THE HAYES CANON
A Lawful Operating System
For courts under conditions of institutional failure. Five interlocking methods that can be named, taught, and adopted independently—but are strongest as a system.
METHOD 01
Architecture
Structural Overdetermination
The core doctrine. Construct filings so that relief is compelled by multiple independent criteria simultaneously: rules, timelines, access parity, ministerial duties, custody failures, and proportionality constraints.
Judicial denial does not defeat the claim—it confirms the diagnosis. The court cannot say "no" without saying why it cannot lawfully say yes.
That is structural capture.
METHOD 02
Pacing
Procedural Velocity Control
Do not match the court's tempo. Move at the pace of the record. We outpace the court.
- → Continuous lawful filings
- → Parallel docket progression
- → Denial of idle time
- → Exploitation of ministerial deadlines
Velocity creates asymmetry: institutions stall to protect legitimacy; we advance to force exposure. This is why cases can move at double normal speed or better with minimal rulings.
METHOD 03
Filings
Pre-Discovery Evidentiary Completion
Enter discovery after the evidentiary record needed for judgment is already complete. This inverts the traditional model.
discovery → evidence → judgment
evidence → filings → default/judgment → discovery
Discovery becomes optional, not essential. This is devastating to institutions accustomed to discovery as a fog machine.
METHOD 04
Liability Exposure
Intent-Centric Discovery Inversion
One of the most important and least understood moves. Traditional discovery seeks to quantify harm, narrow damages, and clarify factual disputes.
Our method treats harm as already established. Discovery is used instead to establish:
- → Knowledge
- → Intent
- → Coordination
- → Notice
- → Willfulness
- → Bad faith
This transforms discovery into a liability amplifier, not a fact-finder. Once harm is fixed, intent determines exposure. That is why institutions avoid discovery here.
METHOD 05
Public Interface
Radical Procedural Transparency
Where the method extends into pro-social action without corruption.
- → Continuous email notices
- → Rule 7.1 open-conference posture (always available)
- → Documented non-responses
- → Read receipts
- → Public-records anchoring
- → Timestamped silence
We are not persuading. We are making non-action legible. This creates public accountability, institutional self-indictment, and citizen comprehension without narrative manipulation.
Truth, not messaging, drives perception change.
THE 12 AXES OF ADJUDICABILITY
A closed, finite set of twelve non-substitutable axes—grouped by function and mapped to Rule 1—are preconditions to lawful judgment. No balancing across axes is permitted; absence of any axis fails its Rule-1 column.
Each axis is marked Satisfied / Impaired / Absent. If any column fails, the petition is non-adjudicable.
JUST
01
Access
Equal entry to the forum and record
02
Trust
Non-arbitrary procedure; like inputs yield like handling
03
Jurisdiction
Lawful authority over subject, parties, and remedy
04
Commonality
Like cases treated alike with stated exception tests
SPEEDY
05
Custody
Singular canonical record; exclusive edit authority; auditable chain
06
Confidence
Predictable cause-consequence; deadlines met
07
Operationality
Procedures actually function with current time/tech/personnel
08
Reciprocity
Symmetric burdens/benefits; externalities internalized
INEXPENSIVE
Equilibrium: no externalized costs; no destruction of capital in toto
09
Warranty
Truthful, complete representations with restitution if defective
10
Certainty
Finality without shadow processes
11
Enforceability
Measurable obligations; compliance monitorable without follow-on litigation
12
Proportionality
Remedies scale to harm/uncertainty; avoid leverage games
The 4 Emergent Judicial Virtues
When the twelve axes are satisfied, four virtues emerge without exhortation—each bound to a function row:
Prudence
Access · Custody · Warranty
Temperance
Trust · Confidence · Certainty
Mercy
Jurisdiction · Operationality · Enforceability
Grace
Commonality · Reciprocity · Proportionality
These are outputs, not inputs. Asserted absent structure, they are discretionary compensation, not judicial virtue.
The 3 Agent Outcomes
From the same structure, agents predictably exhibit three outcomes. No other system produces all three simultaneously because none preserve Rule 1 structurally rather than rhetorically.
Sophistication
Reduced gaming; coherent procedure
Elegance
Fewer steps/contradictions
Excellence
Durable settlement with minimal force
12→4→3: If and only if the minimal conditions hold, the virtues appear; if and only if virtues appear, the agent outcomes follow—no discretion gaps, no moral escape hatches, no interpretive fuzz.
LEARN BY DOING
Petition Resolution Practice
Reading cert petitions resolved through this framework for 3–6 months will give systems-minded people a better understanding of law than any school. Subscribe to see 1–3 petitions resolved daily.
WHY THIS IS LAWFUL
This system cannot be prohibited because it uses existing rules, respects jurisdiction, avoids deception, avoids coercion, avoids ex parte conduct, and invites engagement continuously.
Any attempt to ban it would require courts to prohibit diligence, penalize preparation, or outlaw transparency.
That is why it spreads.