One plus One Analysis
The One Plus One Analysis (OOA) is a way of simplifying complex situations, particularly crimes, by breaking them down into basic accurate statements or facts. It uses simple examples to help people understand the nature of crimes. Just like “one plus one” is the basic math concept we learn, OOA aims to highlight the simplicity underlying the crimes.
For instance, imagine a car without tires or a steering wheel. It becomes clear that such a car cannot be driven or turned. Similarly, if a water tank is missing the necessary pipes for water to flow in and out, it cannot function properly, nor can such a water tank be commissioned.
In a legal context, when someone commits a crime, they must face a court and appear before an honest and law-abiding judge. The judge should understand the basics, just like “one plus one.” OOA suggests that by applying simple reasoning, the judge can grasp the simplicity of the crime.
For example, in a motor vehicle accident case with suspicious circumstances where someone was killed, the absence of tires and a steering wheel on the alleged car involved points to “something fishy”. Similarly, if a water tank collapses and it is found that it lacked inlet, outlet, or overflow pipes, it becomes evident that it was not built properly, or it was not a water tank at all. Thus, the statement made by RR in his matter that a fake structure was built for a set-up.
To prove these facts, in an engineering investigative matter, evidence is presented in written testimony, typically before a panel of three professional engineers. If the panel does not understand basic engineering issues then the panel is not really a panel of competent professional engineers, where the matter must then be before an honorable judge who follows the law. Continuing on, if a corrupt judge also ignores such a straightforward statement derived from the OOA, it suggests their involvement in the crime.
One undisputed fact in the RR engineering legal matter is that APEGBC, as an engineering association, has been involved in crimes. No honorable judge can deny this fact when moving forward with legal proceedings. Any Court that has an interest to conceal crimes, it is not a Court of Law. In the legal system, the standard of review and correctness can only be achieved by being reasonable. It is unreasonable for any sane person, a Judge, a lawyer, or even a professional engineer, to assume that a water tank can be filled without inlet pipes.
Similarly, it is foolish and dangerous for Canadian politicians to continue ignoring the concerns of the people and not order an investigation. RR does not want to see baseless and deceptive statements and speeches made by politicians, he requires action and executive orders for a criminal investigation.
In conclusion, Canada is not a democracy, where the crimes occur through institutions that in turn are supported by numerous Justices. Canada has moved into a state of lunacy or stupidity.
For instance, imagine a car without tires or a steering wheel. It becomes clear that such a car cannot be driven or turned. Similarly, if a water tank is missing the necessary pipes for water to flow in and out, it cannot function properly, nor can such a water tank be commissioned.
In a legal context, when someone commits a crime, they must face a court and appear before an honest and law-abiding judge. The judge should understand the basics, just like “one plus one.” OOA suggests that by applying simple reasoning, the judge can grasp the simplicity of the crime.
For example, in a motor vehicle accident case with suspicious circumstances where someone was killed, the absence of tires and a steering wheel on the alleged car involved points to “something fishy”. Similarly, if a water tank collapses and it is found that it lacked inlet, outlet, or overflow pipes, it becomes evident that it was not built properly, or it was not a water tank at all. Thus, the statement made by RR in his matter that a fake structure was built for a set-up.
To prove these facts, in an engineering investigative matter, evidence is presented in written testimony, typically before a panel of three professional engineers. If the panel does not understand basic engineering issues then the panel is not really a panel of competent professional engineers, where the matter must then be before an honorable judge who follows the law. Continuing on, if a corrupt judge also ignores such a straightforward statement derived from the OOA, it suggests their involvement in the crime.
One undisputed fact in the RR engineering legal matter is that APEGBC, as an engineering association, has been involved in crimes. No honorable judge can deny this fact when moving forward with legal proceedings. Any Court that has an interest to conceal crimes, it is not a Court of Law. In the legal system, the standard of review and correctness can only be achieved by being reasonable. It is unreasonable for any sane person, a Judge, a lawyer, or even a professional engineer, to assume that a water tank can be filled without inlet pipes.
Similarly, it is foolish and dangerous for Canadian politicians to continue ignoring the concerns of the people and not order an investigation. RR does not want to see baseless and deceptive statements and speeches made by politicians, he requires action and executive orders for a criminal investigation.
In conclusion, Canada is not a democracy, where the crimes occur through institutions that in turn are supported by numerous Justices. Canada has moved into a state of lunacy or stupidity.