presents a case where Coke denied a judge immunity for presiding over a case in assumpsit. Assumpsit is a common-law action for recovery of damages for breach of contract. Coke then explained the operation of jurisdiction requirement for immunity:

. “[W]hen a Court has (a) jurisdiction of the cause, and proceeds iverso ordine or erroneously, there the party who sues, or the officer or minister of the Court who executes the precept or process of the Court, no action lies against them. But (b) when the Court has not jurisdiction of the cause, there the whole proceeding is [before a person who is not a judge], and actions will lie against them without any regard of the precept or process…”

Although narrowing the availability of judicial immunity, especially in courts of limited jurisdiction, Coke suggested that there was a presumption of jurisdiction and that the judge must have been aware that jurisdiction was lacking.

Thus, questions of personam, rem and res jurisdiction are always a proper issue before the court to obviate the defense that the court had no way to know they lacked jurisdiction.

**

SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

If a judge acts without subject-matter jurisdiction, the judge is acting unlawfully, he/she has committed an unlawful interference with one's person, property, or rights.

Is the judge who acts without subject-matter jurisdiction then anything but a common criminal?

And all orders and judgments issued by a judge who acts without subject-matter jurisdiction are, as a matter of law, void.

http://www.clr.org/smj.html