This page is the Journal of interventionist notes in the year 2002 CE

Fear nothing but what thy industry may prevent; be confident of nothing but what fortune cannot defeat; it is no less folly to fear what is impossible to be avoided than to be secure when there is a possibility to be deprived. Let the fear of danger be a spur to prevent it; he that fears not, gives advantage to the danger. Francis Quarels (1620)

The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority. Stanley Milgram (1969)

Conventional Take on Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

Practitioner Take on Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over while expecting the same result.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead (1964)

A kernel is a set of solid logic that can be treated as a unit, incontrovertible. All topics inside are always related to the set. No dilution with side issues. In depth knowledge of a topic, afterwards to the yes people as appropriate.

You can reveal after it is over that the mode determiner was worked on target – and that is his proof. (does he really want to know what you found?) The method deal is that PL uses it in pieces and parts and that is usually enough because the defendant is so far off the mark. What we hold is the fundamental principles which permits rapid, error-free customization to particular needs – never inferior to PL. We use the process all the time, even when doing a business plan. We leave the clues in the transactions about Omnidirectional, every level. Then we can say we warned you.

We have two “separate” method winners here: Forward-looking  (foreseeability) and now-looking (truth as you go) Breaking commerce into business and enterprise. Business loop is rules. Enterprise loop is control cycle. Present truth (our hurdle ploy) is a subset breakout of control cycle. All successful enterprise operations had intelligence truth as it went.

The BP is putting the method kernel to work on the money kernel. Truth table: who is hurt the most when the detector does not match the reality. Who is helped the most when the mismatch is detected early.

There is no top to the pyramid in this business. Even the PLs fight with each other over money. Many local shops of both PLs and insurance. There is no master plan making. We need to shape something for the smaller shop.

Omnidirectional approach. The set of tasks has an infallible output wherein any one of the tasks could contain error.

The kernel is a primitive set of tasks forming an infallible generic logical I/O unit. A software term. Purpose in and truth out. You must go on truth in order to protect against pursuing the impossible. The kernel is Omnidirectional and Futureproof. Think in terms of the truth table!!

Everything we do should be in the kernel of informed consent. This is the task action primitive. It has a beginning a climax and (most important of all) an end of pure truth. Develop a purpose, assemble that subject matter to inform, design a hurdle according to your purpose, and then set the jump choice. The passage of time after the end is the no choice which you can record at your convenience. You have the truth and you have the no-choosing individual in the malpractice-mode holding pen waiting for the damage event and subsequent enforcement.

You determine them to be in malpractice mode as-you-go – you are exhibiting governance in present time. From now on, Prichard, every transaction should be a setup. Designed for now time truth about “intelligence,” which is appropriate selection, which is professionalism.

If you can find out things are OK or not in present time, with perfect truth, why wait?  The only time you can do it with perfect truth is in the present. Hindsight is dealing with artifacts, room for tampering errors. Foresight has many truths. Only now gives perfect now tamperproof truth.

Tie time triad into methods suitable for each. Limitations are inherent. You don’t even know most history truth for sure.

We need something BP for every level in the industry. A trinket door prize for the individual. Something for the small firm to make money with. Something for mega corpo. Something for media for ordinary’s amusement. If we believe method is Russian doll, it should be there.

It is another experiment of many in history in elevating the punishment high enough so that management will prefer to avoid it. They are a long way off. PL encourages the experiment. It keeps all the remedial action marching in the very direction that will bring them more riches.

This is why we must focus on the profits to be made from the organization saying “No.”

The BP is divided by the money from No first – then the money from yes. You harm them by informing them and the hurdle refusal as proof.

Premiums are 25% or more of policy limits.

In order to get the insurer’s money, the PL settles out of court in advance of a fraud finding. While the insurer has grounds for denial and rescission, PL gets their money before the law will let them off the hook. It is a typical game of code makers and code breakers.

Since it is method and it is choice, you inform about method and force a designed choice that certifies intent.  We have a foolproof futureproof method for validating malpractice mode. You validate malpractice mode as you go and wait for the damage. (truth be told, the BP is doing it to you now) What we offer is as-you-go malpractice mode choice. The question: is BaU the all-purpose answer for this corp. If not, do they have a method of appropriate selection and use it?

The whole thing revolves about the method of determining malpractice mode in the present! Russian dolls is doing it to you and you can do it to others.

Do the investors in WorldCom have any idea how much of their money is going to protect the brass for doing what got them into the mess in the first place?

Is there a fix? Of course.  Everyone knows there is a fix. The fix is what is used as a standard by PL to cream defendant. If there were no fix, there would be no corporate liability industry. Everyone knows there is a fix. Is there good science to the fix, a set of universal laws from which all particular applications are derived? Of course. Can the science be easily validated and demonstrated, beyond all doubt by anyone? Of course. Can anyone apply this method science? Of course.

If the fix is so simple and solid, why hasn’t it been embraced as an alternative to corporate collapse? There must be something wrong with it otherwise we would have already used it. It’s your choice. Welcome to litigation land. You have just landed on the spider’s web. You have reached your final destination. The lawyer at the end of the ramp will direct you to “account withdrawals.”

Insurance companies have pulled out because they had too much risk. The D&O of the insurance company feared allegations by their investors for malpractice.

You must separate the cost of risk, money, an objective function only of the gap, from the transactions involved in transferring some of the risk about the envelope. Nothing about alternative risk financing reduces the cost of risk. As it grows, like Baby Huey, it gets too big to hide from the stakeholders. If not this year, next.

The insurance companies have contributed to the addiction. Nothing anywhere to change the intent.

Expose insurance as lip service.

This whole industry is really about methods and the master professional method of appropriate selection. These are willful choices and acts.

The problem for commerce defending business as usual is that the public is increasingly aware of what can be done to project outcomes from various task actions. They watch a computer simulation of the trade center tower collapse scenario on 9/13/01 TV and want to hear why, if it was so easy to do after the fact, wasn’t it done before the fact?

Professional is tied to the use of intelligence, appropriate selection = informed consent.

The kernel of logic must be the center of everything. No more and no less. It is a unit with sharp edges. It is a sanctuary only when you are aligned with the kernel – no more and no less. We can dance about with pieces and parts of the kernel but the connections must always be mentioned. We dare not embellish the kernel with additions. The power of the basic kernel is more than enough for anything we might need. We are either using the kernel in application or referring to the kernel as a standard of comparison in our discussions about other stuff.

Society invented the professional to preserve itself. The job of the professional is to effectively deal with and neutralize whatever society feels at the time is a threat to its future. Whatever society feels is a danger, a problem of the forward, the solution of immediate and only choice is to assign it to its professional class. If its professionals fail in this assignment, society only knows to turn up the heat. It has no plan B for its threats. It has to make its system of professionals work and it will increase both positive incentives and negative incentives until it gets what it expects. Professionals have no competition for this job, but it does not control the incentives. If society perceived no threats to its preservation, it would rid itself of the professional class in a flash. History has examples.

The doctrine of informed consent is the necessary and sufficient initialization that concentrates all risk of an adverse outcome on the client. The professional owes a duty to disclose all material risks and benefits of each alternative procedure that may influence the client in making a fully informed decision on each. Informed consent is a legal take on the professional that gives him an insurance policy against malpractice allegations for nonfeasance.

As in design it is “whoever picks the parts owns the behavior,” the rite of informed consent is “whoever picks the modality owns the consequences.”

Unless you represent yourself as having greater skill and knowledge, a professional rendering services is required to exercise the skill and knowledge of his profession.

Two stage offering. There are no big thinkers out there. This industry is too scattered and headless. Exactly like the Internet, there is no top organization. This whole industry is held together by a single idea, manifest in small pieces and parts operating in a sector. The problem is the idea and the solution must deal with the idea. The blind spot is that all pieces, except those predicated on failure, are stuck in status quo.

The marketing job is to start with something a jerk can understand. Attach the big piece as a phase II. Be identified with the big picture, but as an outsider professional, not as one of “them.” The lawyers won’t like it and the rest wouldn’t trust one of their own anyway. We don’t want to be classifiable. I can use my retirement status as an advantage since they know they can’t get any leverage on me. The common brotherhood bond is our 401K slaughter.

The theme has to be generic big picture – something above where they dance. Something they can’t deny. The idea is that, like many cases, the legal machinery was always there but the enforcement wasn’t. Blame it on the enforcement surge. Keep the logic impeccable. The enforcement varies as a function of social expectations, fears actually. As they run into what they perceive as problems, they expect their professionals to rise up and solve them. What they absolutely do not want is to find their professionals participating in the problem for profit. We have always accepted banks being robbed by crooks. What we don’t want to see is the police stopping traffic so that the thieves can make an easier getaway.

We have no default backup for the professionals. If we allow professionalism to fail us, we are headed to extinction.

The offering has to be framed in small personal. It is a pyramid scheme. The reason for and the advantage in promoting awareness – that a solution exists – is saving money for yourself by “taking the poison pill” and setting up to cash in on that information no matter the choice of your target. Leave the yes choice for phase II separate and in the back. Focus on phase I and the no choice benefit. [this is how PL makes his money and we imitate] When the target sets himself up as PL bait by choosing BaU, we get a piece of the action – ala FSG * We get advantage before the damage and we get advantage after the damage. You can help show the defense (corporate governance) is a sham, for a finders fee of course] Russian doll it works for you at every level.

We fuss and fret over ways of finding and motivating ethical men we then put in charge of choosing action, hoping for all the world that, somehow, he will figure out what to do so that we, looking back on the done deeds he selected, will determine them ethical. Even if the characteristics associated with the ethical man were known and candidates could be found in possession of these characteristics, it is no guarantee that these candidates will select future actions that history will call ethical. History is filled with the unethical deeds of ethical men. The reverse is true as well.

There is an illusion, quite popular, that history is all you have to go on. Never mind that really going on history would reveal the fact that going on history has a miserable record. There is a strong attraction to operating by conventions and rules. The fact is, nevertheless, there are significantly superior methods for the appropriate selection of future action. History is an input contributor, to be sure, but it is part of a forward-looking information process that, in every instance, will be found superior to an exclusive backward-looking approach. Going on history is what you want your enemies and competitors to do.

When you confine yourself to hindsight oversight, you are essentially operating on a cycle powered by faith, not knowledge. First, you must ante up your stake to another. Then, you wait to see some outcome artifacts to validate that your trust was warranted. If the results match up with the expectations, you ride your bet for another turn of the wheel of fortune. What the stakeholder gets during the waiting time between ante and artifact is angst. It is during the waiting time, of course, that all the good and all the mischief takes place.

There are proven, forward-looking, methods that validate the ante without the waiting time. That is, it is entirely practical to establish a viable system of oversight wherein mischief time is zero. Such foresight methods operate independently of the human factors of trust, faith and ethics. Validation of success in route is achieved by validating the process of appropriate selection of method for the next cycle. You are not certifying the particular method selected, a variable, but the method of selecting method appropriately, a universal constant. As long as the method of appropriate selection (intelligence) is being used to make way towards the objective, it matters not to mission success whether the participants are clergy or mafia. History has no other examples.

A distinction between backward and forward is personal characteristics. In backward, ethics (an effect) is big. In forward, personal character is zero.

Hammer Clause is what we are doing to them. It creates pressure on target to accept a settlement because the failure to do so exposes the target to significant risk.

This is us with informed consent

We have designed an insurance plan which goes in force when the target refuses it. We remove the defense of plausible ignorance and implant willful intent to misbehave.

The plan now is to create a stand-alone first step and have everything else follow as an “automatic.” The threshold issue should be based on the impeccable logic of the liability industry itself and our MPS which uses what is already there to put the target into a squeeze box. The first step should be informed and profit from offer rejection. Once informed, rejection has a price. To the broker as our target, he is in malpractice mode for not including it in informed consent. In Russian doll form, broker does it to his targets. If the insurer refuses to consider it, broker is off the hook. If the client refuses it, he is on the insurer’s hook. In offer mode, broker can’t lose. If broker refuses, he is running in malpractice mode – and we know it first.

 

What we sell is the method featuring hurdle design. It, too, works at every level. We implant a hurdle which requires action in a regime in which our instruments for detecting falsehood are infallible. Clearing the hurdle is ethical; it has nothing to do with the morality of the actor. If you note ethical action, a method consistent with intentional goal attainment, that’s the truth that matters. It does not matter if your measures of a truly ethical person are not met, if he acts ethically. It matters a great deal if your certified ethical person does unethical deeds. History is filled with examples.

All this method matter is stuffed into a black box, revealed at a PCDC, and all talk external to the PCDC is about box capabilities. This is a key hurdle we can’t alter much, so we have to design all the rest for it. We can reveal that the method is being used on them and that they will, by their actions, validate its infallibility to themselves. Self-validating.

The context of corporate liability insurance is unlike that for homeowners insurance for wind and flood damage. People have no say in when a flood event and other “acts of God” and natural disasters will occur. The insurance market for corporate liability, however, is driven by the free choice of people to not play by the rules. Chance only enters in with the odds of getting caught. The cost of risk in corporate liability is the cost for not playing by the rules (doing your duty) before inflicting injury on a stakeholder. This cost is a function of the impact created by malfeasance and the aggressiveness of law enforcement. Both of these factors have varied considerably over the years.

There is a fool proof, future-proof system. It is, in principle, the same duty reference standard used to grade actions in civil law proceedings. Every answer to the regulator’s dilemma, mismatch, inappropriate selection can be found whirling away driving the litigation landslide. The threshold perspective is time orientation. From the time perspective the regulator’s dilemma is like the old saw about the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost because the light was better there. The watchdogs monitor status in one time zone (hindsight) and tort court grades performance from another (foresight). As long as the watchdogs continue to look for a remedy to a foresight problem in hindsight analysis, the tort system will continue to transfer great quantities of wealth from commerce to plaintiff.

The threshold consideration

At the very least, “corporate responsibility” should be understood to include behavior by D&O that conforms to law and results from the proper exercise of fiduciary duty to the stakeholders. D&O can achieve corporate responsibility only when recognizing their obligations to advance the interests of others. In their role as corporate fiduciaries, the corporation does not belong to them.

It has always been recognized that employees of public companies may succumb to the temptation to serve personal interests in maximizing their own wealth or control at the expense of long-term corporate well-being. To check such temptation, and to focus the corporation on the interests of the stakeholders, our system of corporate governance has long relied upon the active oversight and advice of independent professionals in the corporate governance process. Corporate responsibility and sound corporate governance thus depend upon the active and informed participation of independent watchdogs who act vigorously in the best interests of the corporation and are empowered effectively to exercise their responsibilities.

As evidenced by recent failures of corporate responsibility, the exercise by such independent participants of active and informed stewardship of the best interests of the corporation has in too many cases fallen short.

No set of legal rules or guidelines can guarantee that such active care will be achieved in practice. Even the most stringent definition of stewardship will not generate the backbone to act independently and objectively which the ABA believes is necessary to an effective system of corporate governance.

BRT in May 2002 principles of corporate governance: “Even the most thoughtful and well-drafted policies and procedures are destined to fail if directors and management are not committed to enforcing them in practice.”

[what this is is recognizing the inherent limitations in backward looking governance. They are setting themselves up with a copout of responsibility. We told you that without backbone it wouldn’t work! A caveat. Fine print.]

When the frenzy is over these dudes end up with the same old same old reliance on “backbone and commitment” as personal qualities in order to make it work. Thus we reject this dependence as an inherent limit of backward-looking. We show that since backbone can be measured continuously, it doesn’t require an act of faith. Russian Dolls. The contact itself is an example of this measurement technique. The sized-hurdle gambit. This contact is itself a demonstration of the methodology.

We come out strong that engineering science has had the answer to foresight for decades. Used by PL. Black box the solution.  The question boils down to whether or not you want it solved. You have been informed (intent).

Not only is the complete solution available, examples are all around you. If financial success of a method is the measure for commerce, it can look to the cost of its risk of corporate liability. The D&O insurance crisis is a direct result of the use of this methodology as the reference standard in tort law.

To illustrate the principle, a proven GPS system now exists. For the oversight task of monitoring the success of a voyage, it could be done without the slightest knowledge of staff qualifications. (the Titanic had England’s best). Aboard the ship, equipped with the planned routes, schedule and itinerary (the purpose), loaded into the GPS, your job is now done by checking the deviations of actual from plan. If the ship is on target, the personal ambitions of the staff don’t matter. They have a GPS also. They know as long as they make the progress, they can manage affairs as they wish. When the alarms of deviation occur, the overseer, merely has to see that the ship is making efforts to reduce the deviation.

A future-proof, foolproof methodology of corporate governance exists. The tort system knows this and uses reference standard to make a great number of their members extremely wealthy.

It doesn’t take much to learn the method. It is done using your own experience as building blocks.

The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct is being changed.

The central focus is shifting away from the positives to the issue where you profit from the target refusing the method. The idea is to put the positives in a high-class problem, deal with it later, category. We sell the squeeze box predicated on the client’s refusal. If client accepts, high-class problem. If client refuses, which is what we are all geared for, we profit two ways. We can show immediately we did our duty, shielded ourselves from blame, and we can cash in the informed-consent ritual result by judicious use after damage is done.

We put the squeeze on our contact in exactly the same way we offer to him to do to his contact. I wonder how many will detect the fact. I would not volunteer this one.

Turning the intent switch ON. This is the better promotional psychology. It whittles the plan down to a size more can cope with. No one will think a business will actually choose the method anyways. They all fear the hopeless job of selling management on change. We empower them, Russian dolls, to put the squeeze play on their clients while all the time they are in the squeeze box too. We use the duty squeeze box on us, as professionals, to explain our efforts in the first place. (not us, but legally bound to do so) The doctrine of informed consent traps them all. This is the stakeholders real protection. They were never told the alternative which, if used, would have avoided the damage.

This is why we need to keep records of contact info. Over time, some of these entities will be involved in litigation where we can sell to PL our contact info for use to escalate the case against defendant to intent. We already have one Aon by the balls. Perhaps we should contact the inhouse legal as part of the scam.

No one can deny the size of the market. They can’t deny the drivers – which we explain to them. The hook has to be the duty informed consent. They use informed consent on their clients for profit as we use informed consent on them. We have a duty to apprise them of viable alternatives. The profit comes from the consequences of client deliberately choosing the wrong alternative. We, just like PL, have to wait for the wrong choice to cause damage.

What does the litigation explosion herald?

It means that business as usual damaged a stakeholder substantially over and above what would have been the case if more appropriate methods were used. The typical allegation is in the form: “If only X did B instead of A, Y would not have happened.”

“Appropriate methods” are defined by law. What constitutes appropriate is constantly refreshed to best available technology through the effort and ingenuity of lawyers for the plaintiff – as prescribed by law. The great increase in allegations is a direct index of just how far method technology has advanced relative to the rock of business as usual. The capability of the best in method technology, as reference, reveals how much of the wreckage associated with business as usual is fundamentally unnecessary.

The costs to USA commerce for sticking with business as usual in inappropriate circumstances are sobering. In 2002 direct wealth transfer from commerce to plaintiff is about $500B. The insurance industry rule of thumb is that average plaintiff recovers about 25% of his total monetary damage. Since less than half of the damage suffered makes it to the allegation stage, the grand total of societal expense for method negligence is running about $5 trillion a year.

 

The doctrine of informed consent is a cornerstone of tort law. The professional owes a duty to disclose to his client all material risks, benefits and alternatives that may influence the client in making an informed decision regarding the contemplated modalities. This is the protection of tort law to the advantage of client. When the client has been fully informed as to the risks inherent in the services about to be provided, the client assumes the risk of an adverse outcome. This is the protection afforded by tort law to the advantage of the professional.

If the methods for the conditions where business as usual is inappropriate were not substantially superior to business as usual, there would be no litigation explosion and no particular need for corporate liability insurance. This was the case prior to 1970 when business as usual was still on a par with the best available method technology regardless of conditions. Computer technology had a lot to do with the practical implementation of well known, but computationally intense techniques. The growth in computer technology correlates well with the tort litigation phenomenon.

In the new economy, two trends ganged up on commerce to bring it to this sorry state of affairs. The advance in method technology came at the same time the need for its service escalated.

Business as usual has a secure economically efficient place in some of the affairs of every corporation. The applications where business as usual fits best are shrinking in step with the growth in complexity and risks of global commerce. How often does the stuff that worked so well last year last? Remember those featured in the best seller “In Search of Excellence?” The revered business CEO icon Jack Welch? The newly elected director of the NYSE Martha Stewart?

You have to not need them. Those who will not or cannot contribute to your expedition have to be of no other value either. What you offer to them is a feeling that they matter, because you are interacting so as to persuade them, God knows of what. Except as recreation, you get naught in return and you have spent efforts that could have gone to better purposes. This rule says that, other than mentors, you should only be interacting with those ordinaries that can be squeezed by tort law to your potential profit. If they fall outside of the professional squeeze box, you are wasting your time.

The PCDC is anti-climactic. The climax is setting the hook into the target. He gets informed and his choice noted in a manner useful in court against him. We must find out what that would take.

 

Duty to be aware (I have a duty to reveal)

Duty to include in informed consent task

A tip off is the DnO reacting to change the law.

All escape routes are blocked. The law has provisions for any and all attempts of a professional to slide out of his duty. Professionals have tried to escape responsibility for doing their duty for centuries. Tort court has seen it all and taken preemptive steps.

When you are in tort, the judge grades you on “shoulda.”

The SEC created the safe-harbor for forward-looking where their wards can lie and deceive their stakeholders all they want with impunity.

Pitch line: I see your approach and line of reasoning and I sense a lack of confidence probably backed up by history that the strategy will get the job done. Congress even as it increases jail time for those guilty of corporate crime is skeptical that more severe punishments will get the job done. History has not been kind to the strategy of ethics by punishment.

Is it possible to run a business and meet stakeholder requisites in a deliberate way that supports error-free governance? Is there a sure-fire way to run a corporation so that it is successful, stakeholder-responsible, and immune to the perils of fraud and ethical lapses at the same time? Is it possible to design a viable system for commerce that can’t lose and can’t cheat?

The answer is of course. Demonstrations of that fact are all around you. The central principle of tort litigation is comparing the activities in the record to this benchmark. Our society pays a tax, the council calls the litigation tax, in order to not use the method. In 2002, that “tax” will exceed a trillion dollars a year.

The issue of the “tax” is separate from the issue of method (viable and practical) existence. The tax is a transfer of wealth from defendant to plaintiff compelled by legal action. The damage caused by not using the method is compensated for financially. It is no crime to continue on, inappropriately, with business as usual as long as you can afford the tax.

 

In the (z)cone

PL is monitoring the present scene exactly as corporations should governance – by method.

Services associated with liability litigation amount to 40% of that spent on all USA health care. And, like health care, firms related to this thriving industry are everywhere. Unlike healthcare, few people are involved in the action and fewer still even know the litigation explosion is going on. Less than 2% of all actions go to trial and settlement outcomes are usually secret.

The amount of wealth transferred is a measure of the irrational insistence to continue BaU in inappropriate circumstances. They don’t use litigation as an indicator that it’s time to change. Litigation is seen as a chancy disturbance to status quo and an unfortunate cost of doing business.

The central issue of asymmetry between forward and backward views is determined by the intrinsic character of time. Time future is a cone of expanding possibilities shaped by means and events. The past is a frozen changeless landscape of ends. We can neither go back in time and “fix things” nor can we jump ahead in time and arrange things. We have to do what we do in now time.

The benchmark for every sector of this market is PL. Use no other standard.

Can you sue the SEC, if you can why are you not? How would the SEC look to tort court?

The SEC is in a logical bind. If a professional. If you don’t know the principles of oversight, you should be sued. If you do know, you should be sued for not doing them. I can only assume you are ignorant, that you have as honorable men persisted in practices proven to fail because of the defect of ignorance. If you are not ignorant, you have willfully and seriously damaged your constituents. You cannot have it both ways.

 

Categories: Those who can use both phases and get an immediate benefit from an offer rejection. Global Broker, Insurance Co. Defense immediate; offense immediate. Phase II does not start until phase I starts getting some yes choices.

Those who can use both phases but get only a delayed, event-triggered benefit from offer rejection: Business consultants, like the Big Four

Those for phase I only.

Watchdog organizations

Regulators

Legislators

Associations of each category

Law Firms

Big investors stakeholders pension funds

Stakeholder groups: Whoever is suing corpos

Inhouse corporate counsel!!! Inform him of method. Design website for this dude.

Expert witness

Phase I without the PCDC hurdle

Media – magazines

Treat corpos as the goal – only reacting at the point of a gun. Corpo selling is indirect, though a familiar face. The positive we sell to the intermediary is the advantage it gets when corpo formally refuses to foresee. We sell a system to make money when corpo says no. Everyone knows that is what will happen.  The only ones in corpoland to pitch are the professionals – the inhouse lawyer and maybe a CFO. We need to practice the setup.

We sell to those who can advantage from formal corpo rejection of forward-looking. We get into proof of intent. We satisfy the legal requirements of “informed” and use that rejection to business advantage. Our BP relies on refusal to change to make $ or to position themselves to save it. This is protection, not for corpo, but for the professionals and stakeholders.

The pitch has to be to stakeholder advantage – relying on target to refuse forward-looking. Stakeholder has a duty to inform, which keeps them clean and out of impending mess, and he gets to profit from stakeholder choice to refuse. Insurance to deny claims. Take info to PL for $.

Inhouse corporate counsel is a target – he has a professional duty. He is the one to corpo contact.

Expert, seasoned practitioners, dedicated to securing a positive outcome.

Theory of liability:

“A product/service is defective in design: if it fails to perform safely/damage-free as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner (by consumer/professional).

“The record is all we have to go on.”

There is nothing the backward-looker can do to appear otherwise. If you can trick them into agreement that forward look is important to address the problem they got, stating the legal duty of foreseeability, they are logically trapped. How you going to foresee with hindsight. (cite Maxwell)

You cannot forward look without a tight handle on goals – the thing you are looking forward to, navigating towards.

The focus is on whatever works to achieve workshop people. That is the primary hurdle. The workshop is victory aftermath. The workshop itself doesn’t matter. The big conflict is in getting to that point. The workshop is our black box of method. The black box is foreseeability. The black box is perfect foreseeability – as perfect as history. What is foreseen perfectly is project success. The method will deal with the uncertainties and disturbances – as you go. We endow this box with whatever I/O helps us win the battle. We can use the whole I/O thing or pieces and parts for special markets.

Make a fuss about foreseeability rising above the reliability level of hindsight. History can be doctored fraud but foresight process cannot lie but one cycle and fraud is impossible. We can have a ball describing the black box attributes – its reliability and perfection and scrutable connectivity to natural law. As long as we avoid COURAge details, we can paint an infallible picture and invite validators. The proof is the money going to PL. A trillion dollars a year and you still think foresight is less valid for commerce than hindsight?

At one time prediction was mostly guesswork on the basis of what has happened can happen. Now foreseeability is more reliable than the certified financial reports. You cannot be professional and function on the basis of hindsight. You are legally bound, especially in the informed consent transaction, to describe options and probable outcomes.

It has nothing to do with man’s desires for good or evil. The passionate frenzy to force one view to achieve what only the other can do is not a plan; it is a wish.

What we learn at low cost is that most folks don’t want a fix. The trick is to profit from their choice to status quo.

Compulsory payments

Two tests:

Stakeholder Expectations: The purposes, behaviors and dangers of certain products/services commonly understood by those who ordinarily use them. By the same token, the stakeholders of the product/service may have reasonable, widely accepted minimum expectations of the circumstances under which it should perform safely. Stakeholders govern their own actions by these expectations and the products/services or the market should conform to them. The stakeholder/consumer expectations test of everyday experience is in conflict with minimum safety assumptions and defective regardless of expert opinion about the merits of the design

Risk-Benefit: A product/service is defective if its design embodies “excessive preventable danger” unless the benefits outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design.” The determination will involve technical issues of feasibility, cost, practicality, risk and benefit that are impossible to avoid. The jury must consider the defendant’s evidence of competing design considerations when the issue of design defect cannot fairly be resolved by standardized reference to stakeholder expectations.

Legitimate, commonly accepted minimum assumptions of its ordinary stakeholders.

It is defective when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product/service could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design anywhere in the delivery chain or the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe.

The issue is if stakeholder expectations constitute an independent standard for judging defect or determining defectiveness.

What chance has Iraq, saddled with an old known method, when facing an enemy who has spent all the time between wars developing new ways of waging war especially good at beating old methods. Zip.

Evidence of scientific validity is a consensus of colleagues.

The validation of now is not an accounting of matter. It is attained by observing the process installed, in particular how results are used to change means. It is that part of the cycle of trial and error where ends gets used as part of an information creative process to modify means. You watch the procedure (the hurdle) and the synchronization of feedback (the response), not the things themselves.

You design and position a hurdle. Only by action can you distill pure truth. As much as you cannot guarantee that his initial action plan will fail to attain his stated goals at time zero (there are con games based on this principle), once the action generates results your assessment can be infallible.

We’re so money

Building an awesome plaintiff bar populated with bright people having huge war chests. The gap now feeds a process which expands it.

The supreme taboo is goals. It is sometimes OK to acknowledge wreckage issuing from business as usual, especially when swimming in it (Dilbert). But it must stop there. You cannot fuss about consequences to the extent that focus of attention swings to goals. Goals is the last clip holding up the corporate house of cards. The fact that no goals exist in a rules-based operation must be concealed at all costs.

For the forward-looker, restricting activities to rules (backward-looking) is, exactly, what you want your enemies to do. Preparing to fight by the rules of the last war is what you want your enemies to do. BaU is easy to confirm. RGP military connection.

Must do the black box test early. Do you think that a better X would materially change the result? The listservs quibble over items which don’t matter but debated as if they did. The clients wouldn’t buy it in any case. Fear only. If it ain’t there, do something else.

The key is that where the target actually sends the dude to the workshop – the game is over. It’s not the workshop content at all, it’s the idea of change itself. It has nothing to do with workshop content. It is all about the workshop purpose. Getting the target to send a dude signifies capitulation. Therefore we use the workshop as the concept validator, have reasons for not discussing the insides (patents in process and work-shoppers have to sign papers). We now can get at the motivation factor without the façade. Solve the motivation factor problem before proceeding past the concept phase (Edison).

There is not one of you, given a free hand, who would not, using no more that the confection of imperfect concepts you have, make material and significant benefits to your client far above any cost. There is not one of you that has any other experience to report. How can you think the differences among you matter a damn in obtaining a client in the first place? The common issue is and always has been independent of whatever is in your bag of tricks, but contained in the selling (motivating) the idea behind the bag itself. To the degree this key factor is avoided is the degree of insecurity, the admission of a lack of competency to market the values of the bag itself. To the degree the controlling issue is avoided is the degree the discussing of what is in the box will be fruitless. It quickly boils down to courage. It’s takes courage to forsake the comfortable nest of jots and tittles and face the dragon of a horribly disfigured client determined to stay the course of self destruction.

Unless the client decides to survive, rather than go extinct, there is no chance.

To stand at the crossroad takes more strength than you possess. Caveat of ethics.

When an entity fusses over details in lieu of settling the black box issue, you know it is roadblocked. You have an idea without a home to pay for it.

We offer the principles – generic. PL does not work from the principles, the tools he has work good enough to make him rich. Whoever works with principles can stay ahead of everyone. Gravity is a natural law you can demo for yourself.

We can give the insurer a leg over the brokers to take more heat for mad policyholders.

It is the difference between artifacts and process.

Selling forward-look technology and knowledge. Sell parts: Can’t deceive. Foolproof future-proof. Classification sets limits – reliably forecast for business exploitation. Where does the truth in advance give you advantage? Where falsehood is going to destroy wealth.

Where the looks match = 1

Where the need is back and the look is forward = 2 and self correcting

Where the need is forward and the look is backward = everything is at risk

IRS is backward

It’s all packaging and a trick

The gotcha goes in the last transmittal

The drive is two pronged – make $ from corpo refusal and CYA . Take their wealth and preserve your own.

Big market targets after broker include the insurance underwriters. They can’t lose either. Should make a separate business plan for them. Smaller insurance companies may be able to compete better. Different drivers for the insurance brain. Perhaps the financial analysts might use the truth serum – same as the underwriter. The test becomes the ability of the target to future-cope. If they are locked on backward, you predict one way. If forward, another. You have a rigorous objective method for doing so. The forward backward table is those who need forward but may be stuck on a backward partner. Sell the classification scheme to stakeholders!!

What we sell to peripherals is the classification system!! They can accuse their target objectively. Can’t be lied to.

The broker is the whole thing. We can sell parts as well as wholes. Sell the truth serum to stakeholders to use to put their target into the lose-lose box.

The forward-backward sort cannot be lied to – the artifacts tell the story. Backward will have rules but no goals.

Reunions as backward.

We never reveal the method, only describe the black box – context and process (I/O). We can describe its characteristics and bases and history aplenty but the end of the line is the method acronym and we do not tell what the letters stand for. The method is always a workshop for practitioners – which takes 3 days of brainwork and not cheap! We can talk about its history and its mathematical rigor and natural law, which will terrify everyone. We can bluff all we need to – they’ll never actually pay for the workshop to find out before they decide on the proposition.

The peripherals now become possible markets. We have something to sell them, rather than inform them and stop. We describe the black box and how it is key to them and offer it in steps. It’s either the workshop itself or a custom business plan. The forward-looking stakeholders are the market. We teach them what forward means and how to tell if it is being delivered (black box).

We never reveal method details. Only bases, history, BB properties – even how it has been avoided, the social angle. Access to the insides is the workshop. We can tell them that if the I/O is of insufficient interest, what matters the BB insides? We package the BB in a reverse of the Russian Dolls. Target must act before the next doll is exposed. Always start at the vision abstract level. Pitch the next level I/O, offer and set the hurdle. Cease interaction until target responds. Set a clock. If target response exceeds your preset limit, make that fact part of your response (guilt trip). Make the time sound like company policy, not yours. (FES is CCL and policy is 30 days payment). Now when pay, no carryover rights. No longer have right of first refusal by payment of bill.

Sell accountants as a separate service? Offer them forward to offer as a separate item to take off the pressure on them to make accounting do what it cannot? Let accounting keep status quo GAAP and use as input to the world of forward.

Need a full blown module on generic forward-backward. Two layers making the case – overview and full. Call all the systems stuff forward. Rules-based backward. And the Dilbert stuff the conflict zone. Recast the tonnage.

The broker can be no less skilled in RM than the underwriter. It would then be to underwriter’s advantage to be more skilled than the broker – to get the blame for mad policyholders.

The targets of PL in the Enron wealth transfer contest are all candidates for the methodology – by definition. They are legally negligent and our methodology will resolve.

History is a potential future stripped of uncertainty.

Would you buy an insurance policy for the year past?

PL gets the perfect certainty of history to use as the answer sheet, as he travels back to a time before damage was inflicted, and tasked to solve the riddle of the “future.” He gets the answer sheet first. Then he has gobs of time to devise a test for himself, which, as a reasonable defendant, he knows how to pass and get the answer.

The Anderson guy in the hearing was a case of a backward-only dude facing a future-demanding judge. Fish in a barrel. He only had GAAP and he lost big time.

The defense of backward-looking governance can only be compliance with backward-looking regulations. The law cannot demand backward-looking methods to achieve what they cannot. You cannot command an accountant to produce the financial reports for the next quarter. To the auditor, achievement and consequences look the same.

Yogi: It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

Past: Absolute accuracy, total certainty

Present: “Seeing is believing.” What can there be to see? Artifacts of the past. We don’t inspect for methods because compliance to rules must be assumed in order to neglect consequences in order to avoid, at all costs, the subject of goals.

Future: An expanding cone of possibilities along the time axis – absolutely inaccurate, unreliably unreliable, and totally uncertain.

Familiarity, knowledge and an effective way of thinking about things. (Prof.)

Driven by the course of unintended events.

The fact that reason too often fails in corporate affairs does not give fair ground for the hysterical conclusion that it never succeeds.

Evoke fluctuating apprehension on the basis of common purpose.

Rules mean pragmatically the direction of specific individuals to action.

When, on occasion, I visit my simian cousins in captivity, the spectacle does not refresh me.

When, on occasion, I visit with the ordinaries in corporate captivity, the spectacle does not refresh me.

Liberty is the secret of happiness and courage is the secret of liberty.

Every day you wager your salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge.

We shall have obedience. To do without a master, you must master yourself. And, you must think.

You are called upon to face novel situations which find no parallel in your past. The fixed person for the fixed duty, such a godsend to industrialization, is now a public danger.

Progress in a discipline groove is not enough.

No loyalty is shown towards the discarded traditional procedure. Common sense is outraged at the bare suggestion that any value could adhere to the method, shown to be inferior.

What has evolved is thinking processes towards a continual evolution of better and better technological procedures.

The foundation of democratic government is confidence.

There are many emotional states where creative thinking is impossible. Obedience and force head the list.

The zeal that is born of defending the organizational status quo has driven many a man to be burned at the stake for an opinion expressed in public for which among his friends and at ease he would not have been willing to singe the tip of his finger.

Maxwell: “I object to any argument for God founded on a supposed acquaintance with the conditions of divine fore-knowledge.”

Follow backward-looking or follow forward-looking practices. To stand at the crossroads requires more strength than you possess.

Rules (faith) is life in scorn of consequence – and therefore of goals.

Forward is to teach your aspirations to conform to the fact of production, not to try and make product facts harmonize with your aspirations.

Be led by natural law or you will learn nothing. Resolve, at all risks, to do this.

They earned absolute destruction.

You have found that, like Archimedes, without a fulcrum upon which to rest your lever you cannot move the inert and resistant world of men and things as they are.

We live in an epic age. We play in, by far, the greatest drama commerce has ever staged; and we determine whether the outcome is tragedy.

The problem of removing obstacles to professional practice is far more difficult than the problem of production.

You are shocked not for the reasons found afterwards, but that the reasons were only found because you were shocked. They were there the whole time; if you had only looked

Awareness. Appease the irritation of doubt. A rule of action.

Belief is a rule for action. Action involves further doubt. The upshot of thinking is the exercise of volition – a choice of action and implementation.

Belief is a stadium of mental action. The function of thought is habits of action.

All intelligence (appropriate selection) is regulated error. Thinking in terms of operations.

Every distinction in meaning, however fine, consists only of a possible difference of practice. Every entity is something by its activity. Its nature consists in its relevance to other things and its identity consists in its synthesis of other relevant things. To develop its meaning, determine its habits.

From the practical effects provided by the object of our conception (the black box), the conception of the effect is the whole of our conception of the object. CSP in 1878, called pragmatism by Wm. James.

Truth happens to an idea. It is made true by events. [“What sensible difference to anybody will its truth make?] How will truth be realized?

Truth is the majority vote of that nation that can lick all the others.

Methodology is thinking, ruthlessly purged of sentiment, in terms of operations. Operational thinking is a ruthless process.

Any institution which cannot burst through its current abstractions is entropically doomed to sterility.

T.H. Huxley on natural law:

“The player on the other side is hidden from us. We know that his play (black box) is always fair, just and patient. But we also know, to our cost, that he never overlooks a mistake or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance. To a man who plays well, the highest stakes are paid, with that sort of overflowing generosity with which the strong shows delight in strength. And one who plays ill is checkmated – without haste, but without remorse.”

Morality is the courage to make a choice. Morality is obedience to the traditional maxims of your community without hesitation or discussion. Ethics, which is a reasoning out an explanation of morality is composed of the very substance of immorality.

Methodology is a series of actions we impose upon the flux. With nature no bets are off. You have a compelling purpose without being able to foresee exactly how it will all turn out.

Foreknow. The unknown is the action of the players to the ordeal when it actually comes.

Associate governance with intelligence. As long as errors are being corrected, you have intelligent foresight.

Observe in real time and they can’t lie.

Clerk-Maxwell

Backward looking doctrine holds that from the same antecedents follow the same consequents. This is absolute accuracy and indisputable history. But it is not much use in a world like this, in which the same antecedents never again occur, and nothing ever happens twice. In the view of one possessed of the knowledge of contingent events, scientia simplicis intelligentiae, an omniscience of all facts, scientia visionis, is but ignorance. Whatever meets the challenges in all the experiences to date is no guarantee of meeting the challenges of the future as well.

Every existence has singular points, the higher the rank the more of them. As the number of variables increase, small errors may not introduce a small difference in result. At these points, small influences may produce results of the greatest importance.

Professionalism is a prophecy that the plaintiff lawyer will greet your works with indifference and find them utterly disagreeable to his taking action.

Every purpose of action is to produce some sensible result.

An orderliness of succession cannot exist in an instant. It takes a small time span of the present.

Do a data bank of those hooked and offer it to PL as a service.

 

Give cause to; give rise to a duty; wear a special brand of responsibility

Future-proof. Future-oriented strategy

Innovation calendar

Pioneering initiatives

Enthuse your clients

The principle of backward-looking governance is “seeing is believing.” Management operating on “I’ll believe it when I see it” is thereby shown whatever artifacts it takes for him to see so that he believes now what he believed in times past. Control and synchronize the artifacts and you control what is believed. This principle cascades from bottom up without limit. It does not go far the other way because the operational reality always intrudes.

“Seeing is believing” is the maxim trademark of every wizard and con man that ever lived. The adage is deliberately used to extend the illusion that everything is peachy keen in order to buy time. “Seeing is believing” is why there are façades. Magicians depend upon the venerable adage to practice their profession. They provide what you expect to see when you inspect.

Methodologically, professional accountants and magicians depend upon the same intrinsic glitch of hindsight. Create the artifacts associated with the expectations as a screen to conceal reality. Build a façade to hide the wreckage. Arrange for a time cover, a diversion of attention. Cook the books to make it look like everything is splendid. Then, when your paperwork is “in order,” you can do whatever you want until the next sweep of radar comes along. As long as you can appear as a normal blip, you have opportunity time for mischief. Backward-looking governance is all about money. The books are central.

The Achilles’ heel of anyone who would use the adage to advantage is time. It takes cover and diversion time to build scenery and cook the books. In turbulent times, it can take a lot of maintenance to perpetuate an illusion. The invulnerability of business as usual has become a very expensive myth to maintain.

When forward-looking methods are employed, there is no unguarded time. Governance takes place at the same level as the operating reality. There is no vertical cascade. There may be time to cook the books but the books no longer run the show. Because the professional methodology is legally bound to be economically efficient, money drops down several layers on the totem pole of significance. What matters most to a destination-driven project is the compelling purpose. When all the energies are directed to achievement, an attempt to fraud shows up immediately as a disturbance.

Now we’re playing speed chess. Analysts are looking at information all the time. Everybody knows what’s going on. If anything happens, it immediately gets factored into the decision process.”

The more you stumble towards regimes of greater hidden significance, the less support you will encounter. When you finally reach the mother lode, the holy grail of understanding, you will only see the backs of fleeing men.

If you can’t accept the results of your test, don’t run it. What will it mean to you to learn how much support you really have from those you have trusted.

Your basis not choosing status quo is not the law of duty, but of enforcement odds. Do you know the risks ahead? Taking the chance on knowledge basis or by whim.

PL could do the regulators for malpractice. They had a duty – obviously negligent. The SEC met all tort conditions. Same as 9/11 issue.

Oversight is a match/mismatch issue. Need v approach.

It all Russian dolls – you can sue your PL if he doesn’t win.

Mixtures are possible only when forward is predominant. If backward is king, forward gets executed (goals). When forward is prime, backward becomes one input of several.

Firstname: Sharing your strong interest in ____, I thought you might be interested in an approach we have found effective in dealing with the matter. An overview is available on http://ArcanumPro.com

Cheers

“Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, everyone who receives protection from society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bounded to observe a certain kind of conduct towards the rest.” John Stuart Mill

 

Engineering science is a methodology, not particular subject matter. It is a mode of dealing with complex issues, not a matter of what comprises the complexity. The validity of the method is obtained by reaching the milestones of progress as predicted.

Science writing is vocabulary, precise description, references and strictly rigorous logic.

Classification rules: Mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. No overlap and cover all the members of the class.

Many know what is right to do but do what is wrong. Their principles are stronger than their character. The early Greeks called it akrasia – knowing what to do but not doing it.

The consequent and the subsequent. Causation. The root of magical thinking.

Some events just follow. Others are caused one to the other.

Cause and effect, means and ends, seed and fruit, cannot be severed, for the effect already exists in the cause, the end preexists in the means, the fruit in the seed. Ralph Waldo Emerson

Proximate and remote causes. Usually a combination of causes.

Any hypothesis must have predictive value.

6 kinds of legal writing: Opinion letters, instruments, pleadings, memos, briefs and judicial opinions. Strict conventions as to form.

Description of the issue. Statement of facts. Analysis of authority involved.

Facts are explained in a accurate, succinct, thorough and systematic way.

A brief is a summary of a case. It equals the memo plus jurisdiction and an extensive section on the argument.

A principle to be vital must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it birth. The SoC is not fastened to the obsolete but acquires meaning as public opinion becomes enlightened by experience.

It used to be the designer doing his thing and then release to BaU. All preemption was confined to the phase where that degree of knowledge had been gathered and was available. Once released, the intelligence level drops to damage response. The reason was economic efficiency and practical reality, it was just too expensive and disruptive to husband and maintain the knowledge base necessary to preempt. This is no longer the case. There is no longer a practical reason to limit damage avoidance to the design phase in the engineer’s warren. When the practical reason went away, we were left with the social reason for avoiding preemption – hierarchy preservation, top down intelligence.

The engineers were accepted, coexistence, as long as they were physically isolated, absent from social discourse about institutional affairs, and under institutional control through budget.  Funds went down and releases came up.

The only institution that suggests that engineering process be used after release in BaU is tort law. Without foreseeability, there would be nothing. The corporate fix was liability insurance. Screw preemption and just pay the tax. Now there is a horde of tax collectors, it is easier to collect the tax, and very few can afford it. Now, the tax will be collected through corporate liquidation.

The rate of change is too fast for institutional response. Individuals can do without institutional support. The carryover of IA to BaU is fatal to the hierarchy. A huge brain in the bottom rung? Go with the demo. Refusal of the demo, the test, equates with a validation of the premise. The risk of it being right is much too traumatic.

Sagacious – keen and farsighted, good word for us. The engineering process is sagacious.

Engineering process IA works in practice but not in theory. It is all grounded in natural law, to be sure, but it is linked by ingenuity and that is an individual matter. It is the individual that glues the three components of IA together. The process succeeds even though human ingenuity is involved because it makes up for “error” by recursion.

Put in the context and conditions of the demo capability. Pick your issue. Pick your referees – we have to satisfy natural law in any case, the universal language common denominator, so the umpires don’t matter. The demo will proceed along the following schedule. The first milestone is if solvable directly or if it needs simplification by imposing structure.

 

There is a lot of science going on. Technology will spew. Too much complexity for the hierarchy. The hierarchy is a complexity filter that works to preserve the big brain on top illusion. The leaders cannot otherwise control. If they cannot concentrate social power, they cannot concentrate wealth. The CEO problems of today are really problems of the hierarchy that cannot deal with complexity.

The hierarchy is a structure predicated on the top down flow of intelligence. No issue is permitted that exceeds more than one human brain worth of complexity. The whole tribal system depends on the masses going to the leader for guidance. The role of magic was to simplify. The explanation of phenomena in simple terms. The witchdoctor working in a staff position to the leader.

The root is complexity. The central issue is complexity. Less than one brain and more than one brain. When you have a many-brained problem and the hierarchy you have a mess. There is n o way for a hierarchy to cope with complexity. This is why you stop at informed consent. There is no corporate culture (of a hierarchy) that can matter. If all the solutions must support the hierarchy, then it cannot cope with any issue more complex than a human brain. Prediction is a no-brainer.

What is needed, perhaps, is to show how the particular complexity can be handled in a Ashby warren and crunched to hierarchical simplicity without disturbing the hierarchy.

As long as the establishment throws its money at the percentage intelligence stuff, engineers using Ashby IA will outperform them. As computational and algorithmic competency grows, the more the power imbalance. The hierarchy may be how we got here, but it has hit its ultimate barrier.

The complexity wall of the hierarchy is revealed at every offer to demonstrate its resolution. It is limbic. The implications of the barrier and its dissolution is too much for the corporate loyalist to bear – cognitive dissonance.

 

There are several version of intelligence augmentation. One is to get more out of the human brain by chemicals, surgeries and genetics. Another is artificial intelligence, a machine that stand-alone thinks. Another is to act as a job performance aid to brain work. Ashby’s version is a man-machine partnership where the man sets up the machine to compute what is necessary that he cannot in recursion. Ashby’s version is the real powerhouse to multiply intelligence by thousands of brains, while all the others are stuck in small percentage increases in capability. Variety and selection makes it so.

It is crazy to see Ashby’s IA version in service everywhere and all the effort going to the percentage crowd. Basically, the big institution development money is going to make better elements for Ashby’s system which is for engineers.

The advent of complexity is the challenge to the human brain. If the human has to be the supreme intelligence engine, there is a strict limit on how much complexity can be resolved. In Ashby’s system, the human brain is greatly multiplied, like horsepower of the airplane engine. Use weather forecast story.

In order to preserve the official supremacy of the human brain in social systems, all tricks are acceptable. The real complexity is denied and concealed. The IA that is done is also hidden and devalued with leaders taking credit. IA is grudgingly supported and budgets tightly controlled. Leaders try to use IA as little as possible. As long as IA is effectively hidden, it’s OK. Corpoman hates to measure the real complexity, preferring denial.

The problem for leaders is that the complexity of civilization is rapidly increasing and most of the increase generators are beyond leadership control. The ability to cope with complexity is also rising and, in recent years, at a faster rate and this IA is now generally affordable by individuals. Corpo has lost its monopoly on the supply of critical IA resources. So, the need for complexity resolution is up and the supply of an antidote is not controlled by institutions.

So independent engineers are able to do IA and outdo corpo on many fronts, by delivering the solution. All the other forms of intelligence augmentation have a physical form – the robot, the pill, etc. The engineer’s IA has no physical form. The human brain is there unmodified and there is a plain vanilla computer.

Engineering: Materials, structures, fluids, electricity, light, heat, energy, chemicals, protoplasm – all the phenomena that constitute the physical universe. These engineering sciences rest upon the fundamental disciplines of mathematics and physics, including physical chemistry and biology.

The many possibilities “pop up” and are screened. Only the fittest survive.

There are 1.5 million engineers engaged in engineering work. There are 300,000 PEs, considered an anti-social, anti-human profession.

Engineers are “called” to serve the community. The license makes this commitment manifest. Unjustified censure and irrational expectations. A system that relies on heroism is neither stable nor efficient. A society that expects martyrdom form its citizens is neither wise nor noble.

1817 – Erie canal. Only 30 engineers in the USA.

The 1956 book “The Power Elite” reports engineers reduced to the role of a hired technician, with the true power being vested in corporate chieftains and the political directorate. Thorstein Veblen wrote in 1917 that “the public viewed engineers as a somewhat fantastic brotherhood of over-specialized cranks, not to be trusted out of sight except under the restraining hand of safe and sane businessmen. Nor are the technicians themselves in the habit of taking a greatly different view of their own case.”

 

Responding to evil is socially more honored than avoiding it.

The bait that destiny has offered.

What does it mean, after the mark has expressed a complex problem and a wish to solve it, for him to refuse a solution demo? I believe something very basic psychologically is being hit. Ashby triggered the same thing 50 years ago.

The scene we have now is an exponential change in society, caused by IA, being wrought unconsciously by engineers working below the radar screen. This revolution undermining the hierarchy is going on right now. Leaders are abusing the herd as an indication of angst.

I believe the core issue is the human intellectual capacity. It was one thing socially to amplify power as in James Watt. The amplification of “intelligence” is a different social matter. This stuff is limbic. People could see and understand what Edison did. The rise in complexity and IA, which generates more of it, began the fall of engineering from public adoration. It was not Merlin and magic, where an act of faith was enough.

We don’t play around with limbic. When reaction is hard wired, there is nothing to persuade. Complexity is limbic and hierarchy defense is limbic. The Microsoft ads. When you have an issue that collides with limbic and there is no other way to resolve the issue, make your plans to profit from the spontaneous reaction to self destruct.

The line of damage avoidance – response is, exactly, the line between one brain capacity and IA. It’s the line between the designer and the operator. The line between regulatory and tort is the same line. Once “released” to low intellectual investment and rule-based behavior, there is no going back to higher brain stuff. When the consequences of such were covered by insurance, BaU was OK. Now liability is the end of the entity. Without the law supporting the line, there was no chance.

Corpo only supported risk management as long as it didn’t get into IA stuff, which means avoidance. The reason it ended up locked on damage response was that corpo wouldn’t fund anything else. The imprint of the line is in the budget.

My job is to show the advance and growth in damage avoidance technology, design, and the removal of the excuse for not looking. Of course, they will still not look. The right word for the ongoing activity is unlawful. Tort is how you find out, after damage, retroactively, that what you’re doing now by omission is unlawful. By concentrating on damage response to the exclusion of preemption is unlawful.

It’s not the commission but the omission. As preemption via IA becomes more practical, it will still be shunned. This makes PL job easier. We tell the stakeholders to get to think like a PL because it will get them money and all the time they will shun IA themselves. Keep in mind the only place for giving all about preemption is the tort judge and then the PL.

There is no reason to try to educate the public about this blind spot, because it is limbic and not cerebral. Offer to demo and all will run away. We must be a subset of engineering – systems and dynamics. The only place to hit the social aspect here is in the amicus and under the legal flag. Tie IA to Rudy to social computation and how the social system is as damage avoidance as the technical system. Can compute social system behavior is scenarios as well as technical systems. It’s all defense of the hierarchy by all levels. The alternative is using the brain and self reliance.

The role of magic and miracle is to deal with complexity at a one brain level. The magician is an employee under the control of the hierarchy leaders. The king still has the biggest brain, bigger than Merlin – who does the kings bidding by following a set of standard recipes. Which is why Harry Potter is in school. IA violates everything social because it is not an act of faith but knowledge and it gives intelligence asymmetrically to the pyramid bottom. The power roles are reversed.

 

The focal point has to be challenge-response. Complexity as the challenge and effective means of assaulting complexity as the response. You can line up corpo as limited to human brain power. You can line up PE as BAT on intelligence amplification. It is corpo culture v tort law. You are obliged to become proficient and reliable at measuring complexity of a client affair. As they do maintenance answers the attitude about damage response v preemption. The budget is the culture.

Value (want)

Cherish (ultimate)

The fact is that it is taboo to quest after intelligence amplification. It is a threat to the hierarchy. The Microsoft ad campaign. The order of magnitude scale of intellectual investment.

The fact is that IA is something done with the human brain. AI is autonomous robot, but IA is a team affair with the human as leader. We operate the steam shovel. The budget tells all. What they fund, no matter how poor the ROI, and what they do not fund, no matter how rich the ROI, tells all. They fund their creed and avoid funding creed-threat. IA is perceived as a threat to power and control, which it is.

Since they are not going to change creeds, behavior is predictable. Tort insurance allowed corpo to avoid preemption as a reasonable fee. Since the stakeholders are the same creed, the trick is to profit from the sting delivered by tort for failure to foresee.

The power of IA is getting everywhere. The conflict between preemption and reaction is showing up everywhere. As long as tort is retained, its sting is going to be felt widely. The individual does a flip. He avoids preemption in his own affairs but is quick to insist his services use BAT.

Corpos will continue to control those new technologies which require big capital outlays, like chips, but they will lose control of application to artifacts and services. Hierarchy will supply the ingredients, skunkworks will do the artifacts. Universal control will bifurcate to IA application and non-application.

Test by demo. The offer to demo is a big test. Refusal to demo is basically accepting the validity of your claim. It establishes and affirms creed over rationality. The default to response so that the brain is organizationally supreme, sets them up for tort when the next damage is done.

While the champions of IA technology were erased from history, IA practice is going on everywhere in engineering warrens. The bifurcation is going on as corpo drives engineering away to have it reappear as competition. Corpo is reactive to the fact and does not try to preempt it. How can it preempt IA when it reacts to everything else as creed? The more corpo gets nailed in tort, the more it will withdraw. The hierarchy is cherished.

Now that IA is spreading out, corpo will be punished for not using it. Design will be away from those things controlled by big institutions and into packaged goods for individuals.

 

There are client patterns that lend themselves to standardized response modalities.

There is a definite need here for a set of websites to support the typical encounter issues in consulting work. Clients don’t know what they want – so offer a short service to fill that need. The repetitive stuff should be down on a website as an aid. Clients want to tie you up with means and ends. Clients want rules of regulatory to work – especially where they can’t. The “hard” stuff has to be blunted and made impersonal.

Because of the emotional subject matter, you must shift the authority to law. You want your clients to see you as an obedient drudge just like them loyal to the same society but with a different reporting channel and creed. If there was no tort and if they had full tort liability insurance, we’d be dead in the water. The line the law draws for us between regulatory and foreseeability is a godsend. We make the law appear more rational than it is and hide behind that.

The futurists guys are getting it wrong. They shy away from Ashby’s intelligence amplification and talk magic. IA is all around us and it is undiscussable – an emperor’s clothes matter.

Self-assessment sites where clients can deal with an impersonal object. You can put into the design of a self-appraisal site stuff you could never say to a client in person. We need to think up a plausible “official” source, like the PCDC, for the sites. Tie the PCDC into a legal context.

One site is needed to cover the complexity measure beginning. The variety of the issue for “appropriate selection.” Here get the point across if complexity is high you must pick ends as only one method is possible. If complexity is low, you can set means and ignore ends. This can connect to the regulatory website.

One site for the objective setting. The goal setting and definition phase. It can be in the form of a proposal. Give the variety reduction math.

Make the disconnect of ends and means a legal requirement.

The rush of corporations to outsource their staff operations (BPO) is another data point. They do it with no benchmarks or front ends and it is a disaster. No understanding, just do it. It does buy time it simplifies and greases the skids to bankruptcy. Aon sells insurance to change providers – which has to be a disaster anyway. 1% of coverage is the premium. Same scene as the early IBM mainframe days.

There is no limit to what will be done to preserve the hierarchy. On the scale of values, the chain of command from high intelligence to low is primary. No doubt about it, the idea that anything should have more intelligence than the CEO is absolutely forbidden. In practice corpoman doesn’t even get close to the line. When the chain of command is in danger, everyone runs back to extreme OTA.

With the attack on the hierarchy and the undermining by intelligence amplification, you are going to see some pretty bizarre acts by CEOs – like a blindfolded boxer. The denial of IA will be big time. This is a key theme for us. We can show it being used by tort through foreseeability and they are stuck with brain limits. The case for IA can be made several ways. Artifacts are everywhere. How can the CEO be a dictator when the intelligence center is down below?

The connect is to show damage avoidance as a design level item (10K) where IA is essential. This is plaintiff lawyer food. Once IA is allowed in as a topic, it locks on engineering stuff – natural law calculus, algorithms and recursion. Make it a central point that calculus is the only rational way to go forward in time, or backwards. There is no alternative. Deterministic systems. Once engineering process is in, all the rest follows. Its first use has to be to show the limits of rule-based regulation. The framework has to be that this benchmark is the one used retroactively after damage and the wealth transfer engine.

A “new” rule is never directly propose anything that triggers a response from the limbic system. What does this is being measured with brain scans. When you get the instant negative response, stop the experiment. It can never be loyalty. It must always be a conflict in systems – both reporting to and deliberately designed by the same supreme apex. Avoid limbic at all costs. When you illuminate the conflict in systems, it must be as an agent and not a source. All criticism must be inverted into loyalty praise. Practice this.

The belief in religion and magic is absolutely limbic. Let them have their Harry Potter in peace. You can say you believe in miracles, too, but that works against you in tort court. Corpo creed defense is limbic. Praise of creed loyalty evokes a good limbic response. I would stay with praise for a good while before introducing the view from the other creed. Tie corpo creed to regulatory compliance. Then, point out the obvious gap with tort liability. Because the capability to avoid damage continues to advance, anyone can predict the future here.

 

A PE is not a gatekeeper of organizational responsibility, unlike the CPA. A PE is not an enforcer of law. He has the duty to detect and to warn but not remedy.

Note from ABA. All the fuss about confidentiality is tossed aside when the lawyer is collecting his fees in court. All the fuss about reporting fraud is “may” not shall.

The only “safe” place to be open with our technology is law. Every other social institutional setting is mined. They have found the hostility to blasphemers to come from the limbic system brain, not the cerebrum. To get business, you must be selling creed-compatible stuff and glory to the hierarchy. Tort law is the only place where the process of engineering is socially OK.

You cannot threaten the hierarchy or creed with pressure to change. You must praise the loyalty to that system and indicate your legal duty to be loyal to the system they and you are benchmarked to in tort court. It’s a case of doing the contrast to the two systems, showing them in law breaking mode, and leaving them alone to decide – you being indifferent. You basically act as if damage has just occurred and you are assessing their defense from the tort standard. The science here can only be attached to tort.

It’s all about power and control. The zinger with engineering process is intelligence amplification where the biggest brains are not those of the leaders. Thou shall have no other gods before me. How can the CEO direct from on high to a higher intelligence below? When the intelligence gradient is not top down, the hive is uneasy – rest is vetoed. Reversals of the intelligence gradient confound the CEO. Who is controlling who? Since the lower intelligence can’t control the higher, the CEO goal is to eliminate it.

In the case here, it is the engineering dudes of lower intelligence directing the focus of the machines with the higher intelligence. In order to direct the big power, you have to do the algorithm which demands full human intelligence. There is no place in this process for social system crap – all role insertions of social influence are counterproductive. If the organizational leaders don’t play the engineering process, they can’t really control it. They don’t know enough to mini-manage it. Managers are forced to emotional appeals to those directing the genie. Suspicion is high. Leaders can’t control by their intelligence over the engineering process 10,000 times more intelligent.

Unlike the initial decades, the computer power jump of the last five years has translated directly into reducing, substantially, the field of unsolvable complexities. When you put damage avoidance squarely into the very complex, foreseeability, there is no excuse. You can use the threat of fast demonstration to settle the “loyalty creed supremacy” issue quickly.  The bias to damage response is to avoid reversing the intelligence gradient and its mark is so pronounced as to be plain obvious. It is in the budget and org chart. We need a compilation of what PE damage avoidance would look like – if it were being done. This frame of reference is vital to have to show corpoman. The bias extends to regulatory also.

The concept of “intelligence” amplification, once terms are carefully defined is central.  It is a process by which the power of appropriate selection is increased beyond the intelligence of the system which controls that process. IA involves two separate systems; one that generates descriptions of alternatives and another that selects among the set for goal seeking. The circular flow of information between these two stops when the goal is reached.  The engineer does not know the details of work done by the machine. The checkers program.

In 1960 the idea was made public and clear and it circulated about widely. A decade of promotion found it totally suppressed, except for the military R&D. By 1990, it had been buried and the key people scattered and obscured. Ashby was betrayed by his context. The Establishment had basically dismantled the programs and wiped the idea out except under its total control. The resurgence of IA came from individual engineers doing their thing with complexity using computers not controlled by management. As a process of engineering design and the intrinsic tie to foreseeability, damage avoidance, IA shows up in tort and artifacts.

Organization is the rule which takes present states into future states. The existing allocation of efforts tells the story. Do they do the necessary stuff to avoid damage, to the degree earning judgmental immunity? If not, they are breaking the law as regards “process” such that when this aspect is investigated, after the fact of damage, retroactively, they will be found negligent. Our job is to show, up to legal standards, that the negligence was intentional. The informed consent ritual nails them.

It conflicts with the first commandment – no other gods before me. Man as supreme and top gun man’s brain uses the supreme intelligence source to direct those of lesser brains – who are only too happy to not use the brains they have and just follow the herd. The enemies of IA are very many as it is a loyalty creed issue.  It is hard to imagine an idea so unpopular as it is so significant. Same as Starkermann. Big idea big defense.

The lesson of IA history is avoid any direct action. Rather than top down direct, you take an effect, damage avoidance, and handle that issue as a law matter. Nothing from you. This is ultimate inner sanctum stuff. The approach here is to demonstrate rather than explain. When they refuse the demo, you have your test answer.

Intelligence amplification is increasing the capability of an engineer to handle a complex problem. This is not AI. AI is giving a whole problem to a machine. IA is giving a part of the problem to a machine that it can do best. The focus on this feat is almost all after WW11. Ashby was ahead by 10 years.

IA is a qualitative way of thinking about handling complexity. It doesn’t matter what the shared tasks are, but the results. This is easier done than said.

While we are absolutely on the right track, what we need is testing on the best ways to set up corpoman. Remember the 100% goal is injection of conscious awareness of law breaking and not mad at you. There is no higher score.

The interface stuff we see is just hierarchy defense to the creed of rule-based obedience.

Nanotechnology and MEMS, (microelectromechanical) by a back-door way are forcing a multi-disciplined skunkworks structure. There is no other way to bring a product to market. The schools do not teach this and will not. The CAD software of EE and ME is getting slowly joined. It will be a big fight. Great test of the hierarchy.

The weather guys in WW1 figuring global weather with 60,000 calculators. They had the equations of the physics in hand and an algorithm to deal with the integration – the recursion to do the calculus to go forward in time got them.

The focus is on intelligence demand. The British even have a procedure for processing your accident analysis report to find logical errors and conflicts. (SCS structured common sense) Deontic action logic, it is called. It could be used to check the logic of damage avoidance via simulation. It is the same logic as that used to requirement engineering to see if the goal was defined enough. Why not make management submit its logic to the logic prover?

Normative behavior (creed-loyal) as the causative factor.

The nanotechnology push is automatically forming skunkworks. The task is so interdisciplinary, there is no other structural choice. There can be no power to a boss because he cannot possibly understand what is going on. They can produce a product that speaks for itself. Systems think is being forced by artifact developments of great complexity, which requires intelligence amplification, which is undermining the hierarchy.

By delivering goods of great complexity using the engineering process genie, engineers have (without trying to as a goal) escaped the pull of organizational gravity. Engineers are creating complexity as their briar patch to give them skunkworks (skill cells) independence. Management brain is far too limited to grasp what has to go on. Intelligence amplification, real enough, allows engineers to move into complexities far beyond the control of organizational process. The Microsoft ads show the brain gap.

IA is the freedom trail for Dilbert. Pointy head understand nothing about what is going on. When the market is fed artifacts complex enough to require intelligence amplification, the hierarchy is dead. Hierarchy was formed to the limit of human intelligence (appropriate selection) therefore – have no problem that requires more intelligence than human capacity. All brain science is to create more intelligent brains, not amplification. Meanwhile it goes on anyway in engineering warrens. They have no use for Bremermann’s limit or the calculation of complexity to decide 1) it is solvable and 2) does it require intelligence amplification. Nice parallel to power amplification.

Engineers got the genie out of the bottle and didn’t even know it, as such. It was a sneak attack on the hierarchy.

What is needed is clear understanding of what the complexity of the issue is to see if IA is necessary and if it can be gotten down below Bremermann’s limit through our structures. We need to get better at counting the total choice field to see the selection demand – basically for promotion purposes. This is a tool.

You can put regulation into the one-brain size category. The leaders can understand and rule. The code line items are bite size. Any brain can play. Damage response is never more than one brain size. The complexity of the damage generation phase is simplified by the damage itself. The study commission can worry about the causes for the next year while things get back to normal.

Damage avoidance always entails a huge exponent of choice possibilities – which always requires IA, which is blasphemy to the corpo.

Making the distinctions on complexity makes the platform objective and impersonal. You can then see if they are doing only the human brain limit stuff, like in a table lookup check list, and not doing the IA stuff – also a check list.  You sort the law into regulatory (one brain) and foreseeability (intelligence amplification). This is why we must marry up with the law – it is much more objective than any guild and it is already divided into one brain simple scope and, by accident, into complexity scope. Tort, via foreseeability which is damage avoidance, tracks IA. This division is already there and working – we merely have to refer to it as if it was there deliberately for the purpose.

When you wipe out the guilds and academia and institutions, what else is left but the law.

An algorithm is a procedure for solving problems in a fixed number of steps.

There is intelligence – appropriate selection, limited by human size used by corpo to keep status quo and skunkworks to seek complex goals. Status quo as a goal has little complexity and the human brain is all the information processor necessary and sufficient. Corpoman hates intelligence amplification as a challenge to human brain supremacy. Social control requires the human brain be the ultimate intelligence source in the corpo.

Intelligence amplification is necessary when there are issues too complex for the human brain to handle. The vast majority of design matters today feature complexity beyond the scope of the human brain. Engineers engage the genie of intelligence amplification by taking associated mathematical physics through an appropriate learning algorithm with computer-enabled recursion. The genie appears in no other circumstances. It is not available to anyone not directly participating in the three step process. You possess the genie through the engineering process.

When management eliminates the genie, it has restricted the scope of complexity that can be handled.  Tort is about willful neglect to call up the genie.  When there is an issue of such complexity that it requires IA and it is scorned as a threat to the supremacy of management brain, the law-breaking begins there.

The high CEO pay is based upon the presumption of supreme brain power – at the top to handle the tough stuff for the robots. There shall be no other gods before me – #1 for god and CEO alike.

 

Foreseeability is all about engineering process and how it uses intelligence amplification to cope with complexities, design and preempt damage. Law demands that when intelligence amplification advances in power, that power be used to foresee damage.

It takes dealing with complexity to make any kind of progress at all. Damage preemption is far more complex than damage response. The human brain is adequate for damage response. Intelligence amplification is requisite for damage avoidance.

There is a backward-looking defensive, analysis intelligence (appropriate selection), to the corpo. Enterprise is an offensive, synthetic intelligence.

If your “thing” is perceived by the corpo loyal as criticism of their creed, you will automatically be considered “bad.” If you persuade to adjust their creed either to reduce losses or gain benefits, you are automatically a blasphemer. The size of the incentive has nothing to do with it (NASA).

Praise manifest loyalty to their creed and you are perceived as good.

Declare like loyalty to your creed, published by the same social press, and you are not considered a threat. You are doing your duty to inform that what they are doing via their creed is non-compliant with what the basis of your creed requires. Not an issue of loyalty but of creeds.

The maximum score possible is to inject conscious awareness that they are loyally in illegal mode. You dispassionately respect their choice. Leave them in formal awareness and neutral about you is the maximum attainable.

Asymmetric information – possessed by workers.

Maintenance has been studied and it is a parallel example to damage response as a creed. A culture of reactive maintenance. No big picture thinking allowed. Short term and local. When avoidance models were built, no one wanted to use them. Rewards go to crisis managers. Forget trying to change this. Our DI plan is the only one.

Regulatory is the codification of human activity. The extension of popular control over human activity.

When the corpo is perceived as unfair, the time span shrinks to now.

 

Florman – introspective engineer 1996

“Constricted interests are apparent in their relative indifference to human relations, to psychology and the social sciences, to public affairs and social amelioration, to the fine arts and cultural subjects and even those aspects of physical science which do not immediately relate to engineering.”

A third of American adults have no idea how PEs spend their time. One percent of Congress. Engineering is taken for granted.

We are problem solvers, adhering to facts and the truths of experience, shunning personal sentiment, or at least recognizing it for what it is. We live with the given constraints of time, materials and money to find an optimal solution, not a perfect one.

Gratuitous disparagement of engineering is a popular sport. The intellectual’s contempt for technology is a superficial view of life that dates back to classical Greece.

The first engineer to be accorded public honor was an Egyptian hydraulic specialist known as Uni – “Superintendent of the irrigated lands of the king,” and “foreman of the foremen.” In 2500 BC he left a message for posterity inscribed on his tomb at Abydos, “I became great beyond words. I did no wrong whatsoever.”

The genie in the bottle neither threatens nor constrains. It offers to grant wishes – the vexatious freedom of choice.

The formal thinking necessary for mathematical physics is not normal in humans. Scientific thinking goes against the grain of traditional human thinking, which is associative and subjective. The ability to work with mathematical physics is especially compromised by failure to overcome the innate tendency to confuse thought and reality.

We had better accept the universe with all its perplexities and threats

Prince Charles at Harvard’s 350th celebration in 1986, “We may have forgotten that when all is said and done a good man, as the Greeks would say, is a nobler work than a good technologist.

In 400 BC, Xenophon stated social policy concerning engineers, “What are called the mechanical arts carry a social stigma and are rightly dishonored in our cities.”

Unconcealed disdain and contempt.

In 1813 there were 30 engineers in the USA.

“True consent to what happens to one’s self is the informed exercise of a choice, and that entails an opportunity to evaluate knowledgeably the options available and the risks attendant upon each.”

Notes: 1. A statute that is, for some reason, defective as an enforceable statute, is nonetheless a standard that can be used for determining negligence. 2. Old statutes that are no longer enforced are NOT strict measures of negligence per se, because the fact that they are not enforced makes them suspect as a standard of ordinary care. If the standard was ordinary, it would be enforced. 3. A person may be liable for damages that arise in the future for a breach of a duty that has not yet been statutorily enacted. The fact that a statute is later enacted is strong evidence that a standard of care was required before its enactment. 4. Only the class of persons that was intended to be protected by a statute is entitled to recover in an action for its breach. However, this class can be interpreted broadly. In Teal v. Du Pont, the employee of a company that was using a ladder was held to have an action under the OSHA statutes against the manufacturer of the ladder, even though the OSHA statutes are sometimes limited only to the employees of the company that manufactures the product. This is because the OSHA statutes were interpreted to cover all employees. 5. The statute does not have to provide a specific duty against a specific injury. The character of the injury to be prevented is all that is needed to support negligence.

The violation of a statute is negligent as to all consequences of the violation that the statute was meant to prevent.

 

2002

The grand plan is straight forward.

1)Our world is civil law tort where money is taken from corpo for breaking the law.

2)We present the conditions under which this financial transaction takes place as one of total objectivity based on natural law – itself functioning as a model of what should be going on in corpo. It is itself an instance driven by the standards it imposes on its “clients.” Tort law has been doing it for generations, what’s your problem?

3)We present ourselves as expert on the natural laws and technology upon which tort court is based. We are expert in application of those laws to commerce so that liability is preempted. We make abiding the law easy. We have very high reliability corpo governance, for instance. We derive and teach the methodology.

4) We track refusals as marking a dot.now malpractice mode, for potential future use against them.

This is why we should emphasize how tort court reduces entropy by using a cycle of setting the SoC anew every case. It doesn’t allow entropy to increase uncompensated, what’s your problem? We set tort court intolerant of any professional who is not proactive in entropy reduction (management). The tort is the operational example of enterprise mode.

 

The idea of imposing structure and coherence seems central to the doing of useful work. If you then consider where does this imposing effort come from, eventually you get to intelligence and consciousness. Our ability to impose structure derives from chemical energy or fuel. Nothing simple here. Some work is spontaneous, some isn’t. It can’t matter about the specific details. Spontaneous rarely goes in a direction suitable to your goals.

You have to arrange for coherency whether it’s heat energy or work energy. The transactions and conversions of energy are asymmetrical concerning heat. To convert energy against nature’s grain requires including a system which goes with nature as a source of work. Heat will never go against the grain.

 

I am beginning to see why some have called the second law the most significant. It is one law of which we are most certain and is in our everyday experience. We don’t know what gravity or energy is, but we do know about the dispersion of heat energy.

The entropy law must play a role in how we operate social relationships. Since it takes energy to communicate and interact, there are transfers within each at a cost. Action choices are being made on the basis of relative costs.

The only fully spontaneous goal, the goal that requires zero intelligence, is self-annihilation. You must intervene intelligently, using the spontaneous flow locally to reduce entropy at the requisite cost of increasing entropy externally.

All methods are cycles, BaU and enterprise. BaU is a method, the initial condition returned to is the first task on the same list of tasks. Enterprise is a method where the initial condition returned to is what tasks should we do this time around.

Corpo needs a storehouse of concentrated, high quality energy for reducing entropy. Reducing entropy requires high quality energy and the intelligence to impose the appropriate structure. When status quo is disturbed and energy is spent without reducing the entropy increase caused by the disturbance, the entropy is increased still further. That is, the capability to resist the next disturbance is diminished.

Aggression is a method, a cycle. Aggression is a bet that you will differentially draw off more energy from your opponent in resisting you than you have to spend so that after a cycle of aggression he has been damaged relatively more than you. The end of aggression is that your opponent is dead and you are still viable, however nearer death than you were at the outset. You want your opponent to waste as much high quality energy as possible at the least expense from you. You want him to draw down his coherence supply until he can no longer reduce his own entropy.

If you think of entropy as physical and mental, there may be something there. We have to reduce entropy in our body by intelligent action. To do that we must husband our intelligence factory which also consumes energy.  Disturbances to our mental state introduce entropy increase there which must be reduced. How do we increase our supply of high quality coherency to build up our reserves to compensate for entropy? Well, we have to do something, because inaction will bring more entropy. We use consciousness to increase coherency structure (as relative to reality). We have to spend our fuel (heat) to do work with coherency to decrease incoherency. There are limits on work energy and time for each of us. The only option left is to increase our reserve account is coherency.

This is why we want our professionals to live by different rules than us. We want them to build up big reserves of high quality coherency so they can transfer it to us. They are like a gas station of coherent work energy. We run low and need to fill up. We want our professionals to proactively increase relative (to reality) coherency so we can make withdrawals. How are we going to reduce our entropy back to a safe range if we can’t deal with a disturbance? We go to a professional and use his reserves of structure and coherency and work energy for our benefit. We have the energy and the ability to convert it into work, but we lack the application coherency.

Viability is all about dealing with entropy.

There is a feed of the 2nd law into the control cycle, as I put in last year, but it is more significant and far reaching a factor.

It takes a goblin with prodigious intelligence and dexterity to cause things to happen that are never seen to occur spontaneously in nature. It takes intelligence, a capacity to process information, and participation in the environment – not outside or above it.

In quiet times, BaU is the natural, spontaneous flow. You don’t have to contrive BaU, it is achieved by not imposing goal-centered coherency, the skunkworks.

The difference between BaU and enterprise is the like the difference between a fireplace and an A/C. Both energy systems work but one is a simple spontaneous flow often seen in nature while the other is a complex of energy transfer contrivances that few people understand.

Both BaU and enterprise conditionally work. BaU takes very little intelligence and husbandry but can have a short reign depending on context changes over time. It has no way to reduce internal entropy so that every disturbance that enters the system must be repelled at the expense of it’s own entropy supply. To predict the end of a corpo you only have to plot the rate of entropy increase compared to income.

Rules has no entropy reduction process. In rules, the increase in internal entropy is ignored or prevented from changing the rules by increasing internal entropy. Enterprise is the entropy reduction process used for both external and internal purposes. In enterprise, the increase in internal entropy is handled routinely as another disturbance to goal-centered progress.

Enterprise is the discontinuous cyclic process of reducing internal entropy relative to an external goal. To enterprise a disturbance is just another day at work to be caught in the next cycle where the necessary energy transfers are made so that entropy is reduced. Entropy is reduced in cycles. Entropy is increased in a continuous natural process.

Basically, what one sells in commerce is something useful for others in reducing their entropy. The transactions can be viewed as entropy transfers.

The dot.now classification match task is to observe whether or the process being used is rules continuous or enterprise discontinuous cyclic. This is then compared to the stated goal and to the operational reality context of the mission to attain it.

The Demon is only a practical factor in entropy reduction. Reduction is a cycle because energy has to be converted into work and that is a cycle (Otto, Rankine). Every cycle involves an intelligence step featuring invention to support it (appropriate selection). Intelligence consumes knowledge and information which takes energy (work).

All this is more reason to stand on natural law and the tort law which rests on it. We paint tort court as corpoman’s worst nightmare and, since it is all based on natural law, he cannot escape. We show fear of it too. What tort court says is did you or did you not use natural law appropriately. Why did you not use commonly known natural law in your activity?  The professional is required, as a minimum, to know the basic natural laws. We set up the 2nd law and control theory as the greatest and most widesweeping regarding method or activity, which is what tort is about.

It is very slippery to draw a line through all the laws of nature for ordinary to choose which he should have used and which he could remain ignorant of. There is no natural stop rule. All the plaintiff lawyer has to do is to show the relevant natural laws in everyday stuff to the jury and how little thinking it would have taken to avoid the damage. PL acts like the algebra teacher who knows the answer and the starting block. He shows how easy it was to solve.

We blame everything on natural law, showing how tort court complies as a model, and box the target in so that he has to deny a natural law in order to escape – and in so doing falls into our waiting trap. Feature tort court as activity-oriented and our two laws as prominent in a generic way regarding activity.

The “rules” of tort court include entropy reduction for itself. It is expensive to reduce entropy. Rational means natural law compliant. The occult is opposite by definition. PL and the judge, by law, monitor each other in dot.now to operate on objectivity based on natural law. If it can be shown that either attempted to defy natural law, they can be disbarred. In practice the entropy reduction work is done by PL and audited by the judge by the criteria of natural-law compliance – the only sanctuary. If objectivity is the benchmark, what else but natural law could serve as the stop rule.

It is increasingly clear that the professional must take a proactive approach with natural law and be at least on par with the PL. As corpoman’s hell is tort court, we make it objective and all natural law. This is what we can sell both sides in tort. We can show how tort court is founded on natural law by its evolution if not overt intelligence. It doesn’t matter how they got there, we put them there. The PL is the officer of the court legally bound to play by those rules. We make those same rules the basis of our approach and we are safe. Corpoman has a problem when the 2nd law overruns him and line.history cannot be rewritten. He has to have been in compliance.

We have everyone involved in tort court afraid of being caught trying to violate a natural law, omission or commission. It is the common frame of reference that keeps the system honest. Note that tort court has the means for reducing its own entropy by revisiting the state of the art every case – a cycle. It does for itself what it then expects others to have done. Why is it so common for tort court and so strange for you? Tort court expects you to do for your clients what it does for its clients.

It is much safer to place information as the Demon’s intelligence than as its muscle. It is information gathering that consumes energy, a loss that rules doesn’t have to pay. The cycle requires the invention step to identify alternatives as part of the control loop. Since BaU has no need for alternatives, it doesn’t have to pay for that uncertain process either.

You can make the case without assuming energy is information and thus avoid a pointless debate diversion. We show our target as liability avoidance, keyed in on the demands of tort court as the epitome of natural law. We show full compliance to what tort court is based on – which allows us to preempt the future.

Cycles will leave a record; rules none. Cycles will generate artifacts which will show cycles were done. This is compliance as you go. Future-proof is natural law based. You install and husband an entropy-reduction process.

 

 

Rudy: If folks are avoiding the reduction of entropy work, coherence imposition to repel disturbances, then the relationship must be spontaneously degrading. You cannot reduce entropy without coherency and work and applied intelligence. Because of goal-centered coherency requisites, you have a step of invention to guess at the fix to validate by RBF. Knowing you have an entropy problem points nowhere. When BaU excludes creativity, the 2nd law seals its fate. It senses the growth in entropy all right, but it can’t reduce it limited to the tools it is willing to use. Perhaps aggression and devotion can be put in entropy terms. Aggression consumes work energy that has to come from somewhere, for both sides. The goal of aggression may be to bring a large entropy increase to the target so it decays into chaos. You are betting that your entropy reduction system is better than his. Devotion takes much less energy and more intelligence – coherency. The pair may be better because the aggressor is imposed with coherency by the devoted sidekick. The smart court jester. The aggressor generates the work energy while the sidekick husbands goal-centered coherency on the two part system.

There may be a limit on entropy increase for a system as a function of time so that adding more staff does not materially increase entropy. The system may have a maximum limit on rate of increase. Like adding more molecules to a large pot of gas does not add much to the chaos and randomness.

Keep information to coherency and quality. Let energy be energy. Let information be distribution of energy. The only way to reduce entropy requires doing work in a direction that is not spontaneous. This takes intelligence, a cycle, and a step of ingenuity.

You can know what’s going to happen tomorrow. It is the small end of the cone and if you know dot.now on method, you can get it right. The issue with disturbances is do you have enough reserve available work and a spontaneous process to counter the entropy they bring into the system. The counter to disturbance of a low entropy system is the imposition of coherency and work (not heat). Tomorrow will bring heat; is your A/C working?

The problem with rules and BaU is that while it repels the obvious big disturbances that intrude from the outside, it does noting to stem the tide of entropy generated within. It loses goal-oriented coherency to impose on the tide of entropy. It knows how to turn energy into work to repel change, but it does so at the expense of internal entropy increase. Extinction comes not from the lack of knowledge or capability or the resources to convert heat into the necessary work, it exhibits plenty of that in fighting off change. Extinction comes from the inability to impose the work of goal-oriented coherency to internally accumulated entropy. If you can show dot.now that no activity (work) is going on to counter entropy, you can predict with certainty that system entropy will increase. The future is locked out of history.

Control theory provides the methodology within which work and goal-centered coherency is imposed on system entropy. Knowing that you must convert heat into work to reduce system entropy and restore coherency does not reveal how that is to be done any more that knowing the Carnot cycle tells you how to build and control an air conditioner.

In social systems, entropy must increase with time but there may be regulators on the rate of increase. It may be hard to increase entropy about some rate without some counter force automatically kicking in.

 

All methods that produce work must be spontaneous. This means you cannot get work energy by some process which enriches fuel instead of spending it. You have to spend fuel energy intelligently to derive work energy. Once you have work energy at your disposal, the drive shaft through the mill is turning, you can use that energy in a straight forward manner – like driving a lathe. You cannot drive a lathe directly from fuel.

In order to stay on course, you must be using a method and context which does the sequence of tasks requisite to reduce the entropy. What counts is; are you doing those things necessary to maintain low entropy and coherency. It takes intelligent work, not heat, to husband a system.

You don’t know what tomorrow will bring but you can certify which way system entropy will go from now to then. The trend to increase entropy is never off.

It is unnatural that BaU, locked to the past, will get more in tune with reality locked out from the past.

We need to marry control theory to the 2nd law to get the whole picture. It’s never been overtly done before? All activity returns periodically to an initial condition.

 

We are probably better off not to stray too far from the concept of energy in terms of work and heat. It is tempting to run off with the idea that information is energy, but it probably mires things down in what means information relative to reducing entropy. I think it best to save information for coherency via control theory and leave the imposition of coherency to work. The key for us is coherency not the energy part, because we have to introduce the idea of intelligence and consciousness. This is the tie to control theory. The method by which heat is converted into work is a cycle and every cycle follows control theory. It is the intelligent (information) application of energy.

All method design must deal with the spontaneous because all work is spontaneous only. Von Steuben brought coherency to the army and he followed control theory to do it.

The deep structure of change. Entropy increase is a change.

An “attitude” towards change. The deep structure of change (Boltzmann)

These are all methods. All methods are cyclic. All cycles are control theory. The 2nd law is directional but purposeless. More chaos is not a purpose. The laws of cycle and the 2nd law are dealing with the same stuff. Engines and people are both converting heat into work.

You have to use the spontaneous natural flow to create an unnatural condition. One way is common experience. The other requires ingenuity.

Nature’s ultimate goal, expressed in the 2nd law, is self annihilation. If that is your goal, BaU will get you there.

Cone.future has infinite lines but none of line.history.

The intrinsic dissymmetry of nature.

The past is locked out of the future by the 2nd law

“Not knowing the Second Law is equivalent to not having read a work of Shakespeare.”

  1. P. Snow’s test of general literacy

The professionally unprepared

Metaphysical accretions

Lurking beneath the surface of experience

Spanning the whole range of human experience

Time is the central variable in the field of physics called dynamics

Energy is the capacity to do work

Mathematics as the purifier of comprehension, not the end point of explanation.

The deep structure of change

Energy is conserved, not heat.

Mistake the meter reading for the concept.

Entropy is the barrier of history from participating in the future.

The second law, disentangled from the conservation of energy, recognizes the fundamental dissymmetry in Nature. Spontaneity goes in one direction but not in the opposite. The distribution of energy changes in an irreversible manner. The second law shows the natural direction of change of the distribution of energy, something independent of total quantity.

The history of technology shows the bias of natural distribution. Man understood the one-sided processes of nature in the conversion of stored energy into heat for thousands of years. Recognizing the dissymmetry in nature and mastering the reverse however, dates back only to the era of James Watt. The controlled conversion of heat energy into work took a century of new thinking and experiments to understand. The differences in the degree of sophistication necessary to produce heat (A/C) from fuel or work from fuel are profound. One process requires no more than a hearth and an igniter. In order to obtain work from fuel, all sorts of ingenious apparatus (a power plant) are necessary. Without the technology to tap the store of energy in fuel and extract from it motive power, society would be warmer, not wiser.

The task presented by the dissymmetry is to find a method to extract ordered motion (activity) from disordered motion (activity). Work is a method, a way of transferring energy between a system and its surroundings. Work can be done by a system and work can be done on a system.

The dissymmetry of events has an atomic basis (Clausius and Boltzmann). All engines that convert heat into work are cycles. Activities are cycles. Hello control cycle. All activity returns periodically to an initial condition.

It takes an energy sink to get work from fuel. It sets up an energy fall so you can draw off work. At some stage of the cycle energy must be discarded into it. (this is not information knowledge formation)  Nature accepts the equivalence of heat and work but demands a contribution whenever heat is converted into work. Heat is taxed; not work. Bouncing balls come to rest, hot objects cool.  The rule about the quantity of energy is distinct from the rule about the direction of its conversion.

The domain of the second law is corruption and decay. Quality gives way to chaos. Heat and work are names of methods, not things. Transfer of energy is the activity.

The more you understand the fundamental laws, the more widely it casts its net.

Reading the signposts of change – transformation, activity, distribution of energy

The second law is concerned with the natural direction of change of the distribution of energy. The distribution of heat energy changes in an irreversible manner.

Work and heat are names for methods of transferring energy. There is a dissymmetry of nature in energy transfer which makes unequal rules for how one form can be traded for another. Heat must pay a tax which is not levied on work. The world of events is the manifestation of the dissymmetry expressed by the second law.

There are natural directions of energy transformations and there are unnatural directions. If you need an unnatural change, e.g., making cold, you must bring it about through a natural change elsewhere. You have to contrive non-obvious systems. We have our summary of experience only with natural transformations. No one has ever observed spontaneous unnatural transfers. To get an unnatural transfer requires external intervention. The second law specifies the unnatural directions.

So if you have natural work activity, energy transfers, and your goal can not be reached thereby, it takes a complex of external intervention using natural changes elsewhere to make it happen. The professional is expected to know the natural spontaneous and the forbidden methods of change set by natural law. That is, he has to distinguish between those matters that are spontaneously accessible and those which need our technology to intrude on the system in order to drive it against the grain. The system property which allows the classification is entropy. Nature’s way is to increase entropy and decreases are unnatural and have to be contrived.

Entropy is not part of direct experience. Entropy increases when the system is heated but remains constant when work is done. Natural processes increase entropy. Entropy is used to interpret the role of energy in events.

The natural direction of change is the one that causes the quality of energy (information) to decline. The corruption of quality. Every action diminishes the quality of the energy (information) of the universe. Nature conserves energy but degrades its quality. Husband the quality of energy. In order for heat to do work spontaneously, there must be an increase is entropy externally. The universe rolls uphill in entropy at the cost of corrupting the quality of its energy.

Incoherent motion is thermal. Work is coherent. The particles of a composite system have two modes of motion – coherent all in step or incoherent in random, chaotic, uncorrelated motions. Energy can be transferred by doing work or exchanging heat. Work is doing coherent motion to a system or getting coherent motion out of a system. Heat is stimulating particles with incoherent motion going in or getting incoherent stimulation out. Work involves coherent motion; heat involves incoherent motion.

When energy is dispersed, it remains dispersed. Lack of rules allied with vastness of domain accounts for irreversibility (by probability, not certainty) of the process of dispersal. The chaotic dispersal of energy is the purposeless motivation of change. The second law recognizes the consequences of this purposeless tendency of energy to disperse. This simple rule accounts for all the change that characterizes this extraordinary world. We talk about the dispersal of energy with certainty while perfect knowledge of the nature of energy eludes us. Dispersal of energy must account for its geography and the destruction of coherence. Energy degrades into chaos as events of the world move forward. Change is attended by an entropy increase, a measure of chaos. The natural tendency of events corresponds to the corruption of the quality of energy (a piece of information). Events naturally collapse into chaos. Events are motivated by corruption.

Quality is the absence of chaos, undispersed energy, highly localized. Corpo needs a store of high quality of coherent work energy undispersed for use to reduce entropy.

A bridge between appearances and its underworld of processes. Events are motivated by corruption.

Entropy is the pressure of destruction of coherence.

The system is a complicated place, but a lot of simple things are going on inside it. Simplicities are so cloaked in consequences their true natures are obscured. Boltzmann’s equation enumerates corruption in all its forms. The key that gives simplicity away is the pattern of history, the endless repetition of the same stuff over hundreds of generations. This is giving way to the spontaneous rather than reducing entropy.

Dispersal (time) signifies a loss of coherence in the manner in which energy is stored. All processes are subject to this general dispersal and spontaneous processes are manifestations of the purposeless spreading that chance brings about and that lack of regulation allows.

The universe is ineluctably and unevenly drifting through the states of ever-increasing probability of dispersal. The universe is locked out of the past for any turning back is too improbable to be significant. To abate chaos here, you must generate even more elsewhere. Chaos can be abated locally by the corruption of quality of energy.

It takes an asymmetry of response to screen and sort randomness and chaos. So long as a process is occurring in which more chaos is generated than is being destroyed, then the balance of energy can be withdrawn as coherent motion. Chemical reactions are no more than elaborate forms of cooling. They are degradations of quality, not quantity.

The emergence of structure provides a local abatement of chaos, generated at least a compensating amount of chaos.

 

At the apotheosis (god maker) of corruption.

The invisible contribution of the commonplace.

There can be competition for which form the entropy increase will take.

To get one process to go in an unnatural direction you have to couple it to another process that is increasing the entropy of the world more.

Processes capable of doing work must be natural processes.

The universe is trapped in the increasing entropy high probability state.

You can contrive the unnatural at the expense of the natural.

The concept of “free energy” is that its value shows how much energy a chemical reaction can deliver as work. If the free energy decreases in the course of a reaction, the reaction is spontaneous in that direction. Reactions fall to lower energy as weights fall to lower heights.

The only law of spontaneous change is that the universe falls upwards in entropy.

As our body sinks downhill into corruption, it gives rise to all the delights of life and consciousness. The degradation in the quality of energy, is the flow of energy that gives us life. The most probable direction of the universe is more entropy.

Capturing the apparently dissimilar in a single intellectual net – the underlying unity of things.

Structure signifies coherence. Lack of structure signifies incoherence.

Coherence can be correlation in space, as ordinary physical structures, but may be also coherence in time. One structure survives only while energy is being dispersed (dissipative structures – structures that arise as a consequence of dispersal). The other structure survives only while energy is being converted into work.

Autocatalytic is where the products of some step take part in an earlier step (control).

The processes of biology and chemistry are no different in principle from the A/C

The periodic cycle of populations (corpos) is a structure that is coherent in time. Behavior can be predicted from where it is in dot.now. The structure is dissipative because the maintenance of coherence depends upon the sustained input of energy and work. There is a flow of energy through the system with input and output.

Individual processes, each increasing the chaos of the universe, can give rise to structures of great complexity. The design may be the string of steps and not the final consequence (foreseeability). You don’t design the consequences, they happen as a result of your process. When your goal is a design, it is still the product of process. You don’t design the garbage produced.

Nature can get outcomes from a string of purposeless steps. A pathway by which the universe degenerates and the quality of energy degrades. The laws do not forbid temporary structures to emerge which reverse these trends locally as long as overall the rules are met.

Rules provide for a stable structure and ensure its stability also. Rules can be midwife to a complex pattern and nurse it into eternity.

The purpose of nature is to pursue annihilation.

Simple events played out under a reign of rules.

Nothing is more remarkable than consciousness and that its heart is simplicity.

Work is the transfer of energy as coherent motion. Heat is transfer as incoherent motion. Work is a method – a dissipative structure, depending on the flow of energy. The structure we call work disappears when the flow of energy ceases. In this sense work becomes a thing.

The second law denies that structures have ever been observed to emerge spontaneously out of disorder. The 2nd law is global denial of the emergence of spontaneous structure. To get a structure to emerge, a coherence must be impressed upon a local part. The coherence is intrinsically transient and crumbles into incoherence when the structure ceases to be driven by the flow of energy. Between dust to dust is the ramified structure of life. To live we must dissipate and sustain our fleeting disequilibrium, for equilibrium is death.

The flow of the stream of energy is its dissipation. The quality of energy ineluctably declines and corrupts into chaos so that events become locked into the future. Energy everywhere disperses, the world is a globe of corruption. But it is a slow unwinding, allowing structures to emerge locally and although transient may last billions of years. The deep structure of change is decay, the root is corruption and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose (purpose is as structure?) all that is left is direction.

The awesome grandeur of the simplicity of complexity.

Coherence is a structure a framework of practice.

 

Since we want obedient workers, it’s fine for them to gamble and try to beat the odds. It’s OK for ordinary to waste his efforts and energies in a vain attempt to defy natural law. It keeps him busy and entertained and out of more serious mischief. Not so for our professionals. If PL catches a pro trying to defy a natural law, he’s dead meat.

The 2nd law is the forward-looking tool. The dot.now stuff is really checking on how the system is handling entropy. Is the system paying the price entropy demands to attain the goal?

The difference is not that I will obey natural law and you won’t, because there is no choice. The difference is that you will waste energies and resources of various kinds in careening towards your goal in vain attempts to defy natural laws uncomprehended and unaccounted for.

 

With umbrella coverage there is no reason for corpo to lie. When there is no reason for corpo to lie, there is no reason for the insurer to take an adversarial role with its insured. Whatever the action, corpo will have no additional expense to put on the books. When coverage is spotty, corpo has every reason to lie to shift all the blame to what is covered by the policy. Insurer has every reason to be in adversarial mode with insured so as to avoid paying. This is a game which will usually be won by the insurer. Who will insured then turn to is the broker. It will be as easy to show broker failure as it was for insurer to show client lies. As much as the client wants to lie, the broker will be held liable if he does.

We have a way for broker to cover himself proactively before damage. Have insured lie to broker first.

Material misrepresentation: if a reasonable careful and intelligent (underwriter) would have regarded the fact communicated at the time of choosing an association as substantially increasing the chances of refusing the association or raising the fees. Contract wording can make any untruth equal to substantial.

The fact that a specific inquiry is made by the risk taker makes the answer thereto material as a matter of law, at least where it is indicated where such answers are the basis of the agreement. The absence of specific inquiry, where fraud is not involved, indicates the issue was not material to the risk taker.

It the statements made are untrue in fact, whether made intentionally or otherwise, it can avoid the policy.

After the damage, there is a duty to cooperate. Frank, fair and substantially full disclosure of information reasonably demanded by the defense bar. If the insured breaches his duty to cooperate, the policy can be voided.

 

There is a conservation of risk law. The cone.future contains an amount of risk depending upon the starting condition and methods used at dot.now. This amount of risk is conserved. Responsibility for the risk can be transferred and scattered, but the amount is not changed. The only way to control and change the amount of risk is by method in the dot.now.

Risk may be tied to entropy? The chances of receiving a disturbance that will increase our entropy above the spontaneous amount?

Now that liability insurance ain’t, the game has changed at great expense to redistribute the risk. It is certain that corpos (not D&O) are now taking on huge risks they formerly had covered by insurance and they are trying to conceal that fact from the stakeholders. The upshot is a higher chance of going defunct from litigation. This knowledge of the deliberate concealment can be leveraged to advantage.

I see a generic opportunity for corpoman PE to protect himself here. Assuming a right to know, which needs to be fully researched, corpoman makes a deal in advance with lawyer for conditions of suit. Corpoman then makes formal request to know the corpo liability insurance scene. He will be ignored. He makes a second effort. This constitutes his insurance. Then, in the event corpo tries to damage him, he can claim it was in response to his lawful inquiry as to his risks as stakeholder and nail corpo on EL&P charges, pre-arranged by suitable lawyer. Job security.

We must assume corpo to be fully corrupt and dedicated to status quo defense. Our plans must use this to advantage. The new realities of liability insurance have corpo in cover up mode and willful concealment of risk exposures. We can use underwriter as the scout of corpo governance. The liability policies today must be a work of art. A stakeholder making decisions can use the misrepresentation as cause for suit.

How easy to design questions for underwriter to use which would provide evidence of falsehood for future use. Insurer gets his insurance policy up front.

What society wants, top level vision: a resource to solve the important unavoidable problems of survival while it carries on footloose and fancy free – a concierge to anticipate and tend to its needs. This vision of service is defined in the general functions next level. It recognizes the key issue of method types and the requisite of appropriate selection. Any method technology needs a method of selecting method categories.

 

The line.history of tort law reveals the goal. The thing society wants is safety, health and welfare shepherds. Society has no default plan for failure of their intelligent sentinels. When one safeguard fails, the legislative answer is to insert another professional. Society uses redundancy and hierarchy to get reliability because there is no alternative method to using human intellect to deal with the hazards – old and new. Somebody has to think of for real solutions. The public doesn’t really think you can get to Mars by magic, but that is how they like their entertainment. Belief in the occult gets you directly to solutions without thinking effort.

Analysis works on line.history. Analysis requires something to analyze. You can’t analyze a cone.future because there are no artifacts yet. All assessment of future is by creating a bunch of possible virtual pathways, starting from dot.now, and arranging their tracks (virtual artifacts) in groups. The only data available to validate future prospects of success is the ongoing process of dot.now. The history is no guarantee of the future. The future is not available for analysis. The only stuff there is to project is ongoing practices. Is the activity going on in the category known to be appropriate for the circumstances? If every day you are doing the kinds of things that are supported by natural law to get you towards the goal, you will get to the goal. (Sailing ship navigation) Conversely, if you are using an approach incompatible to requirements, you will fail.

When the PE code requires you to withdraw service on projects going to fail, the requirement can only be met by knowing in advance that a project is going to fail. Since history will not save your butt in court, the only possible way to meet this canon is to continuously evaluate appropriate selection in the dot.now.

A professional still drawing a wage for services on a failing project is, by definition, in malpractice mode. The law recognizes no excuse. Failure is not an option.

The public learned via the Enron collapse that some professions, like law, do not contain the withdrawal mandate of all professional engineers. The accountants, lawyers and directors were legally allowed to draw pay for work on a ship they knew was sinking. Since the public expects all their professionals to know appropriate selection on a continuous basis, this “loophole” is in the process of being plugged.

The problem is that if the public allows the professional to benefit during the failure phase, he cannot be held responsible for collateral damage to the public for the public’s ignorance of that fact.

What we do is classify methods being used by appropriate selection. So first you must establish the dual nature of methods – rules or RBF.

History is filled with examples. It contains nothing else. The Panama Canal is a fine example of a grand project that wallowed in failure practices for decades, was flipped by a railroad engineer into appropriate methods and driven on to success.

The task is to work out the best sequences of introducing information to the target. The order of battle. Given the introduction to the client, going from his level and his perspective over to some starting point on our logic sequence and processing the dude on semi-automatic. The goal is to inform him of our MPS and collect a “toll” when he rejects it. There is a price to saying no. You have to explain the price as part of the logic. It is like informed consent where he gets to choose action.

Malpractice is a pass/fail grade. Compliance is a pass/fail matter. Nearly compliant, in tort court, is a failing grade.

We have to set tort court up as our benchmark reference framework because that’s where the money is. Tie yourself to the money flow. Once the money matter is settled, you tell them, you will gladly get into other perspectives. That day never comes.

The insurance issue has already settled out. The answer is the maximum limit any one insurance entity will cover. They keep the content about the same, but put a ceiling on the exposure. This gives the illusion of coverage continuation while the new game is betting the whole company on a major litigation. Enron had about 300M of insurance. The maximum now per insurance company is about 25M. The awards will be in the billions. It will be awhile before the employees find out. The D&O coverage will be purchased at any price.

This is a new exposure, it is large, and it is being concealed. RGP should exploit by 1) finding out if you have a legal right to know as investor/employee and 2) giving Aon the hurdle and recording their refusal to reveal what the law requires. Then, pray for Aon to lay you off (the damage) so you can launch action.

The question to put to the corpo is what is your liability insurance coverage and compare it to current standards. What you want to know for starters is how did the underwriters rate the corpo. They are the first on the corpo governance scene. This is an independent quantitative measure of corpo liability exposure which should be known. Find out if you have a right to know, as a stockholder? As an employee? Find out if you have a right to know and what it means legally when the corpo won’t tell you – or does the cover up trick.

Policy terms tell you how the underwriter saw the risk scene in a quantitative way.

Does a stockholder have a right to know the liability insurance particulars and premiums carried by the corpo? It seems to help define the risk profile. It is a new threat. If the insurance money is going to protect the brass, what is left to protect the stockholders? The insurance money is a measure of what one independent auditor thinks about the corpo governance. Doing a trend comparison here should be very revealing. My guess is cover up. We should do some investigation on this and make it into a fuss. The cover up will be construed as guilt. This stuff is quantitative and objective and independent external.

In practice, doing the hurdle trick, they will either run away or come up close. The sorting will not be gaussian. You must appreciate in advance that when a target runs away, it has revealed a value system toxic to yours. You had no chance to sell your methodology in any event.

The goal is to “sell” the pseudo-professional ordinary. The stuff we have on background, origins, history and science do not help sell. At the workshop stage, what we have doesn’t matter much either. What it does is give us confidence that we’re on solid ground.

The focus, from the outset, is on method. Pin everything on, relate everything to method. Tort law is naught but method. The awards are for malpractice, not maloutcome.

Show the demand emphasis on method is the price for being held harmless for outcomes. If you want to be free from ends, you better attend to means. If the public excused you for both, where is the public protection? The single principle for professional is public health, safety and welfare. Since you are legally excused for consequences, you must be nailed for method. You are held accountable for using appropriately selected methods for health, safety and welfare – and expected to know what they are in dot.now time orientation. If all hope is being pinned on method, why would the public want anything less that the BAT?

Unlike ordinary, you are not allowed to learn about inappropriate method selection after the damage is done. If failure is not an option, you must know in advance about appropriate selection of method. In advance means dot.now.

The price for not being held liable for consequences is to have used best methods during the project.

 

The trick is to tie the target to the process unfolding in the media – bring it into his terms from abstraction. Tort is method and practice kept current, which is why we use it as reference. We tie tort law to natural law and use our knowledge of natural law to improve it.

Society wants obedient drudges to do the necessary infrastructure work. Society has a great many uses for rule-oriented citizens. They know their place that will provide the wages that place commands. Society is increasingly aware that blind obedience has its limits and doesn’t solve problems. The tighter the rule people band together, the more they depend upon the professional sentinels to preserve them from their limitations. This dependence does not enhance self-reliance. Since they can’t make anyone think, rule people are reduced to the options of social force to get professionals to do the protecting. By a particular system of rewards and punishments, society gets into an equilibrium where they trust their sentinels. This stable steady state carries on until strong reason emerges showing the trust was misplaced. When the damage is great and protracted, society has no choice but to revise the social force field it places on its professionals and when they sense betrayal of trust is connected to their damage, society leans more towards increasing punishments than rewards. This is why, exactly, it is to the benefit of professions to police themselves constantly.

“By what men do, ye shall know them.” POSIWID (Matthew 7:16)

We want to solidify in our traditions, as rule heads, but we want our professionals to push the state of the art. We don’t want frozen professionals. Don’t expect me to improve, but I want my professional to be at the leading edge. If he is not, he becomes rules and no longer needs intelligence – this means his job can go to a technician. We want our professionals to be actively intelligent and non-static which is why the society codes call for improvement although they do not support it. We want intelligence – appropriate selection.

All this makes sense to ordinary. He sets a specification for others he doesn’t want for himself. So we tie him to the specification – find him guilty of malpractice and data bank the information for potential future use (like J. Edgar).

 

The speed and certainty by which you determine your target to be in malpractice mode is a demonstration of method power.  If the target places no value on this, your people filter has done its job. If the target is uninterested in method technology, he’s a loser.

If mode doesn’t matter, why bother. If malpractice mode matters and the target is not motivated by the prophecy, enter it in the log book but further effort is unwarranted. What you seek is the combination of professionalism that matters and a motivating fear of prophecy. The fear must be of motivational grade. A simple hurdle test will measure this. We can be objective about the situations where professionalism matters. About the threshold of motivational fear of prophecy, we can do nothing but measure it case by case.

People invest their efforts according to their value system. I think the principle of productivity to purpose holds except for crazies. That is, POSIWID. So you make them do (hurdles) to test for their purpose – which is always by testing what it is not.

The ability to show ordinary in malpractice mode dot.now is demonstration of the tort-court benchmarking process. If you will but think about it, what we did to you is available for you to do to others. Show how this skill can be used for defense and offense – all related to tort court wealth transfer and little else.

Imagine the power to classify people, regarding work activity, quickly and accurately – using a mature system of law. It takes away the game of deception. It extracts a “price” on malpractice paid by the perpetrator to the classifier. You have blanket coverage on the dude. It’s so significant, you describe to all, it masks out all the other variations. You have established that he is in malpractice by choice, trying to conceal that fact by claiming otherwise, and closed-minded to boot. When you have shown your target to be a lying fraud of a professional, on what basis can you conduct business?

It must be by method. What you are measuring exhibiting is that this dude cannot be trusted to appropriately select for goals. He has his own goal not congruent with a successful defense in tort court.

 

There pseudo peers, which have turned out to be undependable, must be afraid of social controls – which is the price for appearing to be different. It’s like the poet’s society where you have to sneak off to a cave at midnight to do your thing with others and then rejoin society as another drudge. This does not write poetry. How can these dudes think forward when ultimately they have no intention to face the public as an exception. They don’t see the obstruction as a challenge to overcome, but as something to avoid.

If what they conform to does not address the entropy issue, nature will drive it to extinction.

The most you can do is classify correctly. You cannot change them. What you do is establish a context where doing anything but enterprise is detected and reprimanded so promptly, there is no point to attempt anything else.

The bottom line, the reason for “professional” in the first place is method. In order to preserve itself from the folly of its own traditions, society wants a special-forces guardian to deal with the genuine perils of the operational reality. It wants objectivity and knowledge applied to the hazards of living, so that the problems are really solved. It already knows the value of black magic and ritual sacrifice in handling real threats.

The professional cannot be closed minded about methodology and meet the conditions of license.

The deal with “professional” is defensive and offensive. The defense is to do your do and not be exposed to punishment. You pay the price for being relieved from outcome responsibility. Defense must be as-you-go constant compliance to the code, especially in those matters of method significant to tort court. There is a threshold of pain, because contingency is involved, which is much higher than what matters in tort court. To be in compliance, you must know what it is. Tort court only wants to know were you in compliance during the time damage was done.

The offense is for them to use the professional “prophecy of punishment” on others for profit. You first prove them in malpractice mode (or not) by our trick hurdles – which is BAT (best available technology) awareness. We inform them about duty and BAT for method – offer to aid their update – and then mark them delinquent for refusal. This raises the ante for their future, should they get involved in litigation.

The MPS we have is method technology, lashed to natural law, and especially configured to survive the microscope of tort law which is basically method technology. Because that’s where the money is, PL is our benchmark. We have special methodological “secrets,” patents in process, for being in compliance productively and efficiently. The infallible dot now procedure is one example. We have demonstrated the capability by sticking the malpractice mode label on them.

We present ourselves as methodology nerds. We use nerdism to appear organizationally neutral. We avoid discussing the front end crunch on goals. Anything upsetting is shoved into the black box and the workshop.

The positives of professionalism – huge application – are relegated to the appendix. This reverses the first stab. We sell black box I/O with a demonstration of method power on them. They are powerless to defend themselves. The traps we use are the same ones PL uses.

The selling of it then involves first the duties and the tort money machine. Tie the money to method technology. Then elaborate on method as improving and their duty to know. Then make them jump a hurdle, the refusal of which puts them in malpractice mode. The last step is to leave them aware of their dereliction of duty and our intent to use that info to profit should enforcement started by others arise.

 

Statement of capabilities:

Infallible present-time methodology audit, error-free

Professional initialization benchmark – PL poison pill future-proof compliance

The benefits are: to be in professional compliance yourself – and know it. Then show the benefits of compliance – freedom from litigation worry and productivity (defense)

To quickly and perfectly assay others for same: Reveal mismatch assumptions (defense)  truth table. Offense could be to help target improve and to get info reward from PL after malpractice damage.

Personal protection – law suits and damage from mismatch assumptions

Positives are productivity

Targets (persons, groups, corpos, etc.) – all the same functionality

Infallible present-time methodology audit – is how you know you are in compliance. By using the BAT to reach the goal, including all stakeholders, productively and efficiently, you avoid litigation. If you do the job BAT, competently, where’s the beef?

Professionals, foremost, are expected to be intelligent – which is appropriate selection of method. Intelligence also means keeping up on methods from which to select. Who wants dumb, obsolete professionals?

It is all about structure. You can get laborers for work energy. You need coherency to be imposed on work energy.

Separate out compliance from enforcement.

A professional, after being informed of the availability of better practices, who chooses to not act, has exhibited malpractice mode. Since it is a method, the malpractice mode clock keeps ticking on into the future. Should the future include damage and enforcement, plaintiff lawyer needs little else but information about the informed-consent transaction.

You can use this capability to run your own shop and you can use it on others to protect yourself from the consequences of false status assumptions

The great feature of method technology is that, since natural law drives it, application is widespread and nested. Examples are at every level from personal on up and there is no discrimination – animal, vegetable or mineral. Natural law is the stuff of all history and the record can contain no contrary examples.

While we deeply regret all the unnecessary suffering and waste, we sit upon the horns of a dilemma. When we hold that professionals would rather comply with the code of conduct, but are simply unaware appropriate methods exist, tort court will reject ignorance as a professional defense. If we grant that professionals are knowledgeable about the best available methods, as required by law, the determination of malpractice mode involves intent. Intentional malpractice is a crime. This dilemma is, exactly, the one being faced by the defenders of Enron’s brass.

 

Sentinel

The science and engineering of methodology is a fully generic discipline. The technology of methodology applies to all activity – regardless of who is doing which to what. The attribute of universality is inherited from the natural laws of systems and dynamics upon which all methods and all magicians depend. It is helpful to relate to the laws of method like one considers the laws of gravity. The instructions for how matter is to behave exist everywhere matter is. There is no central control room for method where signals have to be exchanged to regulate behavior. The laws are deaf to persuasion.

The absolute tie of method to natural law is both a curse and a blessing to the designer. If your application of natural law is error-free, nothing is more dependable for results. If your choice of method is inappropriate, nothing is more dependable for consequences. To the designer, the big advantage of method is the available historical record of human activity. For any contemplated method, history must contain – exclusively – functionally comparable examples. In particular, history can contain no contrary occasions.

The trick for dealing with the future cone of uncertainty is error-removal methodology, also based on natural law.

 

You can only choose means, not ends, so that appropriate selection of means is all intelligence can be. Selecting practices suitable to the time orientation of the mission and, at least, avoiding those practices intrinsically contrary.

We do all three every day. Switching from one to another. Blends are impossible. You cannot deal with reality otherwise. It is the flux of natural law that drives practices into the line, dot and cone. Attempts to defy natural law, understood by every magician, are counterproductive activities.

Intent is obliterated by action. If the action is right, you get the good grade, no matter how evil your intent.

The future is into the cone of infinite possibilities.

Because of your finite capacity thinking apparatus, you need search routines and structures to deal with huge quantities effectively. You have to identify the possibilities and the probabilities of those threads through the labyrinth meaningful to your mission.

What we do is monitor the cone thread selection process routines (COURAge) in the infallible now. Both tactical and strategic are forward-looking but in different time frames. The methods are the same.

Infallible classification (in/out of malpractice mode) in exactly the same sense one hold’s the reliability of the law of gravitational attraction. The laws of method and gravity come from the same natural laws of systems and dynamics. You can’t fake the feedback routine for forward-looking without being forward-looking. If your true intent is hindsight and you try to conceal that intent by doing forward – you will not meet your intent. If you remain on forward-looking, you’re not doing business as usual.

In backward-looking practice, the subjects of goals and consequences are undiscussable. This is easy and quick to audit in dot.now time.

Infallible because the two methodologies come in sets that have little in common. The contexts are quite different also. The reference used to grade feedback can’t be fooled. You can fake the records but you can’t fake the now activities. When you are handling feedback in BaU, the subject matter being handled reveals all. When you are handling feedback in enterprise, a complex set of activities with various kinds of real-time information done in a sequence is requisite.

 

Infallible exists. Did they need to use the present method? If so, …

Accounting as governance is a good example of the limitations of backward looking practices.

The future is into the cone of infinite possibilities. A selection process is necessary to identify those possibilities and probabilities of threads through the cone of

The mode of tort court is foresight. Don’t bother to bring in your certified accounts to defend yourself by GAAP after the corporation has tanked. No matter how brilliantly presented, tort court is not about business as usual. It is directly about what actions were taken, prior to the damage, to foresee the possibility and probability of the damage.

It is increasingly apparent to a computer-literate public that much can be done to investigate future possibilities in advance. As more and more designs are created on a computer, rather than in a model shop, it becomes more practical to dynamically test the designs in virtual reality.

For PL: infallible exists. Did they use it?

FMEA what if is always preceded by FRES(ynthesis)

The professional forward looks as he forms knowledge. Knowing his limits, he sends you to a specialist to get the outcome you desire – before he performs discipline modalities.

The PL doesn’t have to be a method technology freak to win his cases. By being so far off the methodological mark, the defendant has made PL’s job easy.

One market is those positioned to do what we do to them to others. The other market is those who need truth in present time to avoid loss. Defense takes less energy from the stores of high quality work than repairs.

 

What is the value of true status in present time – over time. We provide a service which can detect present time status to perfection. It is future-proof. To a professional method nerd it is easy. It is one and the same service requisite in the standard of care used as a benchmark by PL in tort court. It meets or exceeds anything PL could legally use.

It says if your forward-looking efforts are doing the job of compliance – from the view of the PL. It is your running guarantee that you have met or transferred responsibility for outcomes.

What we are really talking about who is responsible for outcomes. When a professional is involved, he is up to the informed consent speech which is his transfer ceremony. He is then only responsible to do the modalities competently. When there is no professional, the officers are responsible for outcomes all the way. Without a professional, there is no informed consent initialization stage. The workers do as they are told. Outcome credits go to management.

We have to black box the methodology. Only discuss I/O. Obviously the methodology used as the legal benchmark by PL to nail defendant is not popular, else there would be no tort industry. The proof of existence and power is tort court. Notice no changes in law.

The professional methodology nerd recognizes the PL standard just as well as BaU. In appropriate circumstances, either fundamental method type can be legally satisfactory. The liability problem only emerges when the method best for one set of circumstances is used in inappropriate circumstances. When those circumstances call for the method benchmark husbanded by plaintiff lawyers and BaU is employed instead, malpractice mode has commenced. The event of damage decides the gamble – defendant loses.

From the time orientation perspective, methodology is classified by historical, future and present. As history can be thought of as a single line going back in time, the future is a cone of possibilities that expands going forward in time. Along times arrow, present time is a dot. While all methods effective in dealing with the cone of the future can be used to reconstruct the past, the reverse is seldom true. Organizationally neutral methods for backward looking are generally incompatible with the requisites of forward-looking practices. You don’t get a safe-harbor clause to protect you from your accounting.

What is the value of detecting a mismatch. – stakeholders and those who really want to reach a goal.

The application is anywhere that truth in classification of activity is financially important. We start with professionals because we have a nice clean definition of duty to work with. It scales. Forward looking is unnatural. Rules is natural. No need to bother with a valid rules scene because it is a natural.

 

The notion of intent is tricky in tort because there is a line where intentional throws the mess to criminal court. It is harder to plead ignorance. When the target gets into coverup, the case moves to criminal abruptly. We should probably bring that feature in also. Criminal stuff takes no reasonable doubt. Tort only takes reasonable guilty.

We should think in terms of getting the target in a situation which gives us enough of a case that would attract a PL to take action on a contingency basis. The process of classifying the target, quickly and reliably, is on that path anyway – like the VC neighbor. We work to make it so that refusing us nails the target in malpractice mode. He learns that our truth process worked and that now we have something on him that may come back to haunt him. Our transaction with him has left him a double loser. He didn’t escape detection and he has a new worry he didn’t have before. Our target gets all the grief and we have little to do and no OOP expense. We should explain the tort kernel to target – so he can appreciate what we have done to him. The beauty is that we have control! By his malpractice mode display he has given power to us. The power to cause him grief at little expense to us. This is the only real power tool we have over ordinary. We can’t help him but we can add to his angst. He is indifferent to positives, in any case. Let him discover the positives after fear has pushed him into the right choice.

Our goal then is advantage over ordinary professional – obtained by using the power of tort which gives society oversight power over professional. So we sell target this power for him to use to advantage and then reveal to him in a subtle way that we have trapped him by the same. This is a special brand of selling. We are selling a mousetrap for a target mouse to use to trap other mice by using the trap during the initialization to coax him to sit on top of the trigger which we pull when he refuses. When our target is a professional, he doesn’t turn us down for free. He has been clocked in malpractice mode – like speeding.

The market, then, is PLUS. Those who already fear action enough to seek insurance. Proven incentive. We have two functional markets. One is those who can profit by doing to others what we do to them – threat and profit. The other is hook and wait – threat only. All get the threat. It is much more so a threat for the professional than ordinary.

 

What we sell is the method via the workshop. We promote method technology and what it can do for you. The unnecessary waste and angst is proof that, at the very least, methodology is an extremely unpopular topic.

Methodology does not take great genius to understand. Methodology, even the choice of inaction, obeys the laws of dynamics and systems. The laws that govern means involve action over time. The methodology nerd is especially learned in those laws of nature that take your choice of means and, without so much as a “by your leave,” produce ends. The reason tort law has remained essentially constant for centuries is that it formally recognizes man has choice over method but no influence at all over what that choice produces.

In the transactions of commerce, it is a common error to hold an entity responsible for outcomes while simultaneously specifying means. Recognizing the supreme role of natural law in method consequences, tort law has rejected any contract that ties both means and ends from the outset. Tort law is exclusively method oriented. If the professional selects method appropriate for the specific case, that is all the law requires of him. Thereafter, the consequences driven by natural law, circumstance and events are the property of the risk bearer.

Little to none of the BaU skills you possess matter in tort court. You will be judged by objective criteria, independent of your character and reputation (intent and motive are irrelevant) by the method benchmarks of forward-looking, not hindsight. It is a binary matter. There are no intermediate grades. Almost compliant counts as zero. Fully compliant counts as winner.

 

COURAge fades to the reference basis for present time audit. It is the ultimate method benchmark, future proof. Its use for positives is sent to the back row. We can reverse-gradient the positives as negative motivation. Like my IRA “returns” of –17%

Our business model is to document malpractice mode at a slice in time in wholesale quantities with a lot of targets. When damage then occurs and stakeholder action is considered, we go to our records and offer PL a valuable aid to his case. We use our method classification capability as well as offer it for sale.

We represent ourselves as total method freaks, oblivious to anything else. We are not a player in any sandbox we relate to. It is the method as a benchmark, not the benefits of its application. By plan, we leave benefit to be discovered after he chooses yes, by the target. We must appear abstract and therefore organizationally neutral. We are creatures of the venerable tort system. We live and sell method technology. We do black boxes of method and give it whatever I/O might sell. We do not give any details. We have to have the ultimate standard to classify unerringly. What they fear is a classification that would hold up in tort court. They do not care that you have found them out. What they do care about is that you know how to use that information to cause them great grief.

They are safe everywhere but tort court. None of their skills works there and they lose control. “Thank you Sir you have given me much more than I need to clean out your accounts in tort court.” Corpoman must be scared silly by tort court. None of his usual skills work in that arena – including cover up. We belong there, like the fish that stay in the coral and use it’s poison as defense. We comply – as we go. Earn your wings every day – or else.

Earning your wings every day means doing work to reduce entropy. Professional.

Our value is the classification method of zero error. We are classification freaks. We tell the target he can have his solution. The solution is a method which will attain the goal at the same time it preempts tort action, which is method based.

Tie his refusal to pursue to malpractice mode. He has the ball. You have classified him in spite of his facade, he knows this, and you let him know you know how to use that knowledge to his disadvantage.

 

I will now put the big stuff in hint form in the back of the BP and offer it to anyone who asks as a hurdle. If they don’t ask for it, it is the no choice. I could create a custom one in a couple of days in any case.

 

We have a complete nested toolbox. Nothing needs to be invented or improved. What is needed is to work out a wealthy market and design some MPS from the toolkit to sell.

Start at the level the target is discussing. Bring the level down to him and you. Make the case on an individual level basis and then indicate scaling. We drive it to a personal level to sell it and then scale it up. Do a truth value table with the target. Get a value on match/mismatch malpractice mode. This is a value on our MPS – they supplied. Then when the flake out over a 3-day workshop – you’ve nailed them in malpractice mode. Like pregnancy, there is no such thing as almost compliant to the standard of care in tort court.

 

As thinking is individual, emotions are individual also. Since it is selling by fear, an individual brain thing, the trick is to enhance it and measure it. Our brand of fear is reliance upon a match of goal and process, that is actually a mismatch. We do a truth table with the target (both parties) to see the value to him of a wrong classification (need/means). Rules (BaU) backward-looking and enterprise (professional) methods. Whatever it is, we offer him foolproof present-time classification. If he then refuses the fix, we have demonstrated the method on him. We have coaxed the truth out of him.

Do the truth table for the professional and his client for each relationship. What we offer is objective, infallible truth of mode classification in present time. The truth only has value if the participants have a stake in falsehood.

The truth table: the need (a function of goal) and the method: detector reading v reality.

You cannot expect backward-looking to handle novel problems.

The value is in measuring malpractice mode (yes/no) in present time. All the stuff on systems only serves to identify method, by the time you get clearance to apply the professional method, the war is over. It doesn’t have to be perfect because the RBF process of feedback correction will prevail to success.

One thing for sure, you should only market to “professionals.” Nothing to sell to ordinary except SoC profiles for them to know when to sue. Yes this covers more than professionals but the professional scene is clear and clean and the place to succeed first.  You will get a wide variety of responses.

It never was the details of the systems practice, it was getting permission (or non-obstruction) to apply the forward-looking professional method. It is the error-correction process that counts and that can be validated in present time. Rules is error-correction too, the error being failure to abide the rules methods on a continuous, uninterrupted basis. Enterprise is error-correction with the error being goal attainment with an interruption for information processing and creativity to alter the approach. Inspection of the feedback process tells the truth.

 

This is the precedent for dot.now for corporate governance. It’s in the NSPE code of ethics.

How does NSPE code of ethics guy foresee when the project is going to fail? He does this by seeing the method going on up close in the dot.now. It can’t be line.history, it can’t be cone.future. The only resource he has to meet this pledge is dot.now.

You can fool me and yourself all you want. You can refuse to learn. We have recorded our classification. When you get in court, the PL will show you in great detail what you were legally bound to know and do.

The only associated risk to operating in malpractice mode is the incentive to recover damages and enforcement. Before you really have to do something there must first be damage some stakeholder thinks is worth the fuss and then there must be enforcement. The law is constant, but two issues vary incessantly. The first is the operational definition of the standard of care. The second is the heat of enforcement.

The professional methodology benchmark is a function of technology. As science advances, the professional scope of responsibility increases. The drive to enforce tort law, all else being equal, is a function of social expectation, sophistication, and the recent performance of its entrusted watchdogs. The law may be administered by tribunals but there is much latitude in the wording for the judge to adjust to public pressure. The primary tool the public has to compel its professionals to provide the essential services society needs to survive is by punishments. When society feels betrayed, the awards to plaintiff go up. When society is pleased with the status quo, the defendant wins.

The classification is malpractice mode and basically informed consent defect. That is the transfer of responsibility for outcomes from professional to client has not, in fact, occurred. Professional is operating on a mismatch assumption. It is to the advantage of client to know professional is working in malpractice mode. It’s the same as when management suckers its employees to work without a goal.

The malpractice mode operating state (legal definition) is not a guarantee of damage or legal action. It sets the switches irrevocably for a potentially bad scenario in the event of damage. You must be in malpractice mode when the damage occurred. You can’t backfit malpractice any more that you can backfit compliance.

The paramount factor driving this industry is the plain fact that for any occasion, meeting the standard of care (or not) is a matter of choice.

[tie it to individual – no corporate brain. The chess club scene]

 

As the amounts of wealth transferred around this industry become gargantuan, it is critical to appreciate that the prime mover is choice. As choice is intelligence and all intelligence is individual, the engine of industry here is all about individual selection of action compared to an objective benchmark of appropriate selection. Interestingly, both sides in contention as judged by the same benchmark. The lawyers involved are as exposed to the perils of malpractice as the clients they represent.

Enforcement Factors

  • Societal technological sophistication
  • Societal Expectations
  • Statutes
  • The Economy
    • Frequency and severity of media-grade corporate crime
  • Social Security
  • Social Stability
  • Awareness of the requisites for action
  • Probability of award and size of award
  • Watchdog Performance
    • Complicity
  • Forward-looking Method Technology Advance
  • Size of plaintiff bar, amounts in war chest

Work within the kernels. Get it down to choice of method. Present method I/O. Get it down to individual and do nesting. Introduce time orientation. Solution has to be individual also. Sell time frames as method classes and perfect truth only in the present. Nested and scalable but the techniques of implementation vary with size and complexity.

Can you wriggle out? Give it a try. Do you think you can trick us to place you in the compliance category by your indifference to key information? Think again. Try to commit fraud by acting appropriately, so that we place you in compliance. If you continue to earn your wings every day by being in compliance, where is your fraud?

[It’s my very first invention for the home. My first for the day to day living for everyone. You used it on the VC neighbor. My Potato peeler. Black box this sucker.]

We guarantee infallibility, the method goes into a black box, we reveal the box in the workshop. That’s it. This hurdle in the path of our target is actually an example of the method and I will figure out how to put it into the documents in a nice subtle way. We vary the cost of the workshop according to the target. Have many workshop flavors.

The laws of method to do this infallibility trick are the same as gravity. However you feel about the reliability of the gravitational force field is the certainty of this method. Same branch of natural law.

The reason that ethics is absent in tort court is that it’s all about forward-looking. The ethics stuff is for the backward-lookers, a giveaway. In order to chat about ethics you must first agree to confine yourself to backward-looking. Classification should be by time orientation.

The Now regime is referees in sports contests. Evaluating action in process by a benchmark. Roberts rules of order. Etiquette. The winner is by hindsight.  Rules is managed in the now using the rules as benchmark – all activity. You don’t have to think at night in rules, because you manage by the rules as you go. If it’s all rules, you can determine any time.

Foresight is cycle activity – run, break and fix with a management blackout spell. If it’s foresight, you must watch the feedback part of the cycle. There is an interruption for GOHI stuff, a management off time, where thinking must be done. And the omnipresent issue of goals, which we play as a background factor.

The methods of foreseeability are a branch of the natural laws of method. The PL lives in this objective, ethics-oblivious, world. Modelling methods work both ways.

The method we use to nail truth is what we sell for them to nail the truth. What we sell is rapid efficient classification of match/mismatch. We do it to them as part of the selling. Sell to those who would be hurt by proceeding on a wrong classification.

There are many possible combination in the truth table – and many markets in each. Actually forward looking is larger than professional.

As to the infallibility feature of the now dot, you decide what exposure to this knowledge did for you and our assessment of your now dot state. You decide if it is possible for you to be in professional compliant mode and fail to act appropriately on this standard of care knowledge? You decide, should the occasion arise, if you can fool a duly informed PL.

 

Personality and character only come into play in hindsight or foresight. When you get into characters for foresight it is a red flag that the justification will come out of hindsight. Hindsight is the characterization of a line of activity by some reference. Ethics is assessed by afterthought. Ethics may be considered in advance of choosing action in the great cone of future possibilities. In present time action, when the ball is snapped, resumes don’t matter.

When you are into the dot of now, activity is what there is. Who is doing it and why don’t matter. Once you classify the activity, that is derive the method being used, what it is doing, by the infallible truth reference, then you can do POSIWID. Get what it does first, then see if it matches the stated purpose.

You judge the actions first – then you ask for the name of the players – “Who’s the kid in the red shirt?” You get a record of transactions, then you apply an ethics profile.

Classification in the now dot is what we sell. We get a rough input of purpose and then observe a feedback cycle. We check against the master list of control theory to see if it is goal-seeking v rule-following. It is impossible to make an error here. This is where the infallibility of control theory pays off. And if the people who really want to do fraud keep on fooling us as to their true intent by doing good, where is the damage to stakeholders?

This is why the Skunkworks roster never mattered. The activity formed the ethics.

The Maf gives to charity and we call that action moral. The Maf murders and we call that immoral. It’s still the Maf. If we monitored the Maf and found that it was in charity mode so often there was no time for evil, Maf would not be an evil threat to society.

The now dot scheme is not foreseeability. It is the measure of the activities associated with foreseeability. We use our knowledge of foresight methods to classify the now. We can’t promise tomorrow but we can tell you which of the two pathways it trod today. If it did backward today, you tell me what tomorrow holds. If it did forward today, doing forward again tomorrow will show pursuit of the possible.

We sell the infallible now dot and the scaling method. (all natural law is why it works and scales). It can be tested and validated at every level – animal vegetable or mineral.

The power of the method nerds – never get fooled.  Can even watch those being fooled, like stakeholders, making wrong assessments, by their actions. We can see by what actions they take, given the data, if they are in mismatch. Predict collisions.

Have you ever been fooled? What is the value to you for match and mismatch. We do this value chart for each target.

We can establish foreseeability benchmarks as the reference for doing the now classification. It has value to PL because we can do the “now dot” trick at a past time point. We sell PL method technology in tort language and framework. It is value added to PL, more efficient, more ideas, more blame on defendant.

Offer the backward-looking consultants our now/forward service.

Rules is managed now using history in continuous mode by supervisors. Enterprise is observed, not managed, by the sequence of actions in feedback which is discontinuous cyclic. The two modes, there are only two, are so different that error is impossible.

Forbes truth service: Offer a compliment to backward. The dot of now! Superior in perfection. Are they doing the things, taking the actions of goal-seeking? Are they taking the actions of rules-following? Since they are incompatible, easy to distinguish. The set is perfect even if parts imperfect.

MMHT – the malpractice mode holding tank. We remove plausible ignorance from the defense and we posses that information in usable form. We create a situation where the target exhibits malpractice mode and we are a witness of the “crime.” What we do to set him up is reveal the strategy in the BP mode for him to use – after which we hint that the very same has been worked on him.

Because we can only validate your professionalism via snapshot, “you have to earn your wings every day.”

The MMHT process keeps you in compliance. You are a poison pill to PL. You’re informed-consented. Otherwise you are not. You can use the same technique to put others into the MMHT for your advantage.

We have a present-time truth snapshot. Our “truth” is a present-time snapshot of particular action – how the target does the feedback loop. Our truth is like an ice cream cone, it melts away fast. If you want to know the truth tomorrow, you have to take another snapshot.

No truth dot could ever work on character credentials or reputation (all history). The only now thing is actions.

Our truth dot is infallible. No one will challenge this. You have already done it to them. Control theory makes it so. It may have one or more imperfect components but the product cannot be wrong. The conclusion comes from the acts in the feedback process. Very evil men may do the right thing. Very moral people may do the wrong thing. There are right and wrong actions and the determination is infallible. Nothing is learned about the personal histories and nothing is learned about future prospects of rightness or wrongness in choosing actions.

Our truth dot works on YOU, on your group, your corpo and your competitors.

 

If you put the dots close enough together, the window of opportunity for fraud is too short. Deterrence will not come from punishments but only when detection is too fast to get away with the loot.

The kernel works at all levels which is why liability insurance works at all levels which is why there is no overlord.

FSG tries to do the same thing, but is error prone. They do it by artifacts of ethics. Any plan based on ethics demonstrates a failure to understand. The fraud window is still open. The real fear of the whistleblower is that it makes everyone but the culprit look stupid – and gullible and unethical. The problem with FSG is that is has no present time classification method because it lacks the future-proof benchmark.

All backward-looking (only) can be sued for malpractice, by definition. – like the army and the SEC. If backward-looking is properly dominant, your duty cannot include informed consent – there is no need for professionals. There shouldn’t be any around.

If you don’t need informed consent – there is no duty.

If you do need informed consent – there is a duty.

Forward-look is informed consent – what you are informing is the projection into the future.

Bring out the fact that liability insurance is not like windstorm.

It’s the enforcement that varies with societal events. If you know the future of enforcement, you know the future of this industry.

  • people who sit on juries have been clobbered by the malpractice
  • Plaintiff bar is huge, brainy and wealthy
  • Coverup focus will lead to a steady stream of scandals
  • The gap is so large and so plain to the public, the time span for fraud is shrinking
  • The cost of risk interferes with operating the business.
  • Insurance doesn’t work as a bandaid any more

The positives will only out after the negatives have made the choice. Changing modes is so painful, the details don’t really matter.

We concentrate on those who have the $ and power = Insurance, Big Brokers, PLs. They don’t turn us down for free.

The offering is basically an informed-choice act where the goal of the offering design, at the minimum, is to place the target in our malpractice mode holding tank. MMHT We write for only those people in a duty relationship which tort court would label professional – like broker.

It is an utter waste of effort investment to touch on this material to anyone not in a “professional” duty relationship. If they can’t be put into the MMHT, there is no value. This wipes out most of our contacts. No motive to think about these matters. It is a positive to ordinary, to help him sue, but to the professional it is a risk.

Website stuff:

This material is for professionals, for anyone who would be held to the professional standard of care in the proceedings of tort litigation. Professionals are legally bound to a level of duty above that required for ordinary citizens. That duty is application of coherency and natural law.

Litigation concerning compliance to the professional standard of care has spawned a very large industry – the focus of the propositions herein. The issue of corporate and professional liability involves insurance, regulations, stakeholders, and civil law.

If every person in a professional relationship, as civil law defines it, complied with the associated code of conduct, there would be no industry to discuss. The professional method, exhibited in the informed consent phase of initialization, is the critical exercise that legally transfers risk for a successful outcome from the professional to the client. The contention between professional and client about actual outcomes attained, as far as the law is concerned, is adjudicated by the doctrine of informed consent.

The demand on professional performance, ultimately a function of societal expectations, is increasing as never before. As the complexity of the context we live in rises, more and more perceived threats are tossed “over the wall” by the public for the professionals to fix. As incessant advances in technology extend the scope and depth of the professional obligation, it becomes harder and harder for the professional to meet escalating societal expectations. To an industry that owes its existence to the neglect of professional duty, times have never been better.

Tort litigation in the USA blossomed to industrial strength in recent times. In 1970, the entire field was minor league in the miscellaneous category of law and insurance. Thanks to a parade of Enron-class calamities, the industry GNP now exceeds a trillion dollars a year. The key to influence in this industry is to understand the factors that created it.

While the prime mover of great wealth from commerce to plaintiff is driven by legal process, the associated law itself has little changed in centuries. The law that existed in 1970 before all the fuss began is exactly the same today. Common law is an integral part of our social fabric and of proven value. The many groups now dedicated to tort reform pursue the impossible.

The changes that did create the industry are the changes to key factors composing the law and the incentives for plaintiffs to bring action. The significant benchmark variable is the standard of care. To keep this standard current without having to change the law, it is defined anew for every case. Advances in method technology have dramatically changed the practical standard of care from that prevailing in 1970.

Many factors have converged to increase the incentive to bring action.

Title(s): Settling the accounts for professionalism’s failure

Uncooking the books of professionalism’s failure

 

It is expensive to generate pressure on Congress for another fix, to cover up, and to retrench. Besides the increased cost for routinely breaking the law, corporations no longer carry insurance to pay for the costs of getting caught. Without your knowledge or consent, corporate leaders have chosen to bet the company that it won’t get caught. It is a strange new bet. Just a few years ago, when the chances of getting caught were small, corporations purchased blanket insurance coverage for all litigation matters. Now that the odds of legal action approach certainty, the only insurance policy of substance still purchased is the one protecting the personal assets of the directors and officers. Corporations have never operated before with such huge unfunded liabilities.

Bottom line is that business as usual today is frequently malfeasant. More and more the antics of Dilbert’s pointy-haired superiors, in addition to being irrationally counterproductive, are legally malfeasant as well. How did it come to this? We have two contestants in the arena, common law and business as usual, that have not changed one bit in centuries. Until 1970, they were in the same equilibrium that existed when they were formed. The complete answer is that one side, common law, provided for the influence over time of natural law, in particular the second law of thermodynamics, and the other side did not.

Now that the initial shockwave has passed through our system, the response of every side is known. Corporations have decided to continue business as usual and work on ways to reduce the cost of litigation resulting from of that operating choice. The Establishment has decided to take a little action and wait. The public, footing the bill, has decided, in spite of the betrayal, to keep their professions and force them, one way or the other, to meet their sworn allegiance to society’s preservation.

The daunting and dangerous complexities of modern life are a constant reminder to society that it needs professional services to endure. Because of the recent test, society now knows the single professional specialty that did its assigned job. The plaintiff’s bar is being richly rewarded for faithful service. Society has just added more than two zeroes to the end number of their take home pay. One just bought a major league baseball team for cash.

 

The one faithful profession is now being used by society as the instrument of terror to force the other professions and fiduciaries to meet their legal obligations. While regulators have grabbed media attention in setting fines for corporate wrongdoing, tort law is still in rehearsal for opening night. Tort takes in years what regulators can do in months, but the payout ratio compared to the statutory fines exceeds 50 to 1.

Anyone who receives medical attention today participates in the method prescribed by law by which responsibility for outcomes is transferred from the professional to the client. The law offers free liability insurance for service providers when and only when the method used meets the specifications. The issue in malpractice is not the ends, however regrettable, but the means. The only way a plaintiff can hold a professional responsible for damage is by showing a failure of the professional to apply the prescribed method. If you want maloutcome insurance, you must design a legal contract to that end. Some desirable outcomes, like health and life, are uninsurable.

 

1 – 8T is gone, the watchdogs were complicit. Check your 401K.

2 – All professions and all regulators failed the expensive exam but one. We were but one professional finger away from collapse of the national dike.

3 – The response choices of all parties are now known. The one faithful profession is the punisher of choice of the others (malpractice).

4 – How did this come to be? Two constants. What changed? Why did this one profession work? Everyone knows increasing the punishments will not reform the untrustworthy professions. What does this one profession not need reform also?

5 – The answer is that this profession is based exclusively upon omnipresent universal principles of method including the second law of thermodynamics. Corpoman’s worst nightmare is the legal standard. All escape routes blocked. This is where to dump all the natural law methodology stuff.

6 – List professional duties. Show how all escape routes have been blocked. Easy to demo using the standard for infallible dot.now malpractice. An example is in process here and now. You are being informed that a practical, legally binding method exists for conducting your business that will hold you harmless for unintended outcomes.

7 – Your recorded failure to take any action to acquire this method knowledge, as required by law, is provides an easy, convenient way for PL to establish your responsibility for damage. You willfully chose to be in malpractice mode.

8 – The forecasts. Knowing the choices of method the future is easy to predict to extreme levels of confidence. (Argyris in 1960)

Your choice for what the law calls willful ignorance is the common choice. Rather than comply with the continuously improving standard of care, the selection is business as usual attended by more hope that no one brings action. When the corporation chooses business as usual, willful ignorance is rewarded as a reliable indicator of obedience.

 

 

List of exclusions in tort court. What is not allowed.

  • Character and ethics

Do you ___? You might just be (a redneck) in malpractice mode.

Monty Python with the skit about orders and actions. You stay here, I’m going. Dot.now action

You can fake artifacts but you can’t fake method. You can cook the books recording the activities of the past, but it is impossible to lie about activities in process. Activities speak for themselves. If the ship is steaming Northward and the pilot records the direction of movement as to the South, the actual vector is not changed. However named, activity is what it is.

It is instructive to see that throughout this recent storm of scandal and corporate collapse, no change occurred either in tort law or business as usual. What is there about venerable tort law that tips the scales of justice harder and harder towards plaintiff?

The fact of the matter is that neither tort law nor business as usual have changed a bit since thirty years ago when business as usual was the benchmark of satisfactory behavior under tort law. In 1970, tort law was a trivial part of legal activity. Liability insurance was umbrella and cheap. Business as usual was a winning defense.

How could a body of law, constant for centuries, account for a surge of litigation against another methodological system, also constant for centuries, from virtually zero in 1970 to a trillion dollars a year in 2002? In 1970, 98% of the very few cases of tort action were won by defendant. In 2002, 98% of tort actions are settled out of court in favor of plaintiff and plaintiff wins the majority of the few cases decided by jury. How did unchanged business as usual drift from being the standard of compliance to becoming the legal epitome of malfeasance?

The answer lies within tort law itself. Like our constitution, the English framers of our common law designed a system that would stand the test of time without incessant revision. This was done by building civil law upon the rock of natural law.

 

Does the dude provide specialized knowledge. Does he have control and the power to decide. Is there long time, exclusive, client participation? Then, a professional standard duty. His defense is limited: He cannot hide behind business judgment rule, a dependence upon other expert advice, a good faith idiot. Recklessness is the failure to use best practices and meet affirmative obligations.

Corpos are in an unfunded liability.

Retrenchment sign is that safety and risk management staff is the first let go. Rather than efforts to improve operations, corpos are getting rid of anyone in a position to know the true choice. The leaders left are the same breed than ran off with the billions. By their actions, the only regret is they didn’t get theirs before the lid blew off.

If they leaders were interested in restoring confidence, which means changing the ways and means they conduct business, where are their initiatives. Why aren’t they flooding us with their ideas and plans to be better citizens? Are the actions they are in fact taking a sign of a desire to change? On the contrary. What they are doing is going uninsured, getting rid of their internal so-called watchdogs and funding lobbyists to pass laws to cap their liability for continuing business as usual.

Easy to test. Just ask for factual information about their liability insurance coverage. Ask about their litigation case load.

Tort law is the only safeguard that worked. Why. The distinguishing difference is objectivity on method, self-policed, and built-in entropy management. You can’t buy off plaintiff lawyers because the tort system already pays them lavishly for keeping an honest shop. The amount of money going to the plaintiff’s bar for doing an honest, objective job is so high, no thief can afford to buy it off. As money is the goal, society makes sure their ultimate watchdog is too rich to be tempted. Honesty with the system pays far more than fraud. That is, the system we have for detecting and punishing illegal action is so profitable as it is, there is no way to corrupt it. The profits are a direct measure of the fact that in spite of knowledge of increasingly better means, commerce wants to continue with BaU. The larger the gap, the more wealth will be transferred.

 

This scenario is far from being played out. The corpo reaction is retrenchment but continuing to break the law. With tort law in place and the cost of breaking it increasing, the pressure is in an escalation phase. Retrenchment will escalate to extinction. How could they go half way to oblivion and then switch around.

The best scene for us is to expose the choices earlier so that the future can be predicted. Infallible. Who would profit from good predictions. Using same system used by tort law. Method based on natural law featuring entropy management. Investigate method on a dot.now basis as infallible. Method tells all.

Let them all know it can be done – citing tort law as ongoing exhibit – and offering services. The refusal is a red flag of intent to malfeasance. Therefore, must set the standard of care items early on.

The results are in. The behavior is in. The character is set.  Do not use the standards of professions proven to fail. Do not emulate the agencies who failed. Rather, copy that which succeeded. Get the watchdogs who were either quiet or complicit. No model there. No self correction. No sense of public duty. None are trying to copy the one winner. All efforts are to cap their liability for doing more of the same. The untouchables.

Where is the focus of attention of all the professions, like systems engineering, when the context is in massive turmoil? They are externally silent, looking inside at trivia. Assertion of expertise only comes when things are stable in the hierarchy. Management fads are only funded when there is extra money to waste.

The massive Enron disturbance tells all about each profession.

The system we have requires the central perpetrator to take almost a thousand dollars from the public for every dollar he puts in his pocket. Because it takes considerable time for the heist to work, many of the various professional watchdogs have to be paid off.

Gone is purpose. Only direction is left. The deep structure of change is decay.

By informing you of the situation, you are given an opportunity to assert your choice of method. When, so informed, you elect to maintain BaU, it puts a time stamp on intent to engage in malpractice mode. The defense of ignorance is no longer viable.

The theme is to show the simple stuff which is causing all the apparent complexity. The simplicity of complexity.

 

Since retrenchment is the flow, that is how to set the sails. When the order is to reduce the perimeter, there is no need for consulting services. This period should set a new low for management fads and business consulting services in general. Financial games have vanished as there is no one who is winning anything – all players lose. It is shrink time.

Show the situation is hopeless for BaU. Nothing on the horizon is going to remedy the gap. Time is not on the side of BaU. The core engine is grinding away, unscathed. The war chest of plaintiff’s bar is larger than the Pentagon’s budget.

Show the reference as ultimately durable and the gap increasing – something that will keep growing until its entropy is reduced. Since retrenchment without changing method will work but it means extinction, the strategy is to make money off of the retreat.

We position as method freaks. Natural law of method freaks. Show the standard of care and how best to meet it, as you go – which is the only way to avoid action. Show the SEC as failing. The only watchdog that worked was tort. Based on objectivity – self policed by practitioners who can lose it all if their system degrades in entropy like all the others. It is the context which gives them their power.

It’s all about method. The best law-abiding methods get better and better while BaU stays the same. Like warfare.

What we have, in addition to the SoC scene, is the infallible method of assessment of method for dot.now time. Detect and classify method – corporate governance, et al.

.

Unlike criminal law where each occurrence becomes punishable as crime as it is committed, civil law ignores malpractice activity in process. While it is necessary for the perpetrator to have been operating in malpractice mode, to be sure, it is not sufficient. Malpractice activity must originate from a source associated with considerable wealth and cause damage to an extent that the damaged client’s lawyer believes will reward him for taking the case on contingency. Since the average cost to engage tort action today is $100K, the damage and source of wealth must be substantially higher.

 

The new scene is that a threshold exists and reaction evidence is being generated.

This is the first ever measure of an action threshold from “pressure” to change fundamental operational policy. It was known that a terminally ill company invariably chose to go extinct rather than change, so there was no evidence that in a steady corporation a threshold even existed. Now, it appears that an otherwise viable corporation does indeed have a trigger limit to change the rules of operations.

 

The answer to the pop quiz

Tort law is all about professionalism. Folks that provide services classified by tort law as “professional” must meet a higher duty standard than that for the non-professional classes. As you well know, commerce has always encouraged workers to promise whatever it takes to attract business. Now that the “buyer beware” adage has been flipped to “provider beware,” by the enforcement of venerable tort law, the knee jerk reaction of corporate USA is to significantly restrict what their non-professionals can offer to clients in the way of value. The usual mantra of value added has been replaced by the policy of value subtracted. By informing the client that services to be provided are guaranteed to be incomplete and error-filled, the services provider can effectively claim in defense that he could have no responsibility for any ensuing damage.

While this quick fix is legally sound, there are some interesting side effects other than the obvious loss of market. Services are purchased precisely because of the promise to take responsibility for solving important problems. The new promise of incompleteness, error and nebulous utility is not the stuff of perceived value.

The quick fix comes with other unintended consequences. The documented change in policy is an exhibit of malpractice mode awareness and a choice of response. There is now an added penalty in the next tort action for failing to enforce the policy. That is, the plaintiff lawyer can show that you knew about malpractice mode, because you promulgated a policy to correct it, and then failed to enforce the policy. This shows intent to be in malpractice mode, which is a much more serious matter in the eyes of the court. The typical corporation will find it just as difficult to force its employees to promise less value as it is to force them to create more value.

 

Typical (value subtracted) new policy form:

Vicarious liability

Imputed negligence

 

This unprecedented event measures just how resistant business as usual is to disturbance, including those essential for its own survival. It explains why commerce has always been hostile to anything associated with systems engineering intelligence. It shows the futility of offering any service for productivity and growth with “enterprise-wide” in its title. When the earthquake of sufficient magnitude to change the rules did come to corpoworld, the first reaction was to shrink. This unfolding retreat scenario spotlights the reality. The camouflage is off and none of the usual excuses are being offered.

 

Once the decision to shrink scope has been made, it sets a direction opposite to anything the systems engineering community has to offer. You can expect the irrational difficulties in getting assignments to help corporate America to multiply. It’s idea to reduce risk was to reduce the value of its function. There is no call for outside services to help avoid malpractice mode. On the contrary, the call is for strictly the same but without the promise, expressed or implied, of benefit. When the corporation is demanding less from its workers, it is no time to be peddling more.

From always choosing extinction before changing BaU, the corporation is choosing to change method to go extinct.

The goal, to change BaU to make it less liable to tort litigation, is to restrict its workers to services precertified as valueless. In this way, the client cannot claim your services caused the damage because you promised them naught but incompleteness and error – value-subtracted services.

This quick fix is effective and has extended consequences. Once the policy is issued to the workers, it adds to corporate responsibilities as viewed by tort court. In addition to reducing market, the new standard of care exhibits awareness and intent. For the next legal action, any failure to uniformly and completely enforce the policy will serve to greatly increase the liability exposure and penalties. In this way, the policy encourages the very consequences it sought to avoid. It is mass extinction.

  • if you want to limit the financial exposure to civil law litigation, which makes you pay money for breaking the law (and being unlucky), stop breaking the law.

Corpoman had it both ways. He could raise client expectations and do as he pleased. Now, because of enforcement, Ordinary can’t create expectations of value without the associated responsibility. Before this time, ordinary could promise anything and avoid responsibility for delivering the promise – buyer beware. Because of tort enforcement it is now provider beware. Now ordinary can only legally avoid the responsibility for ends by following the method provided by the law expressly for this purpose – professionalism.

 

The equation is: Exposure = tort law x gap x enforcement

With tort law constant, exposure is a function of gap and enforcement.

The ratio of regulatory fines to tort law wealth transfer is 1:3500

The signs of impact. The herd is stampeding, deflected from BaU. Your test is to predict the direction of the knee jerk reaction – the mob hysteria.

BaU is spontaneous!! 2nd law.

Spontaneous means that once the process is activated you don’t have to impose coherence or technology to keep it going. Rules is spontaneous. It is a dissipative structure that exists as long as resources are supplied. Rules moves towards increased entropy. It is spontaneous and stable, but no intelligence-driven coherence is available for entropy management.

Professionalism is also spontaneous but its cycle includes intelligence to impose its structure, coherence, on the affair at hand.

It is a land that could only be described by one who was there.

The plan is to create corpoman’s worst nightmare and display the same fear as a diversion. Then, we offer how to avoid the nightmare and when refused increase his nightmare. I should lay the groundwork for the sting in the material presented. The refusal to learn how to avoid breaking the law is breaking the law. The trick is that until there is damage, the law is dormant. After damage, trying to backfit the history of deeds to comply with the law sends the case to criminal court first (obstruction of justice).

Each sales target becomes a lottery ticket where the odds are quite favorable and the drawing is continuous. The informed refusal to learn about how to comply with the law is evidence for plaintiff.

Now that we can see how corpo is reacting to the litigation explosion and vastly increased risk, very short sighted, we must shape our stuff accordingly. The fear is there and overt. Our plan to add to their fear, now manifest, is good. I can review what they are doing and predict the outcomes. All roads now traveled are worse. Tort has seen it all, over the centuries, and has the traps all set.

(make a list for ordinaries’ nightmare)

You cannot avoid knowledge formation

You cannot attempt to avoid knowledge formation

You cannot enforce pieces and parts of natural law.

If you institute a plan and enforce it unevenly, it’s worse than no plan (intent)

 

The system we have considers method an undiscussable. It is not a subject that gets a focus of attention by itself. The standards and codes seldom include anything procedural about appropriate selection. Issues related to the control cycle and entropy are never code items. The system of fines is also pre-set. No juries are involved. There is no litigation as such in regulatory action.

The tort system is foremost about method. However imperfect, the tort process is itself a reference standard of the methodology it uses to judge players in the process.

 

It is useful to slide the spotlight from artifacts to method by asking about the value of fines (artifacts) over liability (method) in risk. Once money is set as king, litigation is your entre to method first. If your method won’t stand the tort standard, code compliance won’t spare you from litigation. The focus of tort is foreseeability, a procedure you practice before the artifacts involved are animated.

You can see the effect of tort by the new limited role for ordinary. He is being reduced to insignificance. He can’t be useful to the client without exposing his corpo to litigation.  He is doing artifacts and the liability is in method. The knee jerk reaction, we can now see clearly, was not to elevate ordinary to a higher standard of practice in reality but to take his reality practice and shrink it. All you have to do is find good work by ordinary and you have a fish. Only the most useless drudge will be safe. All others will be punished. You must promise incompleteness and indifference to results. While the client will pick up on this change quickly, it will take time to show up as reduced business.

The control cycle and entropy management are asymmetrically locked together. It takes structure (coherency, intelligence) and work to reduce entropy. Entropy does not need the control cycle to increase because it is spontaneous and incessant. To manage entropy otherwise requires the application of coherent work to the system which is always a cyclic affair. This locks entropy to control theory, the Lord of the cycle.

The entropy factor is another natural law for the professional to factor in to his work – because it is a natural law. If you permit the professional to attempt to defy a natural law, as you do ordinary, you must relieve him of all responsibility. There is no human stop rule on natural laws – all or nothing.

The key to tort is natural law, objectivity and the PL-judge tension. The only way the system could work at all is for objectivity to be the gold standard, which is to say natural law as the common benchmark. Since tort must be doing this, we can find the evidence of using entropy and control and method in what it does. The defense is exposed to a professional system demonstrating what it preaches. The code of professional conduct is the tort context.

When you accept some natural laws and try to defy others, you are guilty in tort of disregarding all natural law. Ignorance of the primary natural laws is no excuse. Set control and entropy up as fundamental primitive principles axioms. Set this pair up as where most defiance occurs after foreseeability.

How to tie foreseeability to entropy? Since entropy is a given, the task action plan must include entropy-reduction features. The strategy, method, must account for entropy as a universal spontaneous disturbance. It is in every sub system, including stakeholders, related to the scope.

Foreseeability is the coherence and structure to be imposed on activity to manage entropy in anticipation of certain future disturbances.

You fear tort, not OSHA.

If Aon is expecting ordinary to meet the standards set by lawyers, does Aon expect ordinary to be qualified as a lawyer to supervise himself. Responsibility? Do they get training? Rewards and punishments. How does ordinary find out if he passes – after the fact in litigation. When and How and Who does ordinary find out when he fails? During litigation when discovery is assessed by plaintiff’s lawyers? What is his personal stake for failure – does he get sued by Aon? There are no rewards for compliance. The issue is when does a tort lawyer review the work – in process by inhouse or long after the fact by the contestant. An as-you-go problem. Is ordinary expected to be as competent as the lawyer who prepared the rules in reviewing his own work?

#1 is to find out what are the rules for report auditing. If a lawyer will review, you have no questions. If you are expected to audit your own work for conformance, many items need clarification. What is your responsibility for policing the work of other Aon employees with respect to the rules.

What Aon is doing is degrading the value of its regular services. Clients will pick up on this instantly. You clutch to your PE and the fools can’t get close to you. This action is harming ordinary severely, not intended to help you. It is enforcing the SoC, indirectly, by restricting ordinary. You should heave gasoline on this fire.

Separate method from artifacts. Just like context, if you get the method right, the artifacts will take care of themselves. If your method is mismatched, the best artifacts will not save you. You can be fooled by artifacts in assessment. In dot.now method, you are infallible. Always do the infallible first. Always investigate method first.

If it is enterprise, it should reek enterprise. After classification, list the kinds of activities you would look for – all tied to the control cycle. The first give away is the degree of difficulty in getting the goals defined and the risks defined. Then, there is the machinery of the measures of consequences and the process of using the information sources in a control cycle way to alter the next task action cycle plan. This is where foreseeability comes in to the work plan – anticipation. You are doing things now to prevent or mitigate those disturbances identified by projection.

Think about the total client exposure of fines, citations and litigation. There is a difference between the defense for regulations and statutes and that for tort liability.  It may be prudent (economically efficient) to infract and pay a fine, but it is never prudent to be negligent. Tort law wants its professionals to be intelligent, appropriate selection of method. The spotlight is on the process. Regulators assume they are best at choosing methods and spotlights artifacts on their choice. You can pass the regulations and fail tort litigation. This brings us back to method as key to liability but the emphasis in auditing for safety is artifacts. You see what is, more than how they got there or what process is going on.

There is a whole set of checkpoints related to process that should be organized as such which are first before artifacts and should be kept apart. The key is entropy stuff and if that is not being handled today, what will trigger to handle it tomorrow. If the process is good, the artifacts today don’t matter that much. If the process is bad, the artifacts today don’t matter at all. The method audit in dot.now is the only infallible audit.

Play up tort law liability as method-centered and serving as a model for professional method itself in handling entropy. OSHA, et al, have the common plague of not handling entropy except in regulatory outbursts that greatly lag the need.

The construction project takes enough time that entropy is a big factor. Entropy and entropy-countering activities can even provoke a change in project goal.

The key permission to focus on method is tort liability. You should have a codes audit separate from the method audit. They choose. If codes, you disclaim such from a liability exposure audit. Construction litigation is as much a report card on the regulators as it is on the regulated.

What does the insurance policy say? Do you review the “new and revised” policy for client exposures? If not you should disclaim and warn that all roads now lead to more retained risk. Does risk significance vary as a function of insurance coverage. You could record what folks think is covered from what really is. Since you are a broker, you have a duty to inform client. You could use the findings to alert Aon to its liability for a client operating on illusion. Develop a checklist of issues to cover in advance, which tracks the moves insurers are known to be making. The masses don’t know about the new risk of corpo collapse.

There are new limits of money and time and who is covered. The only ones covered fully as before are the D&O. The insurance policies don’t cover regulatory fines so they are quantitative measures of risk made by underwriters. As an auditor, you should be aware of how other auditors have ranked your client to explain differences to the client. If the insurer ranked your client a bad risk by virtue of the policy, on what basis can you rank them better – and if you can justify this why is this justification not used by your client to get better insurance? Why didn’t Aon as broker already do this?

If the client is worse than the policy suggests, you can get into grounds for recision. Did the client misrepresent to the underwriter? What did the client provide? Is Aon exposed?

You need to know the going standard in order to rank a target client on the better/worse scale. If you can find discrepancy between representation and reality, you can be sure the insurance company lawyers will find it also, should the need arise.

The grand plan is straight forward.

  • Our world is bounded by civil law tort where money is taken from corpo for breaking the law. There are other guides, but ours is tort.

2) We present the conditions under which this financial transaction takes place as one of total objectivity based on natural law – itself functioning as a model of what should be going on in corpo. It is itself an instance driven by the standards it imposes on its “clients.” Tort law has been doing it for generations, what’s your problem? We are professionals and legally bound to comply with the tort court standard.

 

3) We present ourselves as expert on the natural laws and technology of methodology upon which tort court is based. As required of all professionals, we are expert in application of those laws to commerce so that liability is preempted. We make abiding the law easy. We have very high reliability corpo governance, for instance. We derive and teach the methodology. We have and husband practical and efficient methods of meeting the professional standard.

4) We track refusals as marking a dot.now malpractice mode, for potential future use against them.

This is why we should emphasize how tort court reduces entropy by using a cycle of setting the SoC anew every case. It doesn’t allow entropy to increase uncompensated, what’s your problem? We set tort court intolerant of any professional who is not proactive in entropy reduction (management). The tort is the operational example of enterprise mode.

The liability industry is thriving because of the frequency and severity of financial awards to plaintiff. The enforcement cycle is amplified because of more rewards.

Because defendant essentially pays for the legal process when he settles before trial, defendant is the loser in over 98% of the cases. Restoring the advantage historically enjoyed by defendant in tort law is the mission of this proposition. The law specifies how this is to be accomplished. To get the protection the law provides against outcome damage, the price it has to pay to get the benefits of innovation, you have to meet the standards of professionalism as you go.

The plaintiff’s bar is very happy with the arrangement. The tighter the grip on BaU, the brighter its financial future.

As the corporate scandals of recent times grind their way through the legal system, it should be noted that none of the various initiatives in reform is aimed at tort law itself. The reason is that our civil law, imported from English common law, has proven itself effective in preserving social order for centuries. This means that whatever it takes to increase the success rate of defendant will have to come from working within the existing law, rather than attempting to change the law.

There are very good reasons why, after centuries of uninterrupted advantage to defendant, the plaintiff’s bar has become a growth industry. The strategy for defendant is to remove the reasons for taking action in the first place. Because plaintiff lawyer works on contingency, he will not take action on a case he might lose. As long as defendant operates within the law plaintiff lawyer leverages in tort court, he can go about his business with impunity.

When tort action was rare and typically won by defendant, the issue of which occupations had what duty above that of the ordinary citizen was

 

Professional Obligation (as evolved through tort litigation)

  • Pledge to the Code of Professional Conduct, Framework of Professional Practice, Standard of Care, Code of Ethics, Conditions of License
    • Duty to client paramount over personal interests
  • Proactively current to best available method technology
    • Continuing education
    • Contributor to advancing the practice envelope
    • Competent in the modalities of the discipline
  • Competent at initialization; practice before practice
    • Competent at generic (doctrine of) Informed Consent
      • Mutually agree on objectives, target boundary scenarios
      • Foresee alternatives, outcomes and collateral consequences (risks)
    • No attempt to evade duty, transfer risk, willful ignorance, cover up
    • Sentinel other professional discipline malpractice
      • Duty to collaborate with peers on best practices
      • In professional team situations, compliance is a shared responsibility
    • Withdraw participation in affairs likely to fail
      • Competent in practices assessment and mismatch detection, using dot.now
      • Refer case to an appropriate specialist when personal limits exceeded
      • Duty to notify external of method mismatch to safeguard client
      • Action against those deliberately obstructing your legal duty

 

2003

The order of battle for RGP consulting work changes a bit and the style changes plenty. The first information gathering goals are to a) gage the cycle time at the work face – the pace of challenges to the work crew in the operational reality, including the administrative overhead load to support supervision. Also b), gage the regulatory supervisory cycle time and stringency.

As you gather this information, you praise corpoman for loyalty to the system. You help him show he is rule-obedient to his superior. You need to know the “real” job site standards as stated and provided and report that the rules are being faithfully followed at commendable effort, citing examples. This is what you report, praising supervision for the same thing. When you praise, they will tell volunteer you the problems for you to judge cycle time mismatch.

You can compare them to other systems doing the same process. This sets the process as common, which they can see for themselves. You then can say they are getting the max of whatever the system can do and that, for those cases, more stringency escalation will not produce more result, but likely less. You grade them for where they are relative to the inflection point. You put them on the curve of good using the system they have.

You defend all the individuals as rule-loyal foremost and that the discrepancies noted would not materially affect the target variables. That sweating discrepancies will not improve the bottom line. Using comparison to other same same systems in other fields, you rank the system at full-loyalty level in its species (dog show). You ease them by forcing the view to the larger Russian doll. Comparing them with other supervisory systems, exactly like theirs, that are failing society also. The same supreme loyalty to the system, which delivers in appropriate circumstances, flips to counterproductive when the application is inappropriate. Evaluate the loyalty separate from the system they are loyal to. Elaborate, with detail, on the hard work evidence of loyalty. By selecting the comparison systems you can show on the curve that stringency escalation is counterproductive (SEC).

The initial milestone is classification and educating the client about the hit or miss of cycle times. The second milestone, if in mismatch, is education about the absolute limits of the rules-based regulatory process and the existence of another goal-seeking methodology having no cycle time limits which, in the event of damage, may be the benchmark used to find them negligent by due process of law distinct from regulatory statues. You set them up as loyal to the standards of a species of regulation inherently limited in application which, in the event of damage, exposes them to litigation by reference to an altogether different species of benchmark that has no limits. The end game is recognizing that it is the system, not the loyalty, which must be changed if the exposure to litigation is to be preempted.

Tort success is the proof of the method system existence and regulatory failures are the proof of its limits. Many examples of each. You’re no worse than … also means no better than. When they see the barrier, they can set their expectations. If they keep mismatch, you promise no benefits. They have to stew on the dilemma. You can tell all the stakeholders of the deliberate informed choice to be exposed to litigation risk.  If they choose to adopt the SoCaD of appropriate selection, you have a client.

You can then, if appropriate, warn that the rules-based system itself, is delivering its max. That, should damage occur while that regulation system is in force, professional systems which have no such inherent limits might be used against them as benchmarks in litigation and if the goal is desired to avoid such litigation – it cannot be obtained with the system in use. You warn them that, if damage occurs, they could be judged in a court of law against an entirely different method system benchmark – one which does not have the limit of rule-based regulation. (in fact this alien-benchmark comparison is going on in abundance all the time – called tort).

Here is where you use the website as your “bible.” You refer them to it. You don’t elaborate because you will be mired in details. You note the connect to natural law and say if they can find a flaw in the connections you would very much appreciate knowing about it. You claim basic duty to the higher benchmark, not the limited one. Like your Dr. You note they have chosen the lower regulatory benchmark, which they are meeting loyally. Your duty is to warn of the exposure, in the event of damage, to the higher benchmark for which they can have no defense.

The proof of BaU rules-based operations is that whatever the issue or disturbance, BaU is always the answer. Work selection is scripture, not an experiment. In the skunkworks, because of the second law, the answer for the next (experimental) cycle is never to repeat the preceding one.

When cycle times are out of phase, more is less. Appropriate selection for each work cycle avoids the phase match problem in its entirety.

What you do is praise the people’s loyalty and indirectly educate about the limits of regulation. The fault goes to the “system” which is being actively being compared to a different system by lawyers at great profit.

Website two is about the BAT black box capabilities of system 2 tort standard. Tell judge objectivity is such he must accept methodology. Basic derivations.

System science is taught as a coherent whole only in tort court. Here total objectivity and fidelity of the methodology is the source of income!! Tie to nat law and the judge must concur. The higher the bar, the more $ you get. The PL says why did you do that instead of this. His this is the SoCaD applied such that the damage would not reasonably have occurred.

Both systems have huge track records.

The workshop website: derivatives in natural law, tooling and practitioner application skills as connected to tort SoCaD. You learn how to apply the SoCaD to current professional assignments and to evaluate activities of the past.

Do not connect workshop to client added value – it is a waste of effort. No packaging or promotion will trigger corpo to seek this knowledge on its own – negative demand. The fact of negative demand does not support the hysterical conclusion the technology doesn’t exist. It has its own domain of science, history, founders and heroes. While every building block is taught in a university, teaching the combination is forbidden. Harvard returned a bequest to teach this method science.

 

The road fork on selection is the complexity and change in complexity due to disturbances affecting the main arena. If the work is routine repetitive and not subject to disturbances outside of its comfort zone, rule-based operations with time-displaced supervision is appropriate.

If the situation at the work face is complex, swiftly changing, and is subject to disturbances which will not be accommodated by the actions of the last cycle, the demand is for appropriate selection goal driven..

When work face conditions demand appropriate selection and the company demands loyalty for rules – you get rules and liability exposure for damage. The scene locks in on labor v management. Exposure is a binary switch. You either have judgmental immunity by virtue of your conformance and competency with the SoCaD or you don’t.

The issue is a system conflict not a loyalty conflict. It is rules as auto-select v appropriate selection.

“When was the last time your boss yelled at you for insufficiently preempting the damage; for inadequate goal definition, incomplete investigation of stakeholder needs, perils and hazards. When did he last reward you for your ingenuity, complexity resolution, etc.”

Regulation by time-displaced supervision is an administrative drain on the work crew. There is a cost of regulation to be added to the damage occurring on its watch. The public knows of the collapse before the regulator acts.

Why worry about a stakeholder who does nothing to preempt the damage you inflict on him. If he is a damage responder, he slides off the radar screen. Any stakeholder can protect himself by having his skunkworks with a cell phone. If the corpo won’t allow such, he has his answer up front. If the corpo does, he can supervise by witnessing that the skunkworks is doing the process, by periodic workshops. It is a controlled-environment situation with the method and context for the SoCaD. It cannot be deceived.

What we have done in the last year is certify vast lands of impossibility to treat as such. Where it is impossible (loyalty mismatch), we execute the inform consent warn gambit and notify their stakeholders, and so forth. No push, no pull on the impossible. What we do is (sincerely) praise their loyalty to the institutional system. By praising their loyalty, it sets the stage for the method mismatch. Loyalty selection is a Hobson’s Choice.

Those unable to change by loyalty to the culture of BaU are not given attention otherwise. Neutral. You refer them to the website and require a response – then when they don’t act you have validated the issue on both sides for any further interaction.

The corporate loyalty is in two specific sets. One is the union work crew rules. The other is to the time-displaced supervisory cycle to shield the work crew from outside-in disturbances and deal with stakeholder damage. If the work crew clutches the order of battle book as its sanctuary from supervisory punishments, you can be sure the supervisory cycle is counterproductive. When it is validated, you praise the corpo loyalty. This praise puts them into uniform and locates them as BaU – and therefore no longer of interest as individuals.

BaU is the great variety destroyer of individualism. Depersonalized by loyalty to BaU – act as one.

Regulation is a class of control that fails as a class. It fails as regulator and regulated. The CEO has no more control than the regulator. He depends on cultural inertia to provide the time and opportunity to raid the corporate treasury for his personal account – which is what they do.

Natural law is the one basis where you will not be able to find one expert witness who would testify against it. One sided. Worse than proving the earth is flat and no more than 6K years old against the vast multi-disciplined evidence otherwise. It is the attempt at defying a natural law that one engineer looks for in another so he can lower the boom. No sane defense attorney would put one on the stand. It would be suicide.

The cycle time mismatch: Summer/winter with AC/heat and local weather bumps. Harvey Pitt and his kinder gentler. Tacoma Narrows bridge. The control action was out of phase with the controlled variable. The supervisory cycle adding more admin load creates more damage. When the system doesn’t recognize passing the inflection point and remains locked in the death spiral, it craters. It cannot be stopped. The CEO is fast, in an hour he assessed that perpetuation was too much effort, without insurance, and switched to bankruptcy mode.

Congress worries about the burden for regulation v the damage for not regulating enough, some kind of fine line. When the scheme of regulation is out of phase to the system regulated, the fact is there is no line at all. The proof is to go ahead and deliberately over-regulate using the system you have to the extent that no damage is being done. Go ahead, if you think you know how, and push the “line” so damage is stopped. Then you can back off to the “line.” The fact is the system you use to regulate is identical in principle to those regulated. If the control system worked for your clients, regulating services wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place. You attempt to regulate another regulating system, called corporate management, which can only regulate itself to business as usual. When the rules it regulates to are compatible with and benefit society, it is called good. When the situations change and evolve to a condition where following the same rules damages society, it is called bad. The corpo defeats your regulating scheme in the same way the corpo defeats any other attempt to change BaU.

Preemption cannot exist with fixed rules. The reason is the mechanisms of damage inexorably change with time and “new rules” must be invented for each work cycle.

To appropriately select tasks, the freshly updated information must be evaluated anew every cycle.

 

Once you make the error that the supervisory system is OK choice, the rest is on automatic. When it is in mismatch, more control is worse.

For the COE, show that killing the super cycle for quality will make things better. Etc.

How much more is the work crew video than the history.

The big error is paddle harder when the supervisory cycle is too long. Thermostat control on seasons with AC or heat and you have a cold snap.

“The broker acts in a fiduciary capacity in the commerce of insurance. The import of the fiduciary relationship between the professional and the client is no more evident than in the area of insurance coverage. Insurance intermediaries must act in a fiduciary capacity to the client because of the increasing complexity of the insurance industry and the specialized knowledge required to understand all of its intricacies. Clients are entitled to rely on that professional’s expertise in faithfully performing the very job he was hired to do. That fiduciary relationship gives rise to a duty owed by the broker to the client to exercise good faith and reasonable skill in advising insureds. The professional broker is hired to reduce, if not eliminate, the risk that an inadequate policy will be procured.

Liability resulting from the negligent procurement of insurance is premised on the theory that a broker ordinarily invites clients to rely upon his expertise in procuring insurance that best suits their requirements. The client is entitled to assume that a broker has performed his fiduciary duty. If a broker neglects to procure the insurance, or if the policy is void or materially deficient or does not provide the coverage he undertook to supply because of his failure to exercise the requisite skill of diligence, he becomes liable to his principal for the loss sustained thereby. That duty is not diminished when a policyholder fails to detect the broker’s breach of that duty.”

The professional initialization job is to assess appropriate selection demands on the work crew. Then inform/choice/warn client either get into alignment or lose liability insurance coverage. Show regulation does not = tort. If client selects wrong he gets outcome responsibility without insurance and judgmental immunity.

When we do a BaU client, the trick is to depersonalize his role to inert matter. Give him nothing to lean on. He has nothing you want and you are not selling him anything. Praise his loyalty to corpo culture, detailing how he has done to the max and beyond. Give him his intellectual alibi for failure. You are always referring to external benchmarks required by law for you. You are not God but God’s obedient agent – citing Holy Scripture from the bible for everything you do. Persuasion is indirect, never personal. The thesis is that you are ordered to method and his choice is free – you are indifferent. All you care about is the outcome “insurance” for yourself. As long as you have achieved judgmental immunity, and you know when you have, you could care less what the client does. The law even requires up the ladder and noisy withdrawal.

The “system” is well aware that the methodology exists. When tort makes them pay for damages they teach the method in great detail and precision. Society invests a $T/yr to directly teach the superior method to the most needy. They are the highest paid teachers in history. The method we improve for application prior to damage is, exactly, the benchmark of tort law. That there can be no doubt that such methodology exists is the enormous transfer of wealth, legally compelled for exactly that reason. The methodology we advance is the methodology the law requires. The law is saying that a better method exists, you should have used it (we show you how), and because you didn’t do as we require you must pay for the unnecessary wreckage your inferior method caused. Liability insurance is secured to pay for when you get caught by those you damaged for breaking this law. The chances of getting caught are rapidly rising. Because the gap increases, the more the damaged realize they can be compensated, the more likely negligence will be alleged. At some point the risk is too high to be insurable. The default is bankruptcy.

 

The regulatory massacre shows corpo defense amicus and shows corpo vulnerability. Choice by rules. The cycle time mismatch. It worked for boilers.

The SoCaD amicus shows choice by knowledge and total tie to natural law. Because now, unlike 1950, it can be done, the judge is advised to go there first for judgmental immunity. The first task is to protect the judge from peril. The only risk is that the formulated benchmark collides with natural law and this collision is detected by an adversary. The method is infallible. There are many areas now where judgmental immunity will not work where it once would. Knowing where judgment belongs is the trick. Those areas are readily defined. There is a method of knowledge forming of a sequence of tasks.

The methodology is a mighty river system with eddies. It has frameworks of completeness. For major phases, the frameworks serve as conservation laws so that the parts must add up to the whole. It has stop rules a grand finale that declares the proceedings over. What technology has done is make the computation of the behavior of the great complex practical. (accident reconstruction). It is reasonable for the taxi driver to inquire as to the ultimate destination.

Foreseeability is before the now time. The whole labor of foreseeability is bypassed. You plunge in and wing it and let the wreckage serve as your navigational guide. Crisis management. Damage responding is what we reward. By reading the reactions to the consequences of your action choice, you will obtain the stakeholders, the perils, and the expectations of your clients. If you can afford it, you end up at the same level of knowledge. Preemption is fast productive and happy. The other is very messy.

There are powerful social reasons why we reward damage responders and inhibit preemption. The issue of why it is chosen is well understood (website). What matters is that preemption is aggressively opposed as policy and loyalty to policy is expected as paramount. The either or is so powerful it is impossible to confuse them. Kansas and Oz.

Regulators, methodologically identical to those regulated, fail for the same reason the regulated originally failed to meet society expectations on its own. By what rationale is a method system that fails corporate governance suddenly supposed to work for a bureaucratic supervisory institution?

The platform is to savage the time-displaced supervisory cycle inappropriately selected – using natural law. It has made its record. So has tort. Why is regulation a miserable failure and tort so successful. The explanation of one accounts for the other.

SEC: ethics definition – written standards that are reasonably designed to deter wrongdoing and to promote:

Honest and ethical conduct

Full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable transactions

Compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations

Promptly report code violations

Accountability for adherence to the code

If the supervisor really does know what is best to be done, he should be part of the work crew. If the work crew knows more than the supervisor, he has no purpose other than punishment. Their rewards are based upon the lack of reasons to punish.

The key distinction is that the SoCaD and regulation are different species, not different breeds within a species. Loyalty to the rules of BaU with OTA commands an entirely different set of mental processes and responsibilities than loyalty to the professional SoCaD. The two sets are dramatically unlike. Rules is applied fixed knowledge – robot. SoCaD is progressive knowledge formation – correcting errors and making new ones on the fly.

Two different realms

Transactional Malpractice. What kinds of activities should have been done (by the flat work crew) prior to the damage is the SoCaD of tort. These activities are big-time synthesis. Knowledge forming + ingenuity. SoCaD is a progressive knowledge forming sequence of task categories/types each filled with demands for ingenuity and synthesis.

I was only following the prescribed orders (of the hierarchy) is the defense of what in fact was done. Regulations become the façade for BaU, the illusion that the rules of regulation take care the issue as provided. The conformance activity is mostly analysis. OTA. Regulation is hierarchical time-displaced supervision exactly like the institutions regulated. The corpo recognizes regulation as one of its own species, methodologically interchangeable with the same strengths and weaknesses. Leaders of the regulated fabricate prophecy and history for the regulator exactly as the regulated work crew provides to snooker its supervision. It almost seems at times that the regulated welcomes the cat and mouse game with the regulator.  Did you or did you not abide the rules. Disobedience to Authority, defined in a set of written non-transactional rules, is the benchmark. Responsibility is to the rules, not to a stated objective of the rules.

What the outcome would have been — but for. This is harder to prove than laying out what should have been done.

The SoCaD of tort is methodology alien to BaU.  Responsibility is to a goal-seeking methodology that includes the best available procedures to preempt damage to stakeholders. It is not rules but a progressive cascade of knowledge forming tasks. It is what and when activity types were preformed – not the content particulars. It is – did you do due diligence early on to identify stakeholders and quantify their needs? These alien method worlds come in sets. If the SoCaD is king, purpose is king and if you find one you will find every task in the set. If BaU is king, you will find no SoCaD at all. When BaU is king, the SoCaD is aggressively forbidden. This makes distinguishing SoCaD from BaU a simple matter. It is impossible to mistake one system for the other.

The SoCaD is filled with exercises of judgment but not of task type – the framework of tasks. Our judgment distinguishes us professionals but only in the framework. You are free to complain that the SoCaD professional missed the actual damage scenario in his efforting, but if he did his best efforts in the procedure the law does not demand more. The framework gives us judgmental immunity. If damage occurs without the SoCaD, there is no judgmental immunity.

Restitution. Rectify. Make amends

Courts decisions interpret the “reasonable belief” standard liberally, to encourage internal complaints and corporate compliance.

The key about regulation is that the incentive is to avoid penalties. It is continuous control by authority force. Penalties are imposed for disobedience to the rules oblivious to damage. The authority will force a penalty on you for non-obedience to its artifact-based rules. The authority does not want you to question why but do or die. It promises no benefit and it forces an administrative load on regular operations to enable regulatory supervising as you go. If there was a real intrinsic benefit involved for the corpo, it would be doing those things on its own. The same mental attitude that will voluntarily comply with the regulations didn’t need the regulations to do those things in the first place. There is an assumption that the regulated would not, on his own, do the proper thing – that he is not objective and his whim is harmful to society. Regulation is all about artifact-oriented rules, incentives, and damage response. You get no promises of benefit for following orders. The supervisor makes no warranty to you that some larger good will ensue from your labors. He says follow orders or else. You get safety from punishment.

 

Tort is just the opposite. Here there is a warrant that by meeting the SoCaD, goal-seeking activity will inflict the least damage to stakeholders as a byproduct. Legitimate expectations of the client are to method.

It is control by force after (certain categories of) damage. There is zero administrative load. Tort is all method, zero artifacts and damage response, and its objective procedural benchmark is, by definition, the best method available for goal attainment – all societal interests essential to preservation considered. Tort holds that the reasonable man striving to attain his objective will be compelled to reach his goal in the most efficient, productive manner respecting his societal responsibilities towards his clients and stakeholders to preempt damage. The best available goal-striving method is called the standard of care and it is to be pursued with uninterrupted due diligence. The method is focused on preempting the various anticipated disturbances to goal seeking efforts and collateral damage to clients and stakeholders alike.

 

Safety = understanding the risks and being prepared. A two-step affair with forming knowledge prior to activity selection and design. Both steps require ingenuity. Safety is design. Another word for safety? Make it tortguard. Lump safety in with quality, et al, and include it as one of those elements that preclude allegations of tort. The master goal is SoCaD compliance. If you met tort, you were “safe.”

The concept of “damage” is extensive. What it is and to whom is not obvious. If you do BaU, damage is an undiscussable. Damage then is defined for you, without effort on your part, by allegations after it occurs. You then enter damage response mode where all the rewards are concentrated.

Method, not artifacts, is the key focus because only by method do you avoid tort for damage responsibility. The “out” provided by law when damage results from activity is the professional’s reward for compliance. Judgmental immunity. It is a key success factor.

You will be successful when you have handled the matter such that tort will not hold you responsible for any damages that result from your activity.

This lumping has to be because safety goes into activity selection which, as selected, determines back to particular risks for designing countermeasures and quality the same. To allow differentiation is to get into another layer of supervision.

The focus then shifts to the next layer of definition of “understanding risks” as requisite to appropriate selection of activity which is design. The problem with rule-based operations is there is no “understanding” so there is no need for being prepared. To go by rule is to go brain off on ingenuity. Regulations are rules for rule-based behavior. Play by the rules and you will not be punished.

SoCaD activity assurance is understanding the risks related to the activity and accommodating them in activity design to some satisfactory level stop rule (design basis scenarios).

Small problems in rapidly changing circumstances can bring compounding effects.

The disaster trigger is not the lightning but standing under the tree. It’s not the bankruptcy but dropping the insurance.

When we have a disaster the answer is “getting back to the basics,” not how they were left out in the first place. The damage response and not preemption.

 

The liability litigation scene and the lack of insurance coverage will take care of itself in the media. The issue will only get worse. The cycle times are all there to see and you can predict with high certainty. Corporate inertia is like years. The CEOs are very fast. The disciplines are years. Regulators are like years.  The director’s cycle time is like 2-3 years. The CEO cycle time is like 2-3 hours. The average road to bankruptcy will take 3-4 years. Corpoman cannot conceive that his Establishment will penalize BaU. When the choice to fail by bankruptcy can no longer be hidden, it will be too late to avoid. This event schedule guess means we should herald our stuff as widely as possible in the next 18 months. The task is to assault law and insurance with proposals and sting the peripherals and stakeholder groups as frauds. Basically putting the Gary plan in motion. We need some sting data points on each sector.

We use regulation’s wild failure as exhibit of BaU supervisory cycle damage reaction. Savage regulators using the tort benchmark contrast and let corpoman see he does the same same. No direct attack on commerce. All out war on the regulators. We use tort as exhibit of wild success of SoCaD – which nails corpoman and his regulator. Tort law would cream the regulators.  We cream the regulators and corpos will see they are the same. Attack regulation as an indirect way to attack corpo. We attack regulators as a corpo defendant. We define the SoCaD as a plaintiff. You put corpoman onto the attack regulator site and he finds more than he bargains for. The first punch on corpoman is anti-regulator. The second punch is his SoCaD nightmare. We help him to defeat the regulator and then show his vulnerability to SoCaD enforcement. If he does BaU and does damage, he will be ruined. Frequency and severity up and no insurance coverage. The amicus job is to show corpoman his nightmare in advance. He had insurance and little enforcement. Now he has more exposure and no insurance. We take away his insurance policy by showing intent in advance as fodder for his insurer. A preview of coming attractions to his stakeholders.

When you no longer have an organizational future to perpetuate, many items drop off the radar screen. Life gets much simpler. Leaders are now shaping activities with the benchmark of reducing anything preemptive against calamity, since they already have crash as a goal. They don’t even want risk investigated. Only production and selling the existing shrinking line. Even the corporate counsel stuff is less important. No life support system power. It’s the hospice mode.

The avoid list includes: The corpos, the risk management discipline lackeys, all technical disciplines. There are zero allies. There are business plan targets, those we sting, and those we ignore. We have zero support groups to enlist. The only selling is to those who can profit from a premeditated choice of targets to be derelict in their duty – choosing the path of failure in the bright light of a success route option. Their choice to fail must be forced against a backdrop of a proven success choice option! The loyalty test is the generalized initialization – for all. Get it out first. Since most will choose BaU, the test design is to derive some future value from this choice – and to deny them the goals they say they seek from the methods they chose. Liability litigation avoidance is a goal or it isn’t.

My task now is to prepare and web post the tools and essays for the “marketing” phase. Feature follows function.  You pluck from websites as appropriate, prepared as a ruse by objective us. Never give corpoman something to lean on.

Never write our sting stuff for an audience you have an obligation to. Write as a disinterested qualified party to another objective receiver required to be objective and interested, with nothing to gain and state as such. You then “let” your target eavesdrop on the communication in which they have no influence and your blunt objectivity can reign. Sell the target on the ruse and you will nail the target with the message where he has no complaining rights. He can’t come back as how dare you because it’s between two other parties outside of his authority.

All of your checklists and method standards should be website downloads where the neutral setting is made as above. The axiom is your procedure and tools must come from authority and legal duty. When there was no enforcement notoriety, this ploy couldn’t work.

To a target, never claim authorship. You can claim I wrote the stuff and I can claim Dr. P wrote it. Your role is a duty-bound informer as part of your duty to warn. The target has to be put into a squeeze box and forced to choose his loyalty directly. If it’s BaU, you inform of the consequences and allow no expectations of lowering risk.

 

Webs:

1 – PCDC: old load (target ruse is workshop student homework)

2 – Tribunal: Amicus Curaie SoCaD ruse as plaintiff lawyer to tort judge. Tell judge no midway stop rule line exists. Put in tort-regulatory contrast. The judge in tort has a different challenge than the regulatory court.

3 – Tort Lawyers BP  (ruse is insurance to lawyer?)

4 – Insurance BP – take the risk out  (ruse is lawyer promoter to insurance)

5 – Savage regulators by control theory. Amicus to judge as defense lawyer. (Fed court) ruse.  Show the tort judge standard is valid over the regulatory standard. Peripherals: Show as BaU loyal over duty. Discount history/prophecy damage response. Intimidate the organizations the client fears, preemptively. Put the regulators on the defensive before a need arises. Do gooders are part of supervisory cycle. The triumph and tragedy of regulation as natural law drives it.

Demonize regulation (inflection). Expose its flaws of waste and futility. It is an Establishment rain dance to narcotize the public that something is being done about the menace to society. It fosters the illusion, even in the name, that regulation as practiced “regulates” the choice of action of the regulated to a desired value. To test the regulator, get definitions, positive deltas and benefits of compliance. Where is the SoCaD of tort? Regulation is OK because they recognize it as a delayed supervisory cycle like their own and one they can thwart. Note that both regulator and the regulated fear preemptive whistleblowing.

It interrupts the music as in musical chairs. It is a jar to action.

The SoCaD has no cycle time mismatch problem because it is always the safe method. BaU must fear inappropriate selection because of cycle time pendulum swing, but the only downside to SoCaD is occasional inefficiency. Every SoCaD cycle must end with a clear set of triggers in the execute phase for the next SoCaD cycle.

You enter the scene. The ending is SoCaD or modalities. What aids do you need to get from hello to the finish line. Classify. Test and validate loyalty. Plan BaU v plan SoCaD. Inform economics and risk and warn. They choose.

The pendulum swing of antigreed law and greed. The speed to greed is so fast the window of opportunity is open long after the code/decode swing has gone to the decoders.  By the time the failed law gets changed to another failure mode, the damage has been done. Scandal intervals are shorted and the financial damage is greater.

“Appropriate” selection of action occurs all the time. It is the reference benchmark that flips. It’s either project goals or work rules. Teamwork is continuous mutual whistleblowing to a benchmark shared in common. As Rudy says, acting as one individual.

The great fear of whistleblowing is the threat to BaU. All preemption is whistleblowing – before damage type. Why do they support regulation and comply with it while freaking out at the thought of whistleblower support? Curious. Because preemption would derail the train before the “damage” is done.

Basically the first task is to establish the loyalty platform you are working on. It is regulatory or tort: damage preemption or damage response. Is the task selection process dominated by corpo culture or by appropriate selection. You do this by the mini-test.

The initial audit is to measure the work crew (flight deck) cycle time – complexity, novelty, uncertainty, disturbances. Rank activity on SoCaD scale (THIS is preemption). Also measure work crew attitude – defensive or goal-oriented. Measure the regulatory I/O burden. Ask about the steps taken before today to appropriately select for today. What chores of preemption took place. See what they know about liability insurance coverage. Do an economic study. Then, do an informed choice scene.

If the scene is locked-in OTA BaU, the attitude will be defense against the supervisory cycle. Rules will rule and your duty ends at warning.  You cannot promote preemption to BaU lock in, but you can warn and lay out the exposures of their choice. Your act will nail them with intent.

When the work crew cycle is slower than the supervisory cycle, all management tools work. When the flight deck cycle is faster than the supervisory cycle, all regulation fails. The use of force by authority to dictate work, locks in on rules. Then, only the rules matter and the goal does not.

Aggressive regulatory oversight consumes resources and makes matters worse. Lax regulation is inert. Either no impact or counterproductive.  Show them the relationship between tort and regulation in economic terms first, then in the functional terms of their benchmark references. The intrinsic failure of regulation plays right into the wallets of tort lawyers. Now, more lawyers than engineers.  It’s obvious that tort creams regulation by the economics record. No insurance for regulatory fines?, but yes for tort costs?

Preemptive strikes on the regulators? Pose questions to them? Define safety? Define the relationship between the SoCaD of tort and the regulations. Show tort increase in GNP along with regulatory admin costs. Increase regulation makes the key purpose, safety, worse. The indexes worsen while tort increases. All regulation, all management, all time-displaced supervisory cycle. This all goes right back to control theory. When the work crew cycle is faster than supervision, all supervisory acts make matters worse.

Bankruptcies are intentionally engineered scenarios. To find the bankruptcy engineer, check who has both the control of OTA and is a beneficiary of bankruptcy protection.

 

The whole issue is why now. Why is BaU suddenly getting flak? The whole system in place has been dormant for a century. The answer is the gap, which BaU doesn’t control and enforcement triggered by damage caused by BaU. The enforcement is from the damage is from what the public defines as damage – which is an expanding issue. Practices once routinely accepted by society are now forbidden.

The incontrovertible central driving force of the new era is the advance of preemption technology, which is why the regulatory dilemmas are sustained. Scandals of every size have flared up in the past and, after the usual round of contrition, things were reset back to where they were. The critical factor now, in this human powered cycle, is that litigation has become so effective in eroding the accumulation of loot derived from the scandal, the arena has been abandoned by insurance. The Establishment system for placating the public in the scandal cycle, without actually changing anything, is tinkering with incentives. Wall Street strips $7 trillion from investors, regulators do their snake dance, and the perpetrators now face possible prison time.

Because of tort, what was once accepted as ordinary business practice is now deemed by the public as scandal. Business as usual has remained rock steady while the benchmark by which society grades organizational performance has made a block increase. Tort shows us just how much of the damage we have sustained at the hands of corporate action could easily have been avoided. We also learn from tort that this knowledge can be used to receive some compensation and deliver some angst to the perpetrators.

The dormancy of enforcement was exploited by the insurance industry which, for all practical purposes, would cover any litigation expense for wreckage caused by BaU inappropriately applied and alleged. With malpractice and malfeasance now staples of the media, the public is more aware of what kinds of damage can be rectified through litigation. The winner of the big settlement in tort has taken the newspaper space formerly used to showcase the lucky winners in Las Vegas. The performance benchmark escalated by technology has no convenient social system fix. The exposure of malfeasance by the raised benchmark now flows at a rate which exceeds the regulatory response rate. The proposed new incentives to civic duty are immediately exposed as ineffective by the next wave of scandals. The regulatory cycle no longer enjoys extended rest periods between cycles. The public is beginning to suspect there is no real connection between the regulatory snake oil dance and the actions of the regulated.

The real regulatory action on executive decision-making occurred when the liability insurance market was abandoned. Now the consequences of BaU inappropriately applied means the only way leaders can legally raid the corporate treasury has defaulted to bankruptcy. This decision was made independently en masse during 2002. The impending tidal wave of bankruptcies has already been formed, it can be validated in process in many ways, and it is fast moving towards our economy. No sentinels are warning society.

The Establishment has no way to reverse the advance in the technology of foreseeability. This feed to the tort system has no easy fix. It has no social fix for the technical disturbance.

The same preemption technology that widens the gap is also reducing the ranks of the engineering profession. Same laws at work. The laws have always been. What is new is the computational horsepower to integrate the mathematical expressions of the laws as nature provides in the operational reality. All the rest is ingenuity.

The objective, emotionally neutral standard starts with a natural law audit. The natural law keeps everyone honest, whether they want to or not. You cannot cheat a natural law. You can get caught, by independent examination of natural law, for trying to cheat one.  Begin with best efforts to make sure you are not attempting to defy a natural law or two. The next step is best efforts to leverage natural law to ease the journey to the goal.

There is nothing in the SoCaD applied retroactively that stands in the way of SoCaD application prior to damage. There is nothing in the method benchmark of tort used on behalf of plaintiff, after damage, that obstructs compliance to the SoCaD by defendant prior to damage – and therefore not responsible for restitution.

 

In the advance of method technology, acts once deemed appropriate are now inappropriate. Reasonably prudent practice, in the eyes of the public, changes in step with leaps in technological capability and productivity. When most families have one or more computers serving at home, expectations for workplace norms include digital technology.

 

The steep technology up ramp drives an incessant demand to reevaluate activities. As a professional intrinsically exposed to liability, one is bound to a pursuit of expanded knowledge, higher productivity, and more effective application, As advancing technology is translated into better performance, it raises the benchmark against which activity of the individual professional and those within his guild will be gauged. All liability derives from this moving benchmark of appropriate activity – that when one acts, one must act in the best manner available (methodology) to avoid doing harm to another.

Must I assume they are all ninnies? That they are too stupid, inexperienced and blind to see the fruits of their labor are counterproductive and seal in the very consequences they seek to avoid? They are captives of a system. The system rewards loyalty to OTA and damage response.

Using construction as clean example of supervisory cycle failure, inappropriate use adds about 30% to the direct OOP cost of construction over that when appropriate methods are used. For a 900B industry, 270B goes to regulation and litigation. We pay to support regulatory institutions that fail to get the job done. Report card on regulation?

They get into a balance with the regulated and hope for quiet stability on cruise control. When there failure is obvious they do another war dance and make matters worse. What do you get when you turn up the heat on a failed supervisory system? When they are aggressive, more resources get wasted. When they are docile, they are inert. All roads lead to counterproductivity.

The public does no good tugging at the bridle of its regulatory institutions leading them to drink at the well of contrition. The reputational costs don’t matter.

What is clear also is the intent to fail. We can evoke a display of intent to fail long before the fact of failure. You don’t have to have the failure to claim failure. You can infallibly announce the failure long before it becomes fact.

The biggie is the promise. The warrant. Nobody promises any ends – no caps on liability no judgmental immunity. The regulators promise nothing – only threats. With SoCaD we promise infallible method to attain ends. What does your method promise? The tort standard, by definition, can show you failure mode before the damage.

The common denominator of regulators is the displaced supervisory cycle. Imposed on another displaced supervisory cycle. No need to dwell on its failure. No drink at the well. They humiliate themselves. The method imprisons them in an endless cycle of failure where they have to watch tort lawyers feast on the fruits of their labor. They are embarrassed in public while tort lawyers are privately made wealthy on the wreckage. The failure of regulation is so bad, insurance companies won’t insure it any more.

 

The essence of institutional regulation is revealed in their documentation of standards.

  • Fuss over their vested grand authority
  • An incentive system by legal force
  • Noble visions tucked in corners
  • Assign and allocate “ends” responsibility. None to themselves.
  • Response when the regulations fail to deter damage

The great documentation bulk has to do with generic tooling and artifacts related to the regulated. These are instructional guides as to intended use of the artifact. Regulation is the failed supervisory cycle riding herd on another version of the failed supervisory cycle.

The gig is to show that the ubiquitous failure is caused by natural law. And that no leader can persuade otherwise.

What is missing in regulations

  • Methodology of the SoCaD
  • Guarantees for the ends of compliance. No promises.
  • No defining structure or completeness structures. All pieces of an undefined whole.
  • Lip service to preemption. No effort to put themselves out of business.

Relative to society needs, tort is there to catch the mischief that passes right through regulation. The quantification index of regulation failure is what flies through the supervisory/governance/professional system layers identified by damage by contemporary malfeasance. Take tort’s standard and try to find it in regulations.

Malfeasance is a requisite activity undone (preemption).

The failure of the whole regulation system, as in Enron, contrasts with the wild success of tort. If the tort reformers directed their remedies at regulation, as in SEC, there would be no tort litigation. Tort doesn’t even stir from its lair until long after scandal wreckage has gone public.

Regulation, supervision and governance differ from the methods and benchmarks of tort law in fundamental ways. These two separate and dissimilar realms of activity have been on continuous display for centuries. The entire network of watchdog institutions of regulation and oversight recently allowed the class of Enron to deplete the public treasury by some 7 trillion dollars. Meanwhile, the institution of tort law is operating to compensate for the damage caused by such unmitigated malfeasance winning over 99% of the cases on behalf of those damaged.

The regulation and supervision of construction, for example, is so defective that over one fourth of all investments in construction go to pay for the costs of litigation and the rectification of damage.

The window of activity time examined by the benchmarks of tort law begins at the event of damage and reviews backwards to identify the stream of actions that took place prior to the damage expressly designed to preempt it. Society has established minimum standards of duty for proactively avoiding the events of damage to clients and stakeholders.

The cycle of supervision and regulation of work crew activity works on an entirely different orientation to time. The supervisory cycle begins with prophecy for the work crew and continues with the receipt of work crew history. The comparison of history to prophecy triggers another cycle of revised supervisory prophecy input to the work crew.

The success or failure of regulation to attain work goals depends entirely upon the composite of forces, internal and externally imposed, that determine the cycle time faced by the work crew in the operational reality. This relationship is governed in its entirety by the principles of control theory, a natural law.

For those situations where the work crew cycle time is equal to or longer than the supervisory cycle time, regulation can be mission successful. These requisite conditions often exist in routine, repetitive production work. It is regulation of activity by work rules, known both to the supervisor and the supervised. In these common situations, the control standard is to means. All else, including ends, is taken as fixed. Both work crews and supervisors can be varied at will. Over time, both the reasons for the rules and the goals of the activity are forgotten. Only the rules remain. Our society has little idea of the original purpose and context of Thanksgiving Day, to be sure, but everyone knows exactly what he is expected to do when the holiday rolls around.

When the cycle time of the work crew, for whatever reasons, is shorter than the cycle time of supervision, all attempts of supervisors to regulate activity towards the goal become counterproductive. When the supervisory cycle fails due to a cycle time mismatch, it fails big. Management practice that works so well on one side of the inflection point, serves on the other side only to make matters worse.

The cycle time of the work crew can be measured. The cycle time of supervision can be measured. The attitude of aggression between the two cycle groups can also be measured. If you find aggression and a cycle mismatch, rule-based behavior is king.

 

Your context is flooded with examples of both systems every day. You have but to look. When you fail to look, you identify yourself. It doesn’t change a thing to ignore the situation because natural law is in charge, not man.

In order for a PL to find a flaw in the proposition, he would have to discount the success of his own profession.

Does regulation guarantee anything? Does it have a completeness structure?

Tort can show regulation deficient when foreseeability is done to BAT.

When you have natural law going for you, you can blame everything on your guild-hall duty to natlaw. Your duty to warn.

If the supervisory cycle is out of synch with the work crew cycle, damage will occur that has no defense in tort court.

Prophecy-history time-displaced supervisory cycle (control theory)

Fabricate the prophecy stuff to meet expectations as Input to the work crew flight deck. Wait for the history to arrive from the work crew, Output. Look for discrepancies between the history and the prophecy. When above a trigger limit, fabricate the next prophecy cycle. Meanwhile plan, do, check, revise cycles are spinning on the flight deck at several revolutions per hour.

When the work cycle time, as in routine production, can be held to be longer than the supervisory cycle. Natural law allows this system of regulation to work. The benchmark being the set of work rules. When the work cycle time, to maintain or improve relative status, becomes shorter than the supervisory cycle time, the system becomes unstable. To restore stability, the workers abandon the goals as benchmark and lock on the rules so as to increase their cycle time longer than the supervisory cycle.

The index is complexity.

Whistleblowing is a form of supervision. The senate never got near whistleblowing.

We see it all the time in the workshop when the loyalty scene is locked on professional. People are well aware of what is going on.

Regulators are loyal to method systems proven to fail.

This discussion is a very example of the proposal. As it is a condition of my professional license to do so, I am intentionally infecting you with the duty to warn. As I inform you of factual conditions concerning impending damage to your stakeholders, your professional duty to warn becomes a factor. At some point you will be obliged to check the story out because if you don’t, and your stakeholders get damaged, they may have grounds for malpractice.

I have informed you of the threat and a means of preemption. I make no attempt to influence your right to free choice. However, your actual choice, validated by your actions from this junction forward in time, is duly noted.

 

By presenting the SoCaD as all natural law, you even put the judge on the defensive. For if he devises one which is contrary to natural law, you will be able to use it against him. First one to the machine wins. The only thing supervision has to fear is being wrong against a higher and objective standard. Natural law has no higher and no more objective standard. This platform has been around since 1970.

 

The regulators at every level know that their operation is failing to meet the goal. They also know that another round of rules and enforcement is not going to work any better than the last round. They know that more money and staff will not do it. They are playing a losing game, they know it, and they don’t admit to a solution.

The automatic remedy route they leap to cannot work at any level.

Guarantee a solution. Black box the solution capabilities. Make them choose as a test to show that, by virtue of the choice made, they do not want a solution. Failure, not success, is the goal.

Some of these banks do have fraud insurance! It will take a federal law to stop the practice. Talk about anticipating.

Regulators say there is a “delicate balance” between over regulation and harming enterprise. This is wildly off the mark. If you are proactively regulating because those being regulated are wrongdoing, you can only be doing harm to wrongdoers. The fallacy is that since your regulating process is ineffective in deterring wrongdoing at any strength, both sides perpetuate the illusion of regulation so the wrongdoing can go on.

“self regulation failed” is chanted by the Senators so they can justify more laws of regulation. Only Eliot Spitzer nailed enforced regulation as failed also. How big a mess, how protracted the damage before the realization that the method of regulating employed does not regulate the target variable.

The line is one state path that cannot possibly continue into the cone.

 

Bankruptcy law has the same provision as tort. Did pre-petition behavior contribute to the downfall? Is used to allow or deny post petition conditions.

Supervision is not dot.now governance. When supervision is time displaced, a cycle of history feeding prophecy is commenced. There are several types of being out of phase. Time displaced supervision destroys the methodology of appropriate selection.

In BaU, “how did you get to this activity?” will always refer you to the rules and OTA – their defense.

Self-supervision, as you go, towards a shared compelling purpose is never aimed at fussing over the error but the appropriate response selection – never personal motive. Time-displaced supervision is out of phase with the incessant control cycle of the operational reality. If you do not contribute to the process by which activity is appropriately selected, there are only two possibilities. You either become servant or master. In supervision, the social power gradient cannot be neutral. Once it cascades to aggression, the relationship locks in on rules-based behavior. Only protracted calamity can change operational norms. When the rules cause damage, because the world has changed, supervision by BaU practice, can only extend the damage.

When you force yourself into the control loop by authority instead of by participation, the activity snaps into a rule-based mode. The only way you can be master is if the working crew is an obedient slave to the rules. The slaves, now operating brain off, will only allow you to master them by the rules. Rules work as well to protect the slaves and they do to allow the master to appear to be in control. If you want the work crew to be intelligent, appropriately select, and you don’t want to participate on the front lines, you can only serve as water boy. No other time-displaced supervision is possible.

The supervisory cycle with all its time lags and error-filled data works on history and prophecy only is fundamentally flawed for appropriate selection preemption. The cycle, even if it were valid, is too long to impact now activity. It only gets at the now after a long gauntlet of obstacles error prone and after the now has had the time to accumulate damage and alter itself from what began the cycle in the first place. Out of synch with the operational reality. The team runs through cycles of trial and revision several times a day.

Supervision will fail regulation to objectives if, …..

If the supervision cycle is slow relative to the rate of damage, the time span for BaU to cause and accumulate damage can make supervision operationally meaningless. The Enron class and the SEC is a classic case. The window of opportunity there allowed investors to be robbed of 7 trillion dollars. This is not the stuff of governance.

If the supervision cycle catches part of the damage generation cycle and it trips into an aggressive relationship, where the supervised is forced into a defensive mode, supervision will only get rule-based behavior. The supervised default to the rule book defense and it locks in, brain dead. Thereafter, no regulation is possible and supervision is wasted effort. You can increase the supervisory I/O workload on the supervised, at the expense of productivity, but the rules will remain frozen.

Regulation success only occurs in situations of routine work in unchanging conditions. You regulate to the same rule book used by the supervised. Confined to history and prophecy in a peripheral relationship to the work platform, regulation cannot change the defenders of the rule book. Whatever articles of prophecy are contrived by supervision, the supervised can create historical artifacts to match – thus defeating supervision’s goals. Code – decode.

In cases where the supervision retains a supportive, rather than an aggressive relationship, supervision is reduced to attending to worker context comforts. He can have no impact because he is not on the work platform (flight deck) incessantly cranking cycles of appropriate selection. There is no part time involvement. It is unstable. For the SoCaD, either be a worker or a worker servant. All other roles are counterproductive.

The drill sergeant makes robots because he has the authority to force the soldiers to take on a cycle time based on fixed rules that is much longer than his supervisory cycle time.  It works. He does regulate by rules. It produces interchangeable robots. He is on the parade grounds. The officer can supervise the drill sergeant with a long cycle time on parade day because the DI cycle time is longer.

There are only supervisors on the flight deck. The rate of disturbances to the work crew is far too high to afford the supervisory lag without getting out of synch.

Liability insurance is financial license to commit the act against which it has insurance and thereby escape the cost of getting caught in the wrongful act while reaping its benefits. In this case, the wrongful act is BaU instead of appropriate selection – when damage results.

Implicit in the concept of insurance is that loss is only insurable if it fortuitous – not planned, intended or anticipated. Only those risks beyond the control of the insured warrant coverage. D&O policies exclude deliberate or intentional conduct. [we show intention prior to damage] D&O policies exclude losses stemming from the disloyalty of corporate officials – gaining advantage to which it is not legally entitled. Exclusions prevent the looting of corporate assets by D&O and then, after being forced to remit the funds, turning to the insurer seeking indemnification for their wrongful acts. There are limitations to insuring intentional conduct.

Willful is acts performed with a preconceived design which will inflict excessive preventable byproduct damage. We trigger an exhibit of willful, prior to damage.

Show “intentional” corporate wrongdoing voids the D&O policy.

You have been informed and you have consciously and formally chosen the damage route aware that by doing so you risk losing insurance and judgmental immunity.

Do a nested view on each target. Become an organized tattle-tale. In turn, layer by layer, alert stakeholders to the inherent limitations of their regulators and watchdogs. Play on distrust, tell why and show answer. Watch for what they do and notice what actions are avoided.

Do a module on the fundamental flaws, by natural law, why regulation and governance, project management (COE) and watchdog fail and tort succeeds. This is very broadly applicable since it is by methodology and not artifact details.

 

Would the process used to choose the activity going on now pass the appropriate selection test? Would the knowledge forming process by which the tasks now proceeding were chosen stand up under the scrutiny of tort law to the degree that should damage result, no tort lawyers would take the case on contingency?

The SoCaD process for appropriate selection is synthesis, loyalty to profession paramount, skunkworks, preemption, knowledge forming, and informed consent. All information sources can contribute to the preemption process, including damage history.

The BaU process is analysis, rules-based, OTA, damage-response, entropy accumulating, hierarchical, change-averse, aggressive. Workers are driven back to their only sanctuary – the rules.

Appropriate selection SoCaD is synthesis, flat, knowledge-forming, complexity resolving, entropy reducing, cooperative.

 

In an “inspection,” the activity observed is never judged good or bad on face value. Activities are intrinsically ethics neutral. The real assessment appraisal task is the appropriate selection process employed to choose the activities observed.

Prophecy; forward looking; revealing the future; forecasting is the artifacts, articles and assertions of faith and belief to achieve acceptance that from now time forward, the activities projected will deliver the desired outcomes. Prophecy is selecting a track within the cone of future time. The track of history is the line already etched.

For the compelling purpose of continuing BaU activity, articles of faith in an acceptable future, often specified by the peripherals as such, are sprayed upon the supervisory layers to preempt potential interference. When damage from BaU has accumulated to an extent it can no longer be concealed from the periphery, the articles of faith are revised in the next cycle of prophecy-history.

Foreseeability

If you can’t pass the PL standard for activity selection today, how can you expect to pass the test in court. If you get caught trying to backfit preemption records after the damage is done, your case will detour through criminal court first. It is your worst nightmare. You are being held accountable to a loyalty standard opposite to the standard imposed on you by the corporation to which you were obedient prior to damage.

Appropriate selection by SoCaD, knowledge-based and trial-based preemption with an informed consent ceremony is, after release, never done again by BaU, no matter how much damage is caused. Any feedback from damage to production is a Band-Aid to the rules shaped by and limited to the damage event. For the damages over the threshold, the bandaids are rapidly applied  by production. Any changes in the rules will be damage driven. The SoCaD process is not reactivated. BaU is analysis (hierarchical), SoCaD is synthesis (flat).

Tort: two alternative ways to prove a design defect, each appropriate to its own circumstances.

Rules of professional conduct (ABA)

COE = SEC = DEA = project management what they have in common is governance by history and prophecy. The dot.now incessant cycle is unsupervised and in defensive CYA mode with aggressive management using a long cycle method of history and prophecy – proven to fail.

Take the tasks what they do and classify them upwards in a method structure (synthesis)

A matrix History/prophecy and production/insulation/damage response and preemption.

SoCaD (Preemption) is all prophecy and should be part of incessant cycle – no rest period and no automatic repeat.  The SoCaD is mutual preemptive whistleblowing on a local task level with the project goal as compelling purpose. If the cycle is powered by other than the production principals, BaU will supplant project goal.

Reasonableness = reason and logic satisfying a benchmark.

Rectify damage.

Corporate interests adverse to stakeholder interests.

You must have client’s informed consent to act.

Judge: tell him about the spaces connected with human ingenuity. You have to, at least, to try to apply synthesis ingenuity. Go beyond the technical aspects of tort law. Get the personal stuff out of the equation.

What are the options to reform must include displacing a method system proven to fail.

Do a FM for doctors malpractice with preemptive strike on prospective alligators.

What experience do you have that regulation is a matter of enforcing the regulations with incentives.

Preemption benchmark is tort SoCaD. What good is another if you lose in tort? If you pass the tort test, where is the exposure?

Coordination by skunkworks is automatic. Forced coordination is adversarial and fails.

Damage response is aggression

Preemption is devotion

A Hobson’s Choice

Is knowledge building for the SoCaD prominent, encouraging, rewarding or non-existent, obscure and hostile?

Except for ingenuity, the SoCaD gets human nature out of the equation

 

If the cycle is not incessant and local, it’s not preemption. We have to debunk the present system by showing abstractly and generically that all such time-displacement systems fail.

1 – “make contractors responsible for ___” vague generalisms

2 – wait for discrepancies in results from production to appear in artifacts and documentations. The engine of damage is left alone to provide work for plenty of people – ala healthcare.

3 – get into supervisory peripheral displaced damage response cycle. Works on creating and sustaining the illusion that there is a connection between regulatory action and the action occurring in the operational reality (dot.now).

The front-liners in defensive CYA mode cannot budge from the sanctuary of rules. If the embedded rules cause damage, the supervisory cycle will only make matters worse. Work action rules-based will persist as is.

This BaU supervisory cycle, management by exception, fails for every special interest (safety, quality, life-cycle, etc.) for the same reason. It is the same methodology failure. It only works for the circumstance, as long as it lasts, where the rules fit appropriate selection.

That preemption is never taken to completion is exhibited by the fact that management can’t identify damage until after it happens and somebody yells loud enough. Reviewers never call for the SoCaD but spin harder on the method proven to fail. Top down pressure, after the fact, locks on CYA.

Detect the signs of CYA and you have classified the scene. CYA is contagious and rapid. Aircraft carrier – no CYA.

Now performance must be supervised incessantly (it is anyway) which means local control.

The tort benchmark is pure preemption. The focus is completely on the actions taken prior to damage.

Preemption

BaU, Insulation and Damage Response

Insurance

The tort issue is was the damage within the SoCaD envelope. Part of COURAge should be defining those calamities intentionally excluded from the envelope and the reasons considered. This can/should be part of informed consent also. **

As feature follows function, context follows process

Context: coordination

Compare the PL SoCaD to the COE regs. Classified by history/prophecy and BaU response/preemption

You say you did prevention? Let’s go down the (PL) SoCaD task checklist.

It’s not what you are doing today, but the process by which you selected the tasks for today.

If you need a prod to get contract performance, your prophecy process failed. But you don’t change that for the next project because it’s BaU. You don’t do what you insist upon others.

Whatever aspect/fad is regulated fails because the project regulation failed. Same process.

The stinger about DI on the SoCaD is that whatever damage occurs thereafter will be covered.

Planning is prophecy and done way too early before the assumptions get tested. Once a plan exists, assumptions are never questioned again until damage is done.

What is your supervision cycle time compared to the cycle time of the production task doers. The doers run through the control cycle many times a day. Self-supervision v organizational supervision.

All supervision, not done by the squad as task action proceeds, is increasingly inefficient and adversarial-tending and provides the time for accumulation of damage to significant levels – like the big losses announced. Inspection by outsiders to a set of criteria is always counterproductive. Damage control at a time when the process is unchangeable, except in feigned appearance through artifacts.

The deal with the court is to put ingenuity hard into preemption as the interstitial glue for natural law based practices. Ingenuity produces the ingredients for methods which cannot fail strategically, although trials can be sobering events.

Whistleblowing at the squad level where and when the work gets done.

All else is aggression adversarial. The problem is the workers are forced into an adversarial relationship where their sanctuary is the OTA rule book. Bad for productivity.

Bring in Rudy’s devotional vs adversarial relationship for productivity.

If you can leverage natural law to your purpose, good for you. The paramount thing is to not attempt to defy natural law and be reduced to begging for miracles of divine intervention. Low odds. History shows the chances of favorable miracles realized (history) as a percentage of prayers (prophecy) for them make the Irish Sweepstakes look like a good bet.

What regulators do is incessantly attempt to defy natural law in lieu of adopting practices proven to work The historical pathways of regulatory failure are religiously preferred to methods warranted by natural law to work.

BaU is all about OTA, opposite of initiative, and damage response.

Don’t annoy corpoman with SoCaD thinking, reminding him of his duty and ethics. Don’t add to his misery in the conflict of loyalty choice (for corporate culture).

 

COURAge is all about appropriate selection and preemption which is system design which is the SoCaD

Classification

Objectives

Uncertainty elimination

complexity Resolution

Activity Regulating System

Preemption SoCaD (tasks & artifacts) benchmark, self-test

0 – Status relative to release and damage events

1 – goals, missions, objectives: Rass chart Stakeholder cutoff criteria

2 – Stakeholders and their issues assessment for design basis

3 – Design basis scenarios: performance boundaries

4 – FMEA for perils, hazards, exposures, dangers (damage response readiness). You will have risks antagonistic (unavoidable and inherently opposed), congruent and partially negative. Ingenuity required.

5 – Scenario proving: Dynamic simulation or equal. Stakeholder check.

6 – Informed consent ceremony

7 – ARS design for project for goal attainment, BaU acceptance

8 – Mandatory trigger limits for preemption cycle repeat, post release

9 – Release to BaU

If you don’t have the artifacts to show SoCaD preemption at every slice of time, you will not be able to defend yourself after damage from PL. “The price of freedom (from tort) is eternal vigilance.” If you have work to do to gin something up after damage for your defense, your case is lost. The preemption SoCaD, when done, automatically generates the artifacts.

Disclaimer: The information on this website has been provided by licensed professionals for use as benchmark construction material by other, indicated licensed professionals and fiduciaries. Where the information is warranted as scrutably connected to natural law, further certification would be meaningless. The professional obligations discussed do not necessarily apply to the unlicensed.

Ruse:

Create websites, with disclaimers, from X to Y for use on M. Since there are only Ms and they can’t be deflected from BaU, you get to them by getting them to eavesdrop on a contrived communication. The issue is positioned so that M has no power to exercise. He can only listen in, he has no right to complain. This way you can write objectively going with the loyalty/duty grain rather than waste effort trying to get through to corpoman. You can even discuss M traits – loyal to BaU, predictable and doomed. He is closed to reason. Since you cannot save him, you take advantage. This eavesdrop trick takes the pressure off to motivate M. X writes to Y, folks M understands as having aligned loyalties to duty and be objective and truthful. Have X and Y be those M fears.

So the stuff you use day to day comes from websites designed X-Y where the author is not you and of impeccable loyalty and objectivity. Tie it all into the arena they fear. Why they sought insurance. “Yes the information is available to anyone, but it is worded for a particular readership.” Every page you have to hand out should have the website URL as a footer you get when you print a web page directly.

Write a disclaimer opposite to the usual. In natural law we trust.

Never try to influence anyone loyal to BaU. Don’t let them get into a power position over you where they can criticize your stuff because it doesn’t get through to them.

Tort-proof, future proof.

The task is to provoke corpoman into a dereliction of duty exhibit on the very damage issue prior to the damage. Show, regarding the very issue that will arise, corpoman running on intent to damage before the fact. You do the loyalty test on corpoman on the very issue which gives rise to your duty to warn. You can smack corpoman with his dereliction and he will do zip. You can then peddle this information to his stakeholders and such.

The first job is to arrange a loyalty alignment regarding the box. What’s in the box doesn’t matter.

 

The PL, plaintiff lawyer, deals with the judge within the rules of the court. There is no one to find him short or wrong in portraying the SoCaD. The more incompetent, the better for defendant.

The judge has a different problem. His only threat is to decide on a SoCaD which doesn’t hold up in an objective setting of natural law. The judge knows he better have a natural-law based SoCaD to avoid risk.

[sell the plaintiff on a guide to police his PL? Sell the defense to find chinks in PLs benchmark? How to use our SoCaD in damage response setting?]

What you need is a streaming activity screening guide chart to classify the subject matter and what is being done with it. The classification scheme should be thought out in advance.

We should not be surprised to see organizations hell bent on self destruction. What is comforting is how quickly it can be recognized and accepted as undeflectable. Rather than change “culture” to survive, they choose extinction. Do not get in their way. Therefore, the best that we can do with those situations is to profit from their demise passage. Develop evidence before damage that the activities which led to the damage were intentional. The best we can do is have information to sell the PL taking the action. Our job is to establish intent to damage before the damage. Let others detect cover up. We establish prior intent. What we do is affix outcome responsibility on them without insurance and judgmental immunity.

Yes! All of our benchmark and explanatory stuff should be on a website which we portray as written and maintained by a PL for his purposes with peers. That is, never have a website for corpoman but between two parties that have carefully defined and congruent self-interests. Our problem has been to write to an audience that is locked on BaU. What we do is write to a perfect audience free and open and then let corpoman eavesdrop on a communication between his “enemies.”

Why attempt to persuade the unbendable? Why worry about trying to “sell” salvation to anyone dedicated to rapid extinction? Rather than always writing to the common man, what we do is contrive to write to a perfect target open to our spiel revealing in the process how pointless it is to save corpoman (appropriate selection). Now when we reveal where we got our stuff from, and corpoman goes there, he doesn’t have a critical “say.” He has no power there – in fact he finds himself the target of a plot he is powerless to thwart. We can accuse corpoman of every crime we wish there – even predicting how he will respond.

Our goal is to flush out the dereliction of duty in process before damage – for use after damage for profit. In the eyes of PL (tort), this is where you are at and this is what you are doing compared to tort’s benchmark. Here are your options and the consequences of each. My duty ends at warning you, you choose.

Do no persuasion, no positives or negatives or shields, to anyone committed to BaU. No attempt to improve his lot. Rather, do all your communication of technology to those validated as aligned (job culture and duty). The only interaction with corpoman is to classify him and do the informed consent number on him. Do the tasks necessary to this purpose. The status relative to release and damage. Classify the streaming activity by the SoCaD benchmark. Do the informed consent ceremony.

Relieve yourself of the obligation to get through to corpoman. Your job begins and ends at his classification. You inquire about status and activity. Save the SoCaD to informed consent. Treat corpoman as a black box. You input and wait for the output – whatever it is. Ignore the insides of whim. No ethics. Here’s the menu. You choose.

The purpose of robots is to benefit their creator. You don’t create a robot to benefit the robot. You create the hierarchy of robots to concentrate wealth to its non-robot creator.

The initial work is always to find the status relative to “release” and post-release damage. The next step is to checklist what SoCaD got done during those time periods (would you survive PL). The next step is to settle the BaU SoCaD loyalty issue. Do you want to thwart tort or not. Stay the course and you get X. If you want Z, you have to do Y.

You need a self-test checkoff sheet (like you got it from a PL). They check historical activity and, if done, the associated artifacts for proof to tort court. If you did the goal definition trick, where’s the tree? If you did the simulations, where’s the plots?  The judge SoCaD thing is the derivation also in tort setting. We create the tools PL uses to nail client and then show them as if we stole them. Website could be as hosted by a PL. A subterfuge. You are only using what is the SoCaD you have to meet at your peril. You choose as you wish. I choose loyalty to my civic duty paramount – as the code of ethics says.

Activity/artifacts (samples that qualify)

Don’t do SoCaD technology stuff straight to anyone not compelled by the social system to play straight – where his duty aligns with the social imperative. The first job is to test this before getting into the technopile. Your only real pal is natural law. Set preconditions to discussing technology subject matter – as any professional does. If they flunk the loyalty test, whoa. Capture the event inform the significance and swear to not use it against them. This way they know they’ve been had – trapped by their loyalty choice normally a badge of honor and now a new thing to worry about. The loyalty collision has real cash value – as society intended. You stage the collision early, before tort nails them. You are the preamp for tort.

BaU corpoman gets his kicks from attention by SoCaD people begging while he holds power to deny. He sucks your energies on a lost cause.

Loyalty is one thing when duty aligns with BaU. When faithfulness to duty sets you in conflict with the demands of corporate culture, loyalty is quite a different thing.

Confidently place your trust.

What is important now is that the system of understanding we have evolved is holding rock steady. Insights still come but they corroborate and reinforce what was already there. Gulliani gets big rewards as damage response man. The preempters get abused.

The so-called professionals are so confused. The play in the systems sandbox convincing each other that a few tweaks in the right direction will win over management. Where resides the benchmark by which professional method would be judged? Do we really think that leaders “know” the standard to compare what is urged to this reference? All leaders know is BaU, which is used to detect not BaU. If they wanted to do SoCaD, it would be in service.

 

Everyone knows of the two method systems because both are necessary to survive from one day to the next. The discussability of this fact is a separate matter. Whatever is not rules-based, is the “other.” If the organization element was not aware of appropriate selection methodology, it would not be able to detect its presence so rapidly. Rule-based behavior is regulated at the squad level in real time. Very few attempts at appropriate selection, called dissention in the ranks, ever endure long enough to reach the squad leader.

The problem with preemption is that if you don’t reach the climax before turnover, you never know what resides in what was left undone. The release to BaU is forgetting that a preemption phase ever took place.

Preemption is a progression of knowledge forming processes to understand the dangers and prepare for them. The requisites of knowledge building begin with a structure for searching out, computing and organizing information. The tasks of targeting information to gather and devising means to obtain it involve no small measures of ingenuity. The focal point milestone is “running” the design basis scenarios. In analysis, data is pointed to the succeeding step by the analysis rules. In synthesis, data points nowhere.

The collective knowledge doctrine holds that a corporation can be held criminally liable for the collective knowledge of its employees — even though no one individual has sufficient knowledge to hold that individual culpable.

Tie BaU to OTA rules damage response to hierarchy form. BaU cannot do SoCaD preemption because the requisite context for preemption is seen as a threat to BaU. Preemption requires far too much ingenuity to proceed effectively with a gun to its head. The SoCaD focus on appropriate selection is seen as a threat to the leadership by whim. BaU sees the SoCaD not as just another janitorial maintenance service but as an alien form of operation that threatens the stability of BaU.

Tie SoCaD to appropriate selection to flat form. Those benefiting from the concentration of social power enabled by the hierarchy consider other forms as alien threats to the source of their power. The flat form of appropriate selection structures no individuals with a vested interest in power to return the favor.

The reward bias for BaU, over time, serves to erode the SoCaD necessary for effective preemption. What is corporate SOP today gives damage avoidance efforting little more than lip service.

2003

The methodological universe

Only the corporations voluntarily supporting an ombudsman function don’t need one.

CH 8 of the USSG, a great experiment in the science of organizational incentives, doesn’t work either.

Like anything else, you solve the impossible problems by going up to a higher level and designing the region of impossibility out of the system altogether. If incentives don’t work, don’t use a system that depends on them.

Rather than wallowing in the dismal swamp of incentive design aimed to encourage your client to make appropriate selections of method – make the installation and operation of a professional preemptive functionality a condition of license. Regulating is then reduced to providing a cell phone to the preemptive element to use when it is being impaired by BaU action.

Don’t franchise any organization that refuses to install or empower a professional preemptive functionality.

Any honest goal-seeking human endeavor accepts the operational reality. Life is an endless experiment in which rewards are provided for paying close attention to the particular ends associated with particular means. The project success formula is ridiculously simple. Don’t habituate practices proven to fail. Incessantly improve practices proven to succeed, respecting the omnipresent entropy laws. All the rest is commentary.

The Second Law of thermodynamics instructs that once you allow practices to solidify, you transfer control of your destiny to entropy. Solidification into BaU removes any built-in mechanism to adjust to inexorable entropic degradation. The state of indifference to disturbances comprises, exactly, the definition of business as usual.

Since the Second Law is deaf to persuasion, prudence dictates accepting its influence as a permanent component of the operational reality. Nature provides only one method to reduce entropy in a system. You must do work (not heat) towards that end through imposing structure on the system. Anytime entropy reduction is successful locally, as James Watt first discovered, nature levies an energy tax. Local system success means entropy increase to the surroundings (waste heat). The net effect on the universe must always be entropy increase.

The lesson is clear. Unless the institution, any institution, contains a viable system for dealing with entropy increases, it will self destruct. Over time, thanks to the Second Law, blind obedience to the same practices that once made a great corporation will assure its demise. This is why, exactly, continued success begins and ends with the focus on methodology.

Preemptive whistleblowing is the trigger event for remedial action that the system of rules cannot provide for itself. It is a warning that solidified practices have turned toxic (entropy has increased to dangerous levels) – and there is no built-in mechanism to do anything about it. When the corporation crucifies the preemptive whistleblower, attempting to make up for the inherent defect in business as usual, it signals a choice for litigation exposure. Where there is no liability insurance, the same choice becomes bankruptcy.

All you have to measure is the corpo actions to preemptive whistleblowing and your job is done.

Being realistic about the limits of what can be achieved is fundamental. It is useful to know the limits of what can be achieved by a given methodology.

The only methodology that doesn’t spontaneously lose goal-seeking potency over time is a methodology that takes the force field of the Second Law directly into account. This accommodation means the practices deployed in application will change for the next cycle of activity according to circumstances and results obtained from the last cycle of activity.

Natural law makes no distinction between the regulator and the regulated.

Generally speaking, relieving the government of the duty to prove willfulness in fraud cases can be a significant benefit to the prosecution.  A white-collar defendant’s argument to the jury that, however improper his conduct may have been, he did not intentionally violate a known legal duty is often a powerful tool in the hands of a capable criminal defense attorney.  It is questionable, however, how significant the distinction between willful and intentional is in the securities fraud context, at least when the defendant is knowledgeable about securities-related matters.

These often used and broadly worded and interpreted fraud statutes, with decades of judicial gloss behind them, tend to be habit forming for federal white collar prosecutors and carry along with them a certain set of thought processes and modes of operation with which these prosecutors are comfortable.

The execution or attempted execution of the scheme is seen as one continuing event, sometimes lasting several years, with a starting and ending point.

Incentivizing and regulating by history. What we do is set up an incentive system, which doesn’t work and follow up after a generous interval of opportunity for damage with an activity audit system which doesn’t work What this arrangement has created is a system, employing a lot of white collar folks, seeking an equilibrium between those that profit from committing fraud and those that profit from responding to the damage.

Unlike the DEA which enjoys an equilibrium that has lasted for decades, the SEC is facing an extended tsunami of corporate collapses. Damage response will not satisfy the public because there is no account of funds for distribution by the paymaster. When the public finds out that they must, once again, pay for the damage inflicted on their 401Ks by others, there will be interesting times for the professional watchdogs.

There are situations where your policy of damage response fails to preserve society. When the damage potentials are great, society wants preemption. What you lack, apparently, is a process of appropriate selection of methods according to circumstances.

Professional preemption, called foreseeability by tort lawyers, is a complete and rigorous methodology scrutable connected to natural laws, scientific principles, and engineered artifacts. Damage preemption is a professional capability incompatible with damage response. They can coexist but they do not mix.

Professional preemption does not rely on history, prophecy or incentives. It forbids the launch of activities, such as planning, etc., until after explicit preemption milestones have been reached.

 

What the class of Enron changed was not the culture of corporate leadership, but the scheme by which its compelling purpose would be attained. The new management strategy consistent with its culture is bankruptcy and the signs of the scheme are everywhere. Beginning with the decision to drop corporate liability insurance, the strategy of bankruptcy is being played out in all its logical derivatives – including retrenchment and the elimination of risk management activities. Lawmakers and regulators can connect the block increase in lobby efforts for tort reform and bankruptcy protection for corporate leaders.

 

The method trick for construction safety will probably be electronic communications where the professional sets up the informed consent scene after the day’s work and the clients choose before work starts so that stuff can be provided. The professionals do all the knowledge formation with client input and the clients just choose. The workers must have input to choice.

In thinking about construction safety, what are the enemies of method?

SEC: using the method it is very easy to test very early, inexpensively and reliably.

Do you intend to do your duty or not? If you know, up front, that your client scorns his duty, where is the mystery to predicting outcomes? I am running an instance of the test here and now. I have been telling you as a licensed professional, author of three books (Amazon.com) on the subject, which proven methods exist to preempt damage, especially that now rushing at us from the corporate choice to drop its liability insurance, and that acquiring this competency is quick and easy. Your response to this “test” is willful blindness. Your choice of deliberate ignorance identifies your loyalty to SEC culture over professional obligation.

The point here is not to show that the SEC will continue to be an ineffective watchdog for society, news to no one. The point is that identifying dereliction of duty by methodology is quick is easy. Corporate governance is so easy that all the attempts to make it appear complicated comprise solid evidence that the organization has no intention of compliance. You can distinguish clients scorning the intent of your regulations as easy as I have exposed the loyalty of the SEC to its culture in preference to its professional duty. Since all methodology is driven by natural law, and nothing else, method-based governance works identically at every level from the family of individuals to the family of nations.

Hammurabi was preemption

What you do is set up the stop rule for preemption, (release) and concentrate on method until the milestone is reached. All of the damage response stuff and record keeping will happen anyway.

The method itself handles information reliability issues of goal and consequences. It is very sensitive to disturbances. The context surrounding the zone will be extremely observant and automatically provide a continuous stream of status information. It is not necessary to monitor a zone as a special effort. The word gets out after the first day of existence. The BaU envelope will tell all.

You must reject formal attention to records and metrics and planning done prior to professional preemption milestones. Preemption must be method king. Planning must follow preemption work and not take over before it is done. Planning is a hazard for preemption.

The word professional originated during the dark ages as one professing a public oath. The public then compares actual performance to the provisions of the oath.

To what advantage is it to discover malfeasance after bankruptcy? What value is it to SEC clients for SEC enforcement to activate after bankruptcy is declared? The who that profits from a bankruptcy is the one that orchestrated it.

You set up a zone and leave it be. If the host will not permit this, you have your first level answer instantly.

The ombudsman system doesn’t work.

What would you report on to preempt – can’t be records and prophecy. It’s the concept of the report itself as a control tool. It must be self-regulating ongoing activity. The issue is appropriate selection. If the corpo is intelligently choosing activities appropriate to stated goals, not to worry. What you do is embed an intelligent zone within the corpo and let it operate. The corpo will not allow this. What does it mean when a corporation will not permit a method system based upon the SoCaD? It means the same for regulators and the regulated. Rejection of a method system proven to succeed in favor of a system proven to fail leaves little to the imagination. It means that illegal activity is pervasive, part of the corporate culture.

You embed a known SoCaD operation and let it do. The first phase is telling one, What does it mean when an organization refuses to embed a law-compliant instance within its scope? That alone shows folks know it will work and they choose to not be professional.

List the characteristics of the SoCaD system that make it so effective. It is very sensitive to disturbances. It is building knowledge for preemption. It is very sensitive to data reliability because the dynamic simulations of the design basis events it builds will not initialize on erroneous bad or missing data.

There is no way the corporation can contain a SoCaD operation and conceal malfeasance going on elsewhere. The information supply lines for a SoCaD are too long and interconnected.

Insurance is but a trust fund for expected harm.

 

Restitution

Remedial Orders

Pecuniary gain/loss

Pervasive

 

Compliance risk

The definition of offense must change to activities in process – not damage inflicted. It must be stealing and not stolen goods.

Using records to audit just starts the code decode cycle. The enemy goal is to protect the ongoing acts from disturbance.

The test is to support preemption or not. The corrupt system will not tolerate a SoCaD in its midst because if it did the truth would come out. The SoCaD is an information pig farm rooting out everything to reduce the field of ignorance. The truth is really there and a high percentage knows.

 

Discard history and prophecy and you are left with now. Rather than have a supervision system, you install a SoCaD and operate one or more constantly. If the SoCaD is rejected or impeded you let it do the early warning. SoCaD is a stable system optimizing its context and know instantly when it is being attacked. So what you do is, like the quality circles, get one going and leave it to the project to yell if it is being jerked about by the ordinaries. The audit is inherent automatic and continuous.

History and prophecy and incentive systems based on these perspectives have been dismal failures. They are peripheral to the root issues of SoCaD incentive. You solve the problem of getting a SoCaD appropriately selected by mandating one and then let the system, inherently very sensitive to disturbances, tell you when it is in peril. You don’t fool with incentives at all. You bypass and scrap the existing system.

You install an intelligent professional system for a project and let it do the rest. You remove the power of the CEO to remove the operating SoCaD benchmark. It has budget control including keeping itself current to SoCaD.

The thing for construction safety is a process of SoCaD appropriate selection empowered and you let the process squawk if it is in peril. The process is an informed choice scene with the workers choosing. The secret for construction is to run the informed consent process, fed by professionals with the workers at risk making the choices. The use of pdas may enable a better process than the daily safety meeting.

Council of Europe – far less litigation. Same as USA professional. Do the SoCaD and no liability. Methods exist. Infallible.

Ombudsman

Your attempts to create a viable preemptive whistleblowing system to meet the SarbOx mandate have been graded by the operational reality. The reason the flow of comments about this rule has subsided is, of course, because those you regulate are now satisfied that your initiatives fail by a comfortable margin to disturb the requisite context for corporate fraud.

To predict the future of corporate malfeasance under the “control” system we have, just overlay the history of drug control. As far as achieving the societal mandate is concerned, the record of the DEA is congruent with the record of the SEC. There is a fundamental reason for this. The methods used by the DEA/SEC are not aligned with basic goal seeking practice. Rather than modify your methods on the basis of knowledge formed from goal-seeking experience, you continue to employ practices proven to fail. You select your activity by precedent and tradition, “the way things are done around here,” oblivious to both the original goal and the wreckage your ingrained habits generate. You have inherited the characteristics of those you regulate because your basic method of operation is the same – business as usual for everything at all costs.

 

The SEC staff could exchange places at random with the DEA staff any morning and by the afternoon break no outsider could tell the difference. Same rule-based approach, different rules.

Society wants damage preemption not restitution. We want preemptive whistleblowing, not revelation about the perpetrators. We want our 401Ks to grow. We don’t want instead a bunch of nonsense about why our watchdogs slept while corporate management was raiding the 401K treasury.

You are well aware that your habits of action don’t work. You know from history that a tweak here and another punishment there is not going to get the job done. Congress was well aware of the futility of more of the same regulation when it went through the SarbOx legislation. When and where in all of human history did the threat of more punishment and more auditing ever deliver the goods? The record is clear. History and prophecy don’t serve as a basis for compliance to civic duty.

You have allowed the term principles-based regulation to reach public ears.

As you are well aware, there is a rich history of Establishment attempts to incentivize corporate activity selections to be congruent with civic duty. What society doesn’t want is a commerce that threatens society, by its choice of activity, with society’s extinction. The building trade in Mesopotamia four thousand years ago was the menace to urban society that began all the professions. Hammurabi established a principles-based code for the civil engineers – to wit: “Design the high rise condo anyway you like. But, if it collapses, the rubble becomes your gravesite.” The stone pillar upon which the law was inscribed for public view still exists in a Paris museum.

Hammurabi knew from experience that incentives based on history (records of activity) and prophecy don’t work. The problem of collapsing urban condos was centuries old. What he did was to give control of the methodology to a designated profession, a franchise, provide an incentive for objectivity in building design and considered the problem solved. It was the first incentive system for commerce that worked. It also worked for the Brooklyn Bridge (Roebling) and the Panama Canal (John Stevens).

The challenge you face is neither new nor difficult. Adopt the methods proven to succeed and you will succeed. Replicate the methods proven to fail and you will fail. Hello?

 

Looking at the now as benchmark is basically using the rule of intelligence (appropriate selection) to compare the actions being taken to the stated goals. Against a backdrop of defined objectives and stakeholder restraints, are the actions selected appropriate? We know what appropriate is because there are only two systems of action and mission objectives indicates which of the two are in service. This explains why it is easy. Our watchdog concept is to implant an appropriate system of enterprise for an application that requires it and operate it. If the context is set for the wrong activity system, enterprise will not be able to function at all.

Book 4 is showing how instinctive dereliction of duty is. To test. How easy it is for the PL. Wonder not why all settled out of court. PL is where the real test is given. Now that we know your loyalty choice, the rest is easy. The crossroads event of loyalty choice tells the story. This is why the withdrawal is staged. The professional who chose civic duty continues down the duty road while the corpo choice heads off on the fork to damage city.

What does it mean when you DI infallible? It is measuring dereliction of duty as a precursor to crime? It is an example of how easy it is to corpo govern.

I am telling you in a public document as a licensed professional doing his civic duty, a proven competent practitioner with the natural laws that govern such matters having published three books on the subject (Amazon.com), that the attainment of your goal is easily and quickly obtained. Your response of silence is a demonstration of the power of the methodology itself. It was as easy for me to expose the operational reality of the SEC as it would be for you to use the same infallible methodology to “regulate” the industry.

You have chosen to continue with practices proven to fail in lieu of using practices proven to succeed – as demonstrated herein. Now that we have your transfer function predicting the SEC future is a trivial task. The paralysis is not that you reject the thesis. On the contrary, it is the innate knowledge that the thesis is correct. Know also that the entire system can be rigorously derived from natural law and demonstrated on any particular application in less than three days.

I bring the same loyalty conflict to you that you are required bring to those you regulate and you choose loyalty to your institutional culture over your civic duty. So much for loyalty to the professional oath at the SEC.

As a veteran practitioner, there is nothing unexpected in the SEC actions. To the professional preemptive whistleblower, this scenario is old hat. What always amazes is the extent institutions will go to reject change. Every time we think we have bumped into some limit, there is another level. That a regulator will publish direct evidence of its own dereliction of civic duty for public consumption sets a new record. Congratulations, SEC!

This is a public testament that

By discounting history and prophecy and concentrating on ongoing activities compared to the SoCaD – intelligent appropriate selection of activities to stated goals – corpo gov is trivial task. Cannot be concealed.

Thorstein Veblen was another systems guy who died miserable.

All in all, whistleblowing is still a bad idea. Protection doesn’t exist.

The insurance mess will go on for a long time. The laws cover more stuff and enforcement is easier. More will be criminal. All large corpos will be in constant litigation. Insurance will make less and less sense. We will let doctors off the hook but the corporations never.

We know the corpo answer is BaU. The incentive screws will be tightened and more stuff will qualify for litigation. This will not stop the choice of BaU. Our job is to figure out how to make money with this knowledge.

We have to create our own ballpark. Discount history and prophecy in total. Go with informed consent and method dot.now. Focus on professional method and its free insurance. Since you can’t get paid for insurance, you must go for the free stuff to preserve the corpo. Free is easy. There is no third choice. Any corpo not choosing free is choosing bankruptcy.

 

The key phrasing in the new offense is “intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the . . . proper administration of any matter.”  This expansive wording does not even necessitate a pending or contemplated investigation for an offense to occur.  For example, the mere intent or attempt to influence (through destruction or alteration of documents) the “proper administration” of any matter within a department or agency’s jurisdiction, or the intent or attempt to influence any matter “in contemplation of” such “proper administration,” can result in criminal liability.  This language is potentially broad enough to cover the destruction of a company’s documents years before a civil investigation occurs as long as that company’s activities are “administered” in some fashion by a particular department or agency of the federal government.  It is not even clear from the language of the statute that the government has to prove an accused’s knowledge that the “investigation” or “administration” being influenced was within a particular, or any, department or agency’s jurisdiction.  Indeed, if courts interpret the statute in harmony with the Supreme Court’s construction of 18 U.S.C. §1001, and with the legislative history contained in the Senate Judiciary Committee Report, no such finding of specific intent will be necessary.  It is also noteworthy that §1519 does not require a willful or corrupt state of mind.  Thus the government will not need to establish that a defendant intended to violate a known legal duty.  In sum, §1519 is a significant addition to the federal government’s powers to prosecute obstruction of justice through the alteration of records.

 

Any half ass preemption is a brief transient. It can’t last. To give preemption lip service might be worse than doing nothing. The BaU boys will eat the preempters.

You cannot play preempt on ground controlled by BaU. One or the other must prevail in setting the context. Context conflict. If you find yourself in BaU land, you must not play damage response – unprofessional. You don’t even know what damage is! They have no goals no stakeholders, etc. You must have this stuff sorted out and it must appear rule-based old hat standard procedure. Your loyalty is to free insurance – SoCaD. There are specific criteria set by law which must be met before you get into modality service and damage control.

You have to sort your stuff between pre and post damage and have it ready to show ordinary when he is in mismatch and why. You can’t play damage response until preemption is done. It would cancel your insurance policy. How would you ever answer the lawyer for the plaintiff when he wants to know why I did X without informing myself about Y. You play the PL role on yourself.

You not only have to do it, you have to know that you are doing it – to PL. You have to show a preemptive process better than his. Tie it all to free insurance for professionals.

 

Tort is societies’ insurance policy for the occasions when business as usual causes indigestion.

Variations on the grand finale sting in book 4:

How many of you, show of hands, think you are insured by your corporation for following its orders? That the company will pay for your time, expenses and defense costs?

[go through the DI sequence] deliberate ignorance

Experience shows that about one in a thousand will even hesitate in their choice of obedience to authority over duty.

Of course you will choose to remain loyal to your corporate culture. Business as usual is your world of now. You know what is waiting for you should you get out of line. The professional duty stuff is a sometimes thing in the future. If the company wanted you to do the professional duty stuff, it would have told you.

Look at all the stuff that is not there in the corpo to encourage preemption duty.

Experience teaches that no one in this room will make any effort to take advantage of the offer to update duty skills. You would be afraid to even ask for company authorization to go. Not only would the company refuse, the risk of appearing to be disloyal is great. This fact alone fully classifies the situation.

A no-brainer. It shows how easy the PL can nail his target. What the obedient employee forgets is that in one stroke, the act of DI nullifies both his free insurance provided by law, but the paid-for PLI insurance as well, both corporate and personal.

All it took was a pop quiz to reveal and certify which method domain you actually represent – before damage. When the plaintiff and insurance lawyers discover this intentional disparity to duty, you’re toast.

The theme is a collision of domains intentionally orchestrated by law to protect society from the damage that can be inflicted by the concentration of power in the robots and damage responders that comprise business as usual.

 

You can never criticize the selection particulars. They are only hints as to process. Only criticize the process by which it came about. Once you know the process used and the selection made you have a good handle on the transfer function of the dude. Professionals are to preempt damage first, before release. The fortunate thing is they will never try to fake a good process. They wouldn’t know how. The default is always whim. Your inquiry as to defined process will get silence. They have no process artifacts and no events you can attend as observer. You have the rudiments of a preemptive process down on paper.

Once you determine whim, what to do? You must inform-choice. You can use all the logic we have developed. If management goes with whim, you will have to withdraw. If it buys in, you will have your hands full. You must sort out the pile first. Much of this stuff can be standard kernels and modules. You have only done for the client a preview of coming attractions as to what the PL will do in litigation.

Artifact standards have the dilemma of assuming a fixed preemption process. When they do method it’s OK. When they do particular parts standards are counterproductive. The platform is made out of method, not tangibles. The professional is stapled to preemption in design. You need a means to protect yourself from the robots turned menace and the firefighter without a fire. The commandoes without a war.

Intellectual Alibi (denial)

Design “Release” event is equivalent of damage. The separation of method domains. The design release does for the carpenters what flames do for the firefighter. Control is transferred one-way.  It is a check valve set towards the factory. The professionals are there to see that when the release occurs, the outcomes desired have a good chance to be achieved at low probabilities of unwanted consequences.

Informed consent 1704 amputations.

Trial lawyers should do a FM for doctors w/o insurance. You do the in-process check and fix the alligators in advance.

The two regimes have a lack of understanding bordering on contempt.

Method technology can be used and tested immediately in any situation. History contains the experimental results.

If you start modalities before preemption is complete, there is no way to reel it back in. It goes to completion. Irretrievable.

Modality – that rule-based procedure sequence taken without further questioning. Just do it.

Preemption is process oriented, not artifacts. Need a clear definition of damage or we can’t recognize it in advance.

Doing artifacts before process adds to the damage.

What are the essential elements in a successful preemption process.

To criticize after choices are made promotes damage. Appraise the methods first – go where preemption gets done.

How can you criticize my choice when you have no idea how it came about.

 

When the professional is cool with tort, his client is protected. Can’t do one without the other. We used BAT to preempt damage. The law does not require more. When the professional does not take free insurance, the client is on his own. The client can test in mid-stream by inviting an audit by PL.

Preemption has rigor and milestones and structure and completion benchmarks. It knows when it is ready for “release” to the other production system (Honeywell) a turnover to the damage responder system. It needs a subset of preemption practice to reduce entropy as a carryover

Trial lawyers should do a FM for doctors w/o malpractice insurance.

Construction as Mine Canary

Even IBM is naïve.

Damage event horizon. Damage drives the response. Damage becomes the task controller, not the boss. Go with the first fix. Inactive until damage v active until damage.

Repeat the established sequence OTA.

No all-purpose damage response – except full insurance.

Responders never deal with entropy – which eventually gets them.

Our scheme is complex in principle and simple in execution.

Management has chosen bankruptcy and you still expect them to choose preemption?

Damage responders meet preemption in tort – their worst nightmare.

Thiokol execs were rewarded for operating the preemption derailment system. No remorse for Challenger lives. Damage responders are indifferent to the victims. Pure lip service.

We can sell PLI insurers our scheme to avoid claims payment. They give us clients – we sting them and they have controlled their risk without using lawyers. They can drop the price and grow.

Preemption is the end of hierarchy and high CEO pay.

Where are the noisy CEOs? Where is the voice of the good ethical CEO? None? Is it ethical for the ethical CEO to remain mute in these circumstances? How would your ethical CEO respond?

It’s nested, it’s extremely general.

Each control cycle loop is another informed consent exercise. Nested. Every level. It never stops revolving.

Somebody must pay for the damage. It’s a loss. The variety of damage possible exceeds the variety in any generalized regulatory system of preemption. Must have intelligence formed to reduce the range of choice.

 

Hits: 35