N O W , L O O K H E R E !(publicistics)Chris MYRSKI, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2001 ...— — — — — [ Remark: As far as the book is enormously big it is published here, by old habit, in small booklets amounting to about 50 (to 100) KB, containing normally from three to five papers. In this booklet continue the things for journals. To add also that the footnotes, again by established here habit, are marked with "*" and placed immediately after the paragraph in [ ... ] brackets. ] — — — — — Contents Of Section "For Journals" Essay on the common sense About the turn to the left How much has to win a company in order to have no gain? Our people again hoarded goods by higher prices Too good is not good! Are we free, or on the contrary? Political gratitude Neo-Malthusianism, or rational judgment Myths about democracy About the ownership and its future Just injustice In ovo e veritas Oh, 'manci, 'manci -pation! What we want to tell the world? In Bulgaria everything is quiet Political parties in Bulgaria About the degradation of morality Is it possible moderate communism in Bulgaria? Essay on the common sense — II ... new for journals — — — — — ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP AND ITS FUTURE The main stone in the economy of capitalism and socialism is the question of ownership, and exactly for this reason there are many speculations with it from a long time. And at the same time the things are pretty clear on the basis of the practice of those two social orders. Let us first make clear that here we are not speaking about personal property, like: home, car, furniture, etc., which are used, directly or not, for satisfying of personal and of the family needs, neither about the degree of luxury which one can afford oneself, like, for example, someone may have even three homes (in different locations, or outside the town), but in spite of this he alone uses them, while some other person may rent his own room in order to make ends meet, but in both cases this is personal property. Another kind of property is this, which is used for some business, i.e. the person (or some company, municipality, or the state) owns certain company, where work other people (hired workers). In this case the property is used for obtaining of surplus value, or with its help is done exploitation of subjected to the company workers, and for that reason we find it naturally to call it 1. Exploitative property. Such dividing of property exists for millenniums in the world, so that till now we are saying nothing new. But if someone, still, is shocked by this name, then he can call it managerial, or business, or big one, etc., though these names are not so exact and in some cases some confusion may arise. It is true that the word exploitation does not sound very nice, for it means literally "pulling out of the soul" (taking out of the "plua", or everything), but in one impartial review is not good to be too shy, because in the world of business, anyway, does not reign philanthropy but cruel and merciless rivalry, so that we will use this term here, not necessary giving it contemptuous (communist) meaning. And so, we will speak here about exploitative property, which under the totalitarianism was only state-owned, so that this social order is just included in the capitalism, i.e. the communism was one state-monopoly capitalism, with all its pros and contras! Under the communism nobody had rights to own property with which help he, personally, could exploit the others, but this has not eliminated the exploitation of the workers, for the simple reason that it is just necessary (in the world of capitals), or that it can not exist cohesive society without mutual exploitation in it, a thing, that has begun with the emergence of labour division and first professions in deep antiquity. Under the capitalism, as well as under the communism, the exploitation in the sphere of production exists, only that under the communism it was used by some small number of chosen people, the nomenclature, which was allowed to occupy the leading posts, while the common people were not allowed to do this. Well, under the capitalism everybody can, but this does not mean that everybody really does this, because in the developed countries the percentage of wealthy, or those who own exploitative property, varies usually between 3 to 5%, i.e. practically as much as our nomenclature was. Generally speaking, the percentage of elite in each society, from primitive communal and to the present day, has always moved in these limits, what means that the major part of people does not own this, with what it earns "its bread"! But then: in what is the difference between the communism and the capitalism? Practically in nothing, or it is a matter of nuances. But there is no difference if we speak about personal and exploitative property, though if we fill our heads with notions like "private" or "state's", the things become messed. And let us not think that these 3% are overdone, because even farmers, who (as if) own the means of production (the land, chiefly), in the developed countries are approximately 5-8% (and in USA — only 4%), and by this not all of them work on their own land. It might have been theirs sometime, say, before a century, when the capitalism was still "green" (and exactly this has forced the invention of such social orders like fascism and communism!), but in a developed society this is an exception. Even a taxi driver, who can quietly own the car with which earns his money, simply does non enter in consideration if he is so tiny owner, what is seen well now in Bulgaria. Only free lancers — part of jurists, private teachers, physicians, and others —, as well as large-scale capitalists, take out their "bread" with their own "shovel", where for the big majority of people, i.e. at least 95%, this is not valid, and so they are hired workers, which we all in Bulgaria were (with the exemption of some high party cadres) before. Well, after we have cleared for us that nowadays everything is capitalism and that the masses of population, anyway, can not have exploitative property (if not for other reason, than at least because it is necessary to exploit some people — else it will happen something like the "Bulgarian variant" of transition, where for 1999, if we are not mistaken, were roughly 360 thousand single-owned companies and the workers in them were about 750 thousand people, i.e. by two for a company?!), then it is logical to plead that it is better if there were no property at all (except the state-owned), right? And such was the viewpoint of communists, and this, by God, sounds reasonable, because if something is an exception then we can quietly not take it in consideration and eliminate it. Only that ... . Well, there are many exceptions in the world, which, nevertheless, are very important and necessary, and here we will allow ourselves to give as example only — I beg the readers to be excused — the sex, where it is well known that masculine individual is "ready for battle" more or less in just one percent of the time (say, 15 minutes in twenty-four hours, where there are 1440 minutes). Must we then remove also this one percent in the name of harmony in the society? That's what was the communism — an utopia, because we have looked with prejudice at the things. Only that (again "only that"!) now also is looked with prejudice, while we now think that everyone must become exploiter (or merchant)! So that, if we want to have some justified understanding in this issue, let us look impartially at the 2. Pluses and minuses of private property, or, as we have accepted to call it, exploitative property. The pluses, of course, are freedom of action, operativeness, market orientation of production. The single owner of a company can act much more faster than the state and, in many case, this is beneficial to all the people. By the way, such was the idea of Gorbachev's perestroika — to reform the social order, but not to destroy it. Because the state has also its advantages, and we just can't do without state army or police. However strange it may look, but exactly this idea of perestroika was clear to the Americans somewhere in the 70ies, and they have succeeded to modernize in some extent their centralized structures. We, surely, have modernized nothing but have entirely demolished many things. And why have we done this? Well, ... because it was easier so! There also the children, even the small babies, feel the greatest pleasure when destroy (some construction of blocks, for example), not when they build something, because they still can't make alone something good, but to crash they always can (and this ancient understanding of the things must have been the reason for emerging of Russian, but also common Slavonic, ... word "skuchnij", what means dull, but looks exactly like Russian "skuchenij", what is cumulated in a heap; similar ideas, though, may be found on the West in the word "diversion" which is both, entertainment and sabotage). Well, such are the things with the perestroika and changing of the social order, but let us return to our analysis. The most important plus of private property is, in fact, the possibility for competition, only that here we deliberately have used the term "private", because it presupposes its antipode "state's", where the competition is not effective, for it is a kind of "hara-kiri" of the system. When we speak about exploitative property then the competition here is unavoidably present, so that there is no need to stress on it. (But one should not remain also with the impression that under the centralized property each form of competition is excluded, because it can easily exist state's and municipal property, it can be accepted some level of state ownership, there can be various contests and methods for accumulation of scores for establishing of the most profiting enterprise in a given branch of industry, not excluding the small and medium-sized such, and so on.) The main minus, in its turn, of exploitative property is its exclusiveness, i.e. this, that practically all members of a given society are not exploiters (managers etc.), and when so then this creates most unjustified relations in the society, about which we can not miss to be interested because, generally speaking, one can not care about one's own interest if does not care about the interest of the others, i.e. about the resonance of his actions over the others (and even less can think about the others if he does not think about himself)! So that the question is in this, to adapt in such way the exploitative property, that it will not introduce new injustices in life, which alone is unjust enough. Well, let us unravel a bit this tangle. What is so unjust in the property inequality (because it is also good, as far as offers conditions for competitions and purpose in life for those, who have not exploitative property, and they are the overwhelming majority of the population)? Well, according to the author, although this has to be clear to everyone who has thought about the matter, the most bad thing of property inequality is this, that it is not personally deserved! Because people have well developed feeling for injustice, and, how it is proper, with accounting for the randomness or the chance, or the happy star. Almost nobody on the West complains especially against the fact that the big "fishes" eat the smaller ones, or that wins the stronger, or more capable, or more learned, and so on. Well, people, surely, grumble a bit, but this is not antagonistic phenomenon, like they have protested against the aristocracy, or the slavery (or the nomenclature), or against the fascism — social settings which do not allow to the masses to go at the other side of the barrier. The capitalism is good when it is well socialized and when the masses have, but in reality, chances to be such how they want, according to the given them by God. The bad thing comes when one is born wealthy and another poor, and the poor ones have no chances at all to become rich. In the developed countries everybody wants to become rich, but when this happens to be his single goal such life becomes much too boring and uninteresting, where when one struggles to show what has been put in him then life is interesting and the inequality does not oppress so much the people, how it is the case in such terrifyingly poor country like Bulgaria. So that let us not deviate from the question of poverty (which, as is well known, is not a sin but a beastly thing), but also not to think that in the world of capital succeeds (in a sense to become rich) the more able one, because when he works for the wealthier or the exploiter then again the wealthier will become more wealthy. This, what prevents the capitalism from being liked also by the poorer, is its injustice. And on what it stands? Well ... on the heredity, of course! It the wealth happened to fall from above, or was personally won, but on equal chances, then everyone will be contented with such "racing". But let us also not jump to the other pole, because the environment in which one is brought up from an early age, unquestionably, has its importance, and if everybody lives by completely equal conditions then the stimulus for the masses disappears, how exactly it has happened under the totalitarianism. So that we are not against inheriting at all, but against inheriting of exploitative property! Otherwise it turns out that all are equal, but some are more equal than the others, as was spoken earlier, but also nowadays nobody has rejected the necessity for equal conditions for all, be it before the law, be it according to the sex or race, and so on. If not all can be exploiters then there is no need also for giving to some of us privileged start from the moment of their birth, but if someone, on a relatively equal conditions, succeeds to become exploiter only in the time of his or her life, then this may turn out to be useful for all, isn't it so? Well, after these judgements we are ready to explain our proposition about 3. The future of capitalism, from the point of view of exploitative property, or our view at the future large-scale property. As far as business activity, anyway, is separated from personal or family budget, then there are no problems for registering of them all, as also for inheriting of big sums. More than this, the inheritance tax, which is deserved by nothing according to the meaning of inheritor (maybe the state has led quicker the deceased to the tomb, for to require payment in this case?), by big amounts often reaches up to 1/3 of the inherited capital, so that the state in any event takes enough. We just propose notably drastic increasing of inheritance tax when some limit is exceeded, which we will call exploitative minimum (EM), but this will not be some unavoidable punishment for the wealthy persons, because everyone will be in position while he (or she) is living to transfer what he wants to his direct inheritors (what also justifies the inheritance tax, by the way — i.e. if one does not give credence even to his own people, that let him pay for this!), and by this, if the inherited capitals, shares, parts, or property do not exceed one EM, then everything is inherited according to the existing in the country laws. And what means "drastic"? Well, such that, say, when reaching of 10 EM the given person will receive only 2 EM, or when reaching of 100 EM — 3 EM, and so on, by exponent. Let us now establish this minimum, because someone may think that one will not inherit even his home. Well, one may think so if it was about personal property, but we are speaking about big sums, with the use of which is possible to do large-scale business, what means that the small enterprises must be inherited wholly (even by one heir), and also the middle-scale companies, too, if they are owned by several persons, or if there are several inheritors (what is the usual situation). Our proposition is quite simple: 1 EM = 1000 MMS (minimal monthly salaries), what can be realized in each country, for the minimal working salary is for a long time centrally established indicator. And this level may be used only initially, and otherwise can be a question (as also MMS is such) of the competency of Parliament, where it will be established, say, so, that was applied to not more than 10% of the population and in any case will include the price of an average apartment, car, et cetera (for example for Bulgaria, by 100 levs MMS this will give 100,000 lv; while for countries like USA, where 1 MMS is around 1,200 US$, we will have 1,2 mln US$). It will hardly make a problem to legalize a special kind of property with lifetime force, which, in this case, is not subject of inheriting, but is returned back to the company. This may sound pretty strange (why some firm will sell actions, which one literally loses with his demise?), but this may turn to be suitable for capitals that have to belong to some varying group of people, for example: inherited estate, which must always remain in a given gender, or property of the municipals and other communities, and other variants, where such shares can be also distributed free according to the regulations of the company, or can increase the parts of the left proprietors (if returned to the company). This can in some measure cause harm to the state, avoiding the inheritance tax, but, insofar as the state, anyway, wins from the application of our proposition, then let it show also some benevolence. In order to avoid the monopoly of the state, on account of this drastically increased inheritance tax, can be accepted the condition that for the state remain not more than 1/3 of the assets of such companies (because this is a kind of nationalization), and the left part (if it remains something) is transferred to the local municipality, or given to some other organization, or distributed by some lottery. In the end, the important thing is that everybody was interested to become rich while living, but also that everybody has equal chances to "grow fat" a bit on the account of big companies, when some of their owners dies. This will not lessen the competition and will touch only the really large enterprises, about which the state, in one or other form, is obliged to care, or to perform some control over them. This will not be socialism, in the communist understanding of the things, but rather some people's capitalism. But will this not weaken the bigger companies? Well, hardly, because in the life of a company there are three principal stages: of creating and pushing it forward, of developing and enlarging of its productivity, and of transformation and decline of it. Some nations have even the saying that the companies live three generations, where the first creates it, the second expands it, and the third spends it. Our proposition does not affects the first generation, which is the most important, it eliminates the third generation, what is good, and the functions of second generation can quietly be performed also by the state and, in general, by big number of persons (the big property, anyway, is not governed personally by its owner), so that this must not affect the large, or leading for every developed country, business. In this way we have come now to the 4. Conclusion, where we will emphasize that, however new this ideas are looking, they are not coming on an empty place, because the capitalism evolves and modernizes. The current-day capitalism on the West is not this, what it was a century back, and its socializing, or pursuit of greater social justice, is inevitable. This, quite obviously, corresponds with the wishes of the masses (if only someone decides to ask them), but half of the exploitative elite also would accept this proposition, because it does not affect directly personal life of the wealthy person, and his or her successors — well, they surely do not deserve so much wealth, for the reason that this, what comes at the ready, is not especially valued. When one company becomes old people look at it like at some elderly person fallen into infancy, who all just wait to be called by God, and if it will be the "dear God" then why not the state or Municipal Councils? The young and pushy small and middle-scale companies don't lose, the masses win from the more proper capitalism, the state too, and the large business also does not lose, so that this positively will be achieved some day. The big taxes (not only absolutely, but in percents, too), when the earnings are big, are not a novelty in many Western countries, just the people have not yet grasped that it can be so that both, the business continues, and the state becomes richer. The slogan of our UDF (Union of Democratic Forces) about "poor state but wealthy citizens", as we have seen on our bitter experience, can be realized only ... in its first part, and the existence of wealthy citizens in poor state is not possible. The socialist idea is neither new, nor erroneous. Erroneous was its realization, but this is valid also for the capitalism of the middle of 20th century, so that let us hope, that we will come to the right idea also about the question of property and exploitation. August 2001 — — — JUST INJUSTICE The judicial system, that has come to us from old Roman times, is one of the biggest misunderstandings in the social sphere, but this impresses almost nobody, because, as the people say, it is no good to kick against the prick, or ask for trouble. Well, it is so, of course, but if we don't "kick" at all the loop only tightens around our neck, so that in this paper the author intends to throw some "kicks" against the system as a whole, with its inherent flaws, and after this to make two formal propositions: for unified establishing of the damages and for personal modification of the punishments. 1. Well conceived, but poorly implemented It is clear that the idea for establishing of punishment in advance, for a given typical situation, and not to decide about this in each concrete case has its reason, but ... . But the thing is that the judicial system very often does not perform its primary purpose: to protect the society against criminal acts, ensuring impartial punishment of the wrongdoers. People break the law and litigate, not because they don't know the laws — they may not know the letter of the law, yet they know its spirit — but because they hope to remain unpunished, were it when they could not be caught, were it when they win the lawsuit (though being not right), and there are not rare the cases when they apply their own justice, because don't believe in the official one. And the justice itself can never be really impartial, when is done by persons who, obviously, are both biased and can easily be corrupted. And the judges — they as if judge, for this is what their name says, but in reality are only a kind of ushers (or "conductors", according with the meaning of this word in English). The judge does not judge according to his (or her) meaning, or understanding of the situation, but according to the laws, and the best what he can do, for to express his view of the situation, is to adjust the law to the situation, not vice versa, what means that, in this case, he is definitely biased! So that the unbiased judge is not a judge, and the biased one is not a good judge. This is one vicious circle in which we move for twenty centuries and the way out is: either in applying of automated computerized systems and /or taking of administrative decisions, at least at the first levels (what nowadays is not more an utopia); or in the massive applying of representatives of the people — Court Assessors (CA) in the lawsuits, while the role of the judges is reduced to functions of ushers or conductors or of professional consultants of the CAs. Yet in this case the CAs should not just stay there "dumb as fishes" all the time, but have to be able to ask questions, to require information and expertises and, generally, to do the work of the judge. Well, as far as it is not proper for a heap of people to ask and order, then it must be allowed for their chairman (de facto, the judge, but who must not have right to vote) to coordinate the things, and to has legal education, but all responsible decisions must be taken collectively by the CAs with usual voting. And not in this, I beg to be excused, perverse way in which this is performed in the moment (at least on the West, for the author is not a jurist), where is required unanimous decision by all of the jurors, because we in Bulgaria know pretty well what is this unanimous decision, applied nearly half a century in our "people's democratic" structures. The voting has to be performed via traditional voting, with "yes", "no", and abstained, and decision has to be taken with simple or qualified (2/3) majority. And — something that is more than obvious, but is not applied till now in whatever country — these Court Assessors should not be chosen nation-wide by the people and proposed by the political powers according to some, clearly distorted, views for best arbitrators, but to be a representative sample of the population, what has to say that they are to be chosen in some arbitrary way, which can guarantee proportionate representation of all layers of the nation (not of the parties) in the justice. These people must be much more than the present day CA by us, and to serve for a very short time — a month, maybe — what will ensure wider participation of people in the system of justice (not only in the reading of judicial chronicle in newspapers). If everyone will have at least once in his (or her) life the right to be CA then the laws will be, most probably, better obeyed. Each higher instance must have more CA, and the highest must be chosen from some Court Assessorial Assembly (AA for short), allowing also nation-wide voting (using some phone-cards, Internet, etc.). And it is absolutely clear that there is no reason for them to be even number, more so 12 (as it is on the West), and each part of the suit has to have rights to reject somebody — what is the luck of the accused (for the given level), such will be his (or her) arbiters. It is logically to accept their number to be, from the lowest levels up: 3, 5, 7, and 9, where in especially serious cases the AA may consist of 99 persons, only for the voting. And let us not indulge now in talks that law-knowledge, for example, must be one of the learning subjects in the schools (surely more important in the life of each citizen than, say, the works of some of our poets or writers). Only that such changes can not enter the judicial system until they settle well in the basis of our democratic system, which continue to be party one, or partial, biased, and does not express the wishes of the population, but about these question the author has spoken largely in other materials. Let us take now the lawyers — they defend, above all, their own fees, and not the truth, because for money can be proven what not. The law suites, since Roman times, have been predominantly place for personal expression of the lawyers, not place for proving of the truth, and everybody knows that the suit is won, most often, by the better lawyer, what says that wins not the truth, but the competence (to distort the truth, or to "pull the blanket to oneself"). Legally competent persons, if and as far as they are necessary in one lawsuit, can be used, though not as persons who speak instead of a given part (except when the concrete person is in some extent hindered to do this), but as judicial advisors, consultants, or experts, in the same way as there are used specialists in other areas. When one has completed one's compulsory education and has learned to read and write, can move freely in the society, cross the streets or drive a car, employ oneself for a given job, and perform others dangerous, to a certain extent, activities, where every other one can cheat or deceive him (or her, and especially in democratic conditions, i.e. in a situation of greater personal freedoms), then every such person must be able to defend himself in person, or to accuse alone somebody, when needed. He, surely, will not be professional, but he will at least be genuine and less deceitful than the lawyers, i.e. by such person to find the truth will be easier, than in the current situation. And when the real arbiters, or CAs, are also not jurists (with the exception of their chairman) then this will not be considered as something uncommon. In the end, the laws are complicated, and become even more complicated, because the jurists want this, not because this is so necessary, for the reason that the feeling for justice or guilt is practically inborn in the humans and suffices literally a ten of "God's commandments", for him to know how to behave in the society. Add to this also the law-knowledge, about which we have just spoken, add the possible simplification of the things (about which we shall speak later), the various computerized guides, the judicial person (the chairmen of the jurors, for whom is proper to have right of veto when something against the law is proposed and voted), and it turns out that the professionalism is simply artificially forced, in order to allow the jurists to protect their "bread" or living! It is not that we don't understand them, and that, if the people have not wanted to litigate, there would have been at least twice less lawsuits, bur until the very population will not decide to press a little this privileged stratum, the things will not improve. How the judges are not real judges, so also the lawyers do not defend the truth, and the place both, of the ones and of the others, must be only auxiliary, subordinate. But if the lawyers will not work for their fees, how they will work then, will somebody ask. Well, in the same manner how work about 90% of the employees, i.e. for a fixed payment. All lawyers can be appointed centralized via some arbitrary choice (taking into consideration their specialization); it might be also that somebody chooses some of them, but not because pays him more. Ponder a little, please, about the things: the question isn't so flat, as whether should be paid for a given activity (when each activity costs something) or not to be paid for it, but whether must be paid in the moment of using of the service, when the interest of the doer distorts the character of the work (like, for example, the physicians want to be more ailing persons and operations, in order for them to get more money; the lawyers want to be more suits for the same reason). If before a century such thought might have been an utopia nowadays, when exist social insurance, nationwide education, employment law advisors, and other things, there are no principal problems for the existence also of law insurance, are they? So that everything is a question of will — will, but shown by the very people. And one more thing: due to the ever existing wish of people to simplify everything, in the judicial system are accepted some obvious absurds, like this, that the Court is infallible (if a higher instance does not change some decision, but every worker in a given system is bound to defend it, so that this rarely happens), or that the decision must be always binary, i.e. guilty or not guilty, or that the laws must be obeyed literally, in spite of the fact that the people, if there is someone to ask them in the case, would have said something different, and similar things. It is clear that the higher instances, especially AA, or nationwide voting, have to be in position to interpret the laws as they deem fit, and even not to apply them in some cases (without changing them). It is clear also that by a normal (not unanimous) voting there will be persons who vote both, "for" and "against", as well will abstain, so that there might be also level of certainty by taking of the decision, which must at least be announced publicly. Every Court can make an error and this is even very common practice! In fact also an entire nation can make errors, and it isn't that this has not happened or does not happen often, but the accent here is not on the infallibility, it is on the concrete view of the population in the given moment and for the given place, which standpoint may be changed later. It has to be clear that it is not possible to write a program that will take exact decisions in an enormously big (not to say infinite) number of variants of behaviour, without existence of some intellect taking decisions on the spot, while the judicial system tries to make exactly this impossible thing, and because of this the errors are commensurate with the situation when such program is not present (i.e. if we judged as in the ancient times — not according to laws, but according to the conscience of the judge)*. If the best decision, as a rule, is the compromise one, then let the jurisprudence, too, become one good compromise between impartiality and humanity, and not to be lowed on us like something given by God. The very jurists, obviously, are contented with their role of gods, and they alone will never resign from this position, but if common people will judge, if they change often (so that everybody will wait his or her turn) and have no grounds for pretenses and career making, the things, probably, will be better. [ * Let us remind the later case with Bulgarian medics in Libya, where all around the world was clear that they could not have been guilty in some deliberate action (just because they were monsters, villains, giaours, etc.), but they were convicted in fully lawful, according to their laws, way. This is not miscarriage of justice, regarding the judicial procedure, this is pure and simple unjust justice, or vice versa. Of course, someone may object, that even if the whole Libyan nation has conducted the suit, even then the result would have been the same, so that, whatever the procedure, in this case would have been taken wrong decision and, hence, we have no reasons to give this case as example. Yeah, but it is not the same whether we (i.e. the whole Libyan nation) can hide behind the law and be with clear conscience, or we will be forced sometime to answer before God, whoever he may be, or the people around us (and all over the world), or before our conscience, when comes time to think about ourselves (because such time comes once)! Such moralizing considerations may seem today exaggerated and funny, but the common people do them, or at least the laws, authorities, and religion require from us to stick to some morality. And, in general, from this, that the conscience of people, especially of big groups of individuals, due to their strong partiality, often makes errors, we must not come to the conclusion that can do without any conscience and morality. ] The only rational grain in the jurisprudence, come to think about, is the system of Prosecution, i.e. of defense of the interests of the state, behind which stay those of the people. But there also are drawbacks in it because when the Prosecution initiates a suit it feels obliged to convict the offender as severe as possible, and the questions of elementary humanity remain in background. In this regard can be proposed also in this legal body to have three or five persons from CAs, or of some alternative group, but arbitrary chosen and non-professionals, who have to "hold the ball", in order not to come to harsh cases. Let us remind again that we are not against the professionalism of the jurists, but against their leading role and the possibility for mercenary extraction of benefits, maintaining also that each part must defend itself alone, and only when this is difficult to be implemented or impossible, just then to be allowed it to be substituted by an jurist. Such special cases can be, for example: physical or mental defects of the person; he or she can not appear because is dead or seriously ill; if the suit is initiated by the Prosecution but the victim or his /her relatives do not want to take part in person in the Court as accusers; defendant in a given case is the state (and we can't require in such cases at the dock to be called, say, the President); and so on, but when the physical person can be defined, even in suits from or against companies, they should be represented by the person who according to the law represents them (the President of the company), not by specially appointed lawyer (who is not a part of the lawsuit), he /she may take part in the suit, but behind the scenes and when the defendant or the claimant gives him the floor. Well, let us conclude with this the common shortcomings of the judicial system and go to one concrete question elaborated by the author. 2. Unification of the assessment of damages and guilt The laws must be simplified as much as possible, because they also obey the Parkinson's law, stating that each work grows so much for to fill the time fixed for it, or to use the time of those who perform it. More precisely, here it goes about this, that each system strives to become more complex, hoping that in this way it will become better, but from a given point on it becomes only more complicated, and later on it begins to function even worse, exactly because of its complexity. Maybe at the dawn of ancient legislation the laws have done the work, at least because they were much less in their number as are now, or the judges were with much higher morality than of those today. It might as well be so, though we don't believe much in this, most probable for the author seems the thesis that the legislation was yet another utopia with which the society has fooled itself and continues to do this also today. Well, the humanity can not live without utopias, and it is also true that the point is not so much in the severity of the punishment as in its inevitability, which depends not on the laws but on the bodies for coercion and various systems for monitoring (of everything that can be monitored) and for manipulating of the population (in its own interest), so that let us at least propose some way for unification and simplifying of the assessment for guilt, which in the civil law is reduced mainly to material damages. What we have in mind is that the measuring unit, which is the national currency, is the most uncertain of all, because in the business is not set on one asset only, there is money market, there are precious metals, there is unmovable property, and other things. Besides, no business has such ambitions as the judicial system, to exist not only for centuries but for millenniums. It is quite natural that there can't exist exact measurement when the "yardstick" changes, and it changes not only by high inflation, it changes also by stable social development, where under the normal 4-5% interest rate and /or inflation for 20 years, or less than one generation (which is now up to 27 years), all prices double. This, obviously, creates work for the jurists, but we think that this artificially created work can and must be eliminated. So that, with what are we to measure if not with money units? Well, with something that does not change, i.e. that changes with the time, but which can be used for measuring of the living standard, so that when we express everything else with this thing, then the prices will remain constant! If in Ancient Rome such decision could not have been possible, then at least for a century in every more or less developed country (and even in such like Bulgaria) exists the notion minimal monthly salary (MMS), to which are tied all social payments. (Well, they are tied in the "normal" countries, where by us they can not be properly "tied", because, at least in sense of social insurance is accepted that one MMS equals two MMS**, but let us expect that this is our another "error of the growth" and, sooner or later, the things in Bulgaria will normalize.) Only that we propose to use not MMS, but the minimal yearly salary (MS for short), respectively averaged after elapsing of the year, because most of the damages will be commensurable with the yearly salary, and for smaller damages may be used at most up to two decimal digits. For the situation in the moment 1 MMS = 100 lv, or 1 MS = 1,200 lv, where it is clear that for damages less than 12 lv nobody will sue, and most of the cases are for damages of order of hundreds and thousands, even tens of thousands levs (i.e. from several to several tens of MS), but may be also bigger sums, in suits between companies or especially wealthy persons. [ ** Then, but the situation is similar also in 2008, and in 2015. ] From here follows that the most natural and simply decision is for all laws to be reedited (this is done quite easy, when there exist computerized data bases, as the things stay also by us), where all fines are expressed in MS and parts of it to the second digit after the point. Later on is possible for every one of the laws to be revised and corrected, as it often happens. But in the fullness of the matter the things are more complicated, because we require only this to be the unique measuring unit, for the moment at least in the civil law, where it goes primarily about damages, not about human lifes, which can not be restored again. This means that if somewhere is written "... and so many years of prison" then this, too, has to be expressed in MS. The simplest assumption, at a first edition, is 1 MS = 1/2 years of prison (in fact, the direction in the beginning is reverse, i.e. 1 year prison = 2.0 MS), and in a new examination the things may be corrected. It can be introduced also some ranging of prisons (say, such where 1 MS is counted for 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, or 0.7 years). By this, however, always when there goes about compensation of damages which can be recompensed, it must be allowed to the convicted to do this (where, eventually, is come to confiscation of allowed by the law personal property), and only when this is not possible only then he /she has to be imprisoned, because the prison not only will not return the sum to the harmed part, but will also add new expenses for the state. So that also for this reason is justified that the major (and single) measuring unit is MS, and not years of imprisonment. But this means that also the very repayment will be done exactly in MS, not in levs, i.e. it, surely, will be done in levs, but they will be momentarily converted to MS (with precision to the third digit after the point) according to the moment of paying of the sum, so that every necessity of calculating of interests or returning of the suit again to the Court as a result of changes in the living standard (say, high inflation) is avoided. This approach can be applied in full to all kinds of payments in the country, or at least to the suits for child support. The only thing, which is required in this situation from a given state, is for it to maintain correctly the MMS, a thing which it is obliged to do in any case, if it cares for its image before the world. More than this, so formulated the laws can be with one, really, global for all countries sphere of validity, because the legislatures in all countries, anyway, aim at their equalizing, especially in the frames of United Europe, and this will be the best basis for uniting of countries with different standards of life. It might have been objected that it is better to use one average salary (income), but this is relative notion, with which can be speculated, while the minimal is announced publicly and is not subject of questionable calculation. A bit more complicated, but not unconquerable, is the question with the criminal law, where the sentences are reduced mainly to years of imprisonment, by the simple reason that one human life is invaluable and can not be restored (similarly also light, medium, and heavy bodily injuries). Well, it is so but ... is it, really, so? Because when we say "priceless" we don't mean that it has no price at all but that it is too big, or likewise "invaluable" means that it is difficult to calculate its value. Yet in many cases we are bound to have some price for this priceless thing called life; we must have a price not because this will return the life but simply because there must be also quantitative estimation. If we do not dig to deep in the moral aspects of the matter, because under the capitalism everything, also the working force, is object of buying and selling and, hence, has some price, we can safely assume that this is not whole compensation, but measure for the punishment of the guilty, or partial reimbursement for the injured or his /her heirs. Even only to be able to have unified measure this will be suitable and useful, and here we presuppose that this is some reparation (and you have heard that with a delay of half of a century the Germans pay today retributions to the left alive victims of nazism). The unified measure is the first condition for simplification and unification of the things, more so in a sufficiently complicated system, as this of the jurisprudence. So well, let us think that we have succeeded to convince the reader how necessary is such unified measure, which is clear that has to be expressed via MS, but on what basis must be done this? Here, again, could have been proposed to use the average (yearly) salary or income for the country, but our goal is to propose not some utopia but something real and, naturally, is exceedingly unrealistic to accept that an average culprit (a murderer, for example) can repay the value of the human life (or part of it, if it was only bodily injury) for the time left to the victim /injured till the average life expectancy (say, 80 years), by average income of approximately 2.5 MS, if he (or she) has the same average income and has also to sustain his own life. In this case we must either return to the gone away centuries, when for destroyed life was taken life, and for partial injuries, for example, to cut the culprit a hand, or a leg, or whatever (what will not, even partially, reimburse the victim), or must change the "yardstick". We again think that the right measure is also: by one MS for the left to the victim years till the average life span (initially we accept 80), but not less than 1/10 of this time (i.e. 8 years). In other words, it is clear that it is not correct to have different measures for different victims, because before the justice all have to be equal, and that this measure must be the minimal, not the average, income. But this turns out to be justified also for other reasons. If the average human being earns his average income, he does this not during his entire life (80 years), but somewhere about 30-35 years, what is roughly 2.5 times less than his entire life span, so that the measure: for one year — one MS, is quite suitable. In this situation, as far as neither the compensation is full, nor is supposed it to be accessible to the "average culprit", nor also is educative for him to escape only with money fine, is necessary for the major part of the punishment to be converted to prison, requiring payment of only (if the culprit is in condition to do this) one to two MS (this will be made more precise in the next point) to the victim, with addition also of the costs of proceedings. It is clear that when is decided that the person presents danger for the society he may (and must) be retained in special correctional institutions, during the investigation and so on, but these are details for each concrete case; the medical institutions, anyway, are not observed as prison, though they have similar effect for the culprit; our unified measure does not eliminate the necessity of isolation of the culprit, but it is measured through MS, and isolation can be applied not only because of guilt, also when is ascertained danger for the society. Let us see then, with some examples, what we have got. For example, murder of 30 years old citizen. Then the punishment has to be 50 MS, calculated as prison this makes 25 years, but if the guilty can repay something, with confiscation of his property, this period will be lessened, besides, the initially established years do not correspond to the really spent in the prison years (for various reasons), so that this gives about 15 years real prison. This is quite much according to the current views, but it is not that this does not happen in some countries, and here we come to the question of personal modification of the sentence, with what we will engage ourselves in the next point. But if the victim is 75 years old, for example, then the punishment will be 8 MS, or some recompense for the heirs plus 2-3 years of prison. You see that such strong dependence of the age is something new in the legislature, but there is quite much logic in this, and the bigger part of the victims are predominantly below or about the middle age, what outlines about 20 years of prison; besides, the age, although not explicitly, is taken in consideration by establishing of the sentence (using this "from ... to ..." in the laws); and in addition to this, if it goes about murder with robbery, then the stolen goods are required to be returned (and if they are inherited then are taken back), so that this also adds a MS or two to the sentence, what shows that our idea is quite acceptable. Let us take now an average bodily injury, severe — 50% of the value of the left life — this will give half of the sentence in the previous case (according with the age). Or rape — evaluated by the law for about 10% (i.e. without severe physical injury), but the victim is 20 years old and this will give 1/10 of 60 MS or 6 MS, where the victim has all chances to receive a decent remuneration, as also the culprit to stay for 1-2 years in prison. Or road traffic accident — the calculations can be similar, but with some coefficient of guilt, which can be in the limits of 1 to 4%, for example, because is accepted that this is not premeditated murder, but it is not right to escape without any punishment; similarly in case of self-defense, and also for other alike deeds. Now is seen already that we propose some set of coefficients, by which is multiplied the punishment, so that to preserve the universal approach for establishing of the guilt, based on the age of the victim. These coefficients can be the following: a) level of injuries — from 0.01 to 1.0 by death; less than one percent we don't think is appropriate, but for each of the categories of cases mentioned in the laws are defined their own limits; b) guilt of the perpetrator — similarly from 0.01 to 1.0 for premeditated act (in particular murder); c) cruelty — from 0.5 to 1.5, where the one is for not shown cruelty, and 0.5 is for some humanity, according to the commonly accepted understanding (i.e. there exists, or must exist difference between murder with sleeping pills, or firearms but on the spot, or after torture and beating); d) conviction of the jury — from 0.5 to 1.0, where if it is less than 0.5 is established the coefficient of the reverse statement (for example, not guilty); such coefficient is high time to be introduced, because the binary assessment can give (and gives) very big difference, and at least 1/4 of the cases are based on circumstantial evidences where, quite obviously, can't exist complete conviction; e) modifier of CAs — coefficient in the limits of 2/3 to 4/3, i.e. allowing two-fold changing of the punishment, but centered around the one, with which the jury in the higher instances (if and when this is allowed by the law) can force its own view, diminishing or increasing the provided penalty according to its (i.e. their) own conscience; and maybe some other more. This will reduce the qualification of the deeds to filling up of tables, but in this way the things will be made easier and more convenient for applying by everyone (including computerized systems, what is a matter of near future, at least on the lowest law instance), where using of computer tables will allow for all estimations to be done momentarily. By one proper voting of many CAs with various meanings (according with what was said in the previous point) the finding of the exact percent will be done automatically by the computer, or can be conducted voting for establishing of the necessary percent via binary division of the allowed interval of the coefficient in question. In this way both, will be considered the influence of various specific for the concrete case parameters, and also the laws will be possible to be written universally; the existing till now "from — to" is very rough and in many cases erroneous; in addition to this it is important — for various statistics and analyzes — to know the estimations for each of the parameters, not only the "fallen from the blue" end decision of the jury. Together with this the unified assessment of damages or guilt allows also quite natural proportional dividing of the punishment, when there are several accused /culprits, for which purpose is necessary, after establishing of the common amount of MS, to vote also for the part of the guilt for each of the accused. This will decrease the personal punishment when there are several accomplices, but if the damages and compensations are correctly calculated this is justified, and, in addition, will stimulate the offenders to reveal other persons who have taken part in the violation of the law, but are not yet known to the justice (i.e. also the "soaking" of other persons will be correctly done). Generally saying, our approach is not at all new, where similar methods are applied for long time in various scientific activities, by making of diverse programs and planning of many activities, though it is new in the system of jurisprudence! And it is new because the officers of this system set more on the emphasizing of their high position than on the transparency of their actions, on the divine mystery instead on the gnawing doubt, and so on. In many countries they even still wear wigs, in order to stress their "inhuman" nature, but we feel obliged to explain that the English "wig" comes from the well known ... fig, or rather from one single leaf of it (although it may be also wine leaf), because already since the time of Adam and Eve the people have masked their shameful places of the body with leaves of a fig tree, or, at least, have thought that have beautified themselves in this way (I may add that the ... figure, too, carries the same idea). Well, the author thinks that only the just processing of lawsuits can beautify an officer of this system, everything else is only, as the Russians say, figliarstvo (in order to use the same root), or buffoonery, tricks and frauds. 3. Personal modification of the punishment according with the means of the guilty If in the previous point were some calculations then they were only simple arithmetic, which, anyway, is done, or was done when the laws were created. Here, though, we will present something that affects the mathematics learned in the higher school grades (9th - 11th), but what, still, is not higher mathematics, and it is forced to us by the very life, because even if someone thinks that the Court is an abstract structure and does not consist of people but of "vicars of God", it is quite clear that the accused or defendant is a common person, but at the same time the different defendants have different resources, so that one and the same penalty is not one and the same regarding the different persons. In other words, we want to propose some personal filter, which must modify the damages or the compensation S (in MS), to some personal punishment N (also in MS, but from there reduced also to years of imprisonment), at least on the basis of some personal factor, namely: his (or her) living standard expressed through his income. As far as, however, under the capitalism everything is expressed in money then this single factor is practically universal. Our idea again is simple but powerful and applicable for whatever diapason of punishments and for whatever income of the accused. It reduces mainly to this that extremely big punishments, which can neither be paid out nor served in prison, must simply be diminished, in order to become bearable. In our legislature there is not this paradox that someone may be sentenced to 273 years imprisonment, for example, but there is other wrong position —that he is prosecuted only for the biggest offense. Where we think that there must be made difference between the assessment of the guilt and the personal punishment (the very paying of the money and/or serving in prison). The assessment S must be according to the explained in the previous point, and the personal punishment N, must be according to the means of the guilty. As universal measure for his financial abilities we accept his average yearly income (PI for short), calculated on basis of the last five years, accepting (i.e. legalizing this), that everyone is in condition to pay out up to one PI, but not more than two PI, in more special cases, or by wish of one of the parts, and everything left is changed with years of imprisonment. In this way we get quite natural transition between the two till now used measuring units (money and prison), where many money are automatically converted to years of prison, but the very notion "many" depends on the guilty! It remains the most important thing — to explain how exactly will happen this modification of the punishment. Well, it is clear that it must be such that to decrease the big punishments, or to flatten the curve of penalties in direction of bigger values, but in what way? Now, the most natural way is to use some exponent, because this curve is massively met in nature, by our sensitive organs (it is reacted in "times" of change, not in percents), and is widely used in various technical and scientific situations. Because far from all readers (more so jurists) are familiar with similar mathematical questions, let us stress that this is the smoothest mathematical curve (it has unlimited number of derivatives and all they are the same!), so that is has not "fallen from the blue" but is invented (in the exact mathematical sense) for the reason that the practice requires it. Though there are no obstacles to be applied also the vulgar method for checking of its smoothness — when one moves a finger on it then it curves but has no "bulges". Good, we have come to the exponent, yet we will use not exactly it but its inverse function, called logarithm, about which all have at least heard, and especially the decimal one, as more natural for the people (where that one, which is called "natural", isn't quite natural for the common people). Our goal is so to flatten the curve of punishments, that by value of 10,000 MS to remain only 1,000 MS, i.e. to diminish it 10 times there, but the one (1 MS) to be left on its place! Here we enter in more and more complicated matter, but we shall make efforts to explain it simple, although even if it remains not much clear there is nothing dangerous in this, because it goes only about some motivation, and it is not at all necessary for it to be included in the legal documents — it is just given a formula which has to be applied. So, and if we come now to logarithmic scale, then the logarithm of exponent becomes straight line, so that we have to draw a line through the point (0;0), because log 10 1 = lg 1 = 0 (the logarithm of one is always zero, no matter what is the base of the logarithm, which here is 10), and the point (4;1), because lg 10,000 = 4, and lg 10 = 1, and we want exactly 10 times decreasing in this point. Then this line will have angular coefficient of slope 1/4 and therefore its equation, if we return to the normal scale, will be lg y = 1/4 lg x. If we now remove the logarithm we must apply antilogarithm, or to raise 10 (the base) to the power of each of both parts, what gives 10lg y = 101/4 lg x , but 10lg y = y , where on this number y we must divide, in order to have the desired effect. So that by damages S, for the punishment N on the changed curve we will have S / (101/4 lg S) = S*10 -1/4 lg S , what for S = 1 [MS] will give, really, lg 1, what is 0, and then 10 to the zero power, what is 1, and S divided to 1 is again the same. But if we take S=10,000, then lg 10,000 = 4, multiplied by 1/4 gives 1, 10 to the first power is 10, so that S will be divided by 10 and this will give 1,000; respectively for S=1,000 we will receive (after calculations) 177.828, what will be the modified punishment corresponding to damages of 1,000 MS; for S=100, will have N = 31.623; and for 10 MS — will have N = 5.623 MS. Only that the curve will be such if the flattening preserves to point 1 MA, but we said that we want this to be not the minimal salary though the personal yearly income, i.e. PI, which we will mark as D. So in this case this, what we must do, is to change so the logarithm, that it to become 0 by S = D (i.e. for S = D the argument of the logarithm to be 1), and respectively to give 10 by S=10,000*D, and this means that we shall in the argument of logarithm take S/D (but the first S, by which we multiply remains the same, because we continue to measure the damages). So we obtain the formula for punishment N = S / (101/4 lg (S/D)) = S*10 -1/4 lg (S/D). Before to give one table with some of the values of the curve N let us turn your attention to one not much desirable effect in this case: when for big S the curve will be flattened and diminish, then for small values of S it will increase, so that for damages of order of 1/100 of MS (or 12 levs at the moment) the punishment has to be about 30 times bigger. This follows not only from the reasonings in logarithmic scale, where we have straight line, but also from the character of exponent (and logarithm) which monotonously increase (or decrease). But there is nothing dangerous in these because there is one trivial solution: we apply our filter only for values above the personal income D, and for smaller values the punishment is exactly equal to the computed damages. The transition between sloping straight line and its curving by exponent happens by S = D, and exactly this was our goal — to correct only unbearably big punishments of the accused. The state of the affairs in table form is shown on Table 1.
TABLE 1. FORMING OF THE PUNISHMENT ACCORDING THE INCOME OF THE GUILTY (IN MS) As is seen in this table the formula can be applied in infinite diapason, including for guilt of companies, where the income of company for an year can be hundreds and thousands of MS, and here also is accepted that subject of payment are punishments to 1, and not more than 2, but mark, now not MS, but PI of the person or company, what is entirely logical! The remained punishment is subject to serving in prison by the mentioned coefficient: half an year prison for one MS. This means that the entire punishment for wealthy persons /companies is bigger than for poorer ones, but this is correct, because by better way of life one has less reasons to commit offenses, and in addition to this if we are before 1 PI the punishment exactly equals the damages, only that will we be before or above 1 PI depends on the means of the guilty. Let us now take in focus two lines — those for PI equal to 1 MS and for 10 MS. For 1 MS: if the guilt is for 5 MS we get punishment of 3.34 MS, where one is paid and the left 2.34 MS give 1.17 years of prison; by 10 MS is paid again 1 MS and the remained 4.62 MS give 2.31 years prison; by 50 MS (received, for example, for a "standard" murder of 30 years old victim) we have 18.8 MS punishment, from which after paying of 1 MS remain about 9 years prison (which is not properly to be lessened more than this — for good behaviour, or by subtracting the weekends, or after the later amnesty, etc.); and by 100 MS (a cruel murder of young person can quietly give so much) the corrected personally punishment will be 31.62 MS, where in the prison is served about 15 years; and so on. While for PI (or D) = 10 MS we have: all damages up to 10 MS are paid (full retribution); by 50 MS we have corrected punishment of 33.44 MS, but paying 10 (or maybe even 20 MS, if this is financial offense) then in the prison will be served 12 (respectively about 7) years; and by 100 MS the punishment now becomes 56.23 MS and paying out 10 MS for the prison remain about 23 years. In addition to this the correction will be different if we have several accomplices, because then their guilt will be less and will be paid out or served more fully. For example if the cited murder giving 50 MS is divided between two guilty culprits, say, with 60 and 40 percents, then we move to damages of 30 and 20 MS, which (this is not given in the table) will give punishments, by one, this time average income of 2.5 MS, respectively 16.1 and 11.9 MS, so that it turns that the first will serve 6.8, and the second 4.7 years in prison; at the same time, if he were one person with the same average income, then for 50 MS we get corrected punishment of 23.64 MS, and if he pays again 2.5 MS (but only once, and when there are two persons it becomes twice more), then for him remain to serve 10.57 years imprisonment, what is more than for each of the both previous persons, but less than their sum. In the next table (Table 2.) is given in more details the proportion money [MS] and prison [years], depending on S and D.
TABLE 2. USUAL SPLITTING OF PUNISHMENT ON MONEY (I ROW) AND PRISON (II ROW) By the way, the proposed formula can be written also in another form, using non-integer powers, something in what each good school student in the last (or but one) year can convince himself. N = S / (101/4 lg (S/D)) = S*10 -1/4 lg (S/D) = S*(S/D) -1/4 = S 3/4*D 1/4 but this changes with nothing the things, because the non-integer powers are, anyway, calculated via logarithms. This form seems a bit simpler in regard of the writing, but is pretty mysterious if we try to perceive its meaning, and because of this we explained the primary form. Something more, instead of decimal logarithms we can use also natural ones (with base of the Neper number e), but then we have to raise the same e in power, not the ten, in what we can convince ourselves if we start in the above formula from right to left and substitute before the third "=" 10 lg with e ln . But, at the end, these are equivalent formulas (like, say, win and gain) so that let us not diverge more. Another moment is the question with confiscation of the property that can be taken from the accused, if he (she) has such. This is done before the personal correction of punishment, so that if via his property he can diminish the common amount of damages S this will reflect on his sentence. Maybe it must be specified also the establishing of his PI — this must be done based on the families (commonly living persons), because not everybody earns alone his income. But if the person is separate family, and has no permanent income, then it has to be taken to be 2/3 of MS (where this must be also the minimum acceptable value at all), because such is the tendency on the West for various social payments. If, on the other hand, there is no available data (say, he was imprisoned, or abroad and can not show documents for income, etc.) then has to be accepted that his income was 1 MS. We have also not specified when the money must be paid (in MS) — whether before or after entering in prison, if this should happen. We think this must happen up to 5 years, but in view of various reasons it is not suitable to subtract from them the years in prison (this does not matter for suits against companies, but also for physical persons is not special problem, it the convict can find the money — were is via withdrawal from an account, selling of property, collecting of rent when he is not living in the home, borrowing money, etc.), so that they run from the moment of ending of the suit. During this time the person can be free (and then to spare from his salary) or imprisoned, but if after elapsing of this time he has still not paid the money, then he must serve also this sum. That is one of the ways for bettering of the work of Courts, for achieving of real assessment of damages (or quite close to the real one, in case of inflicting of physical damages and death), bur also for justified punishment, in accordance with financial abilities of the person, and in addition also for one easy unification of the jurisprudence in the entire world. There are ways, if there is desire for bettering of the situation. October 2001 — — — |
Сконвертировано и опубликовано на http://SamoLit.com/