Five Rules of Plain English.?
117395
The premise behind the plain English movement is that legal documents ought to be plainer--and more comprehensible--to the average person.  It's probably fair to say that the modern movement began in the 1970s.  But people have objected to the obscurity of lawyer's language for many centuries.\n\n    The first major struggle in England was to get legal texts into English, the language of the people, rather than French or Latin.  The problem largely arose when William, Duke of Normandy, defeated the Anglo-Saxon king Harold at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 and became king of England.  William and his followers spoke a type of French.  And their legal documents were mainly in Latin, and later also in French.   English, in contrast, was the lower-class language of a subjugated people.  \n  \n    The vast majority of the English people had always been English speakers.  Nor surprisingly, by 1422, the new king, Henry VI, was a native English speaker.  Yet French did not die out among English lawyers.  Au contraire, it thrived.  Unhappiness about this state of affairs led to what might be considered the first plain English law: the Statute of Pleading, enacted in 1362.  The law, written in French, recited that French was much unknown in the realm; it therefore required that all pleas be "pleaded, shewed, defended, answered, debated, and judged in the English Tongue."   \n\n    An even sterner critic was Jeremy Bentham, who excoriated the language of lawyers as "excrementitious matter" and "literary garbage."   Bentham advocated codification, in which all of the law would be systematically divided into codes on various topics.  Individual parts of each code should be small enough for people to remember, and written clearly enough for citizens to know the "exact idea of the will of the legislator."   Bentham argued that plain legal language is essential to proper governance.  "Until, therefore, the nomenclature and language of law shall be improved, the great end of good government cannot be fully attained." \n\n    At about the same time, the newly independent American states were also engaged in trying to achieve the great end of good government.  Some of the founding fathers were well aware of the problems with legal language.  John Adams criticized English legal language and the "useless words" in the colonial charters.  He hoped that "common sense in common language" would become fashionable.   Likewise, Thomas Jefferson lambasted the traditional style of statutes, \n\nwhich from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. \n\nUnfortunately, the revolutionary fervor of the early Americans did not extend to overthrowing the language of the law.  They ultimately imitated the ponderous style of his Majesty's statutes, if not their substance.\n\n    A modern plain English movement did not really arise until the 1970s.  David Mellinkoff's book, The Language of the Law, pointed out the many absurdities of traditional legalese.   On a more practical level, Richard Wydick's Plain English for Lawyers has been widely used to teach law students the art of legal writing.   In fact, plain English principles have been incorporated into the writing curriculum of most law schools. \n\n    The crusade to make legal language less convoluted and more accessible to average citizens has also resonated outside the academy.   In the United States, some of the earliest efforts to improve legal language directed at consumers were initiated by the Federal government, beginning rather modestly in the 1940s.  In 1978 President Carter signed an executive order that required
531728
1. Law of identity.\n2. Law of contradiction.\n3. Law of the excluded middle.\n4. Law of Sufficient Ground.
94452
1.  procedural posture\n2.  issues\n3.  facts\n4.  law\n5.  analysis\n6.  holding
458918
contain\nretain\nmountain\nfountain\nattain\ndetain\npertain\nentertain\nsustain\ncertain\nabstain
776066
Rules and regulations :\n(1)Answer any two questions.\n(2) Each question carry equal marks (5).\n(3) No cheating No google.
1150498
http://www.lectlaw.com/def.htm
1108262
This is a good one:\n\nhttp://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/toc.cfm
575614
Look under English 101.
1053800
http://www.goarmy.com/life/basic/index.jsp?hmref=qu\n\n\nweek 4
377996
http://humanities.byu.edu/elc/student/idioms/idiomsmain.html
498565
huhn?? please repeat in a format that can be understood..
728211
Basic\nInstructions\nBefore\nLeaving\nEarth\n\nread the holy bible so you can have a better insite
299538
tres simple.\n\nstewardesses.
69392
1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.\n2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.\n3. No animal shall wear clothes.\n4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.\n5. No animal shall drink alcohol.\n6. No animal shall kill any other animal.\n7. All animals are equal.
479980
Listen, get your English teacher to help you with this.  When you say "which of the following," you are supposed to provide a list!
416457
The grammar that is used correctly.
747214
make clear or understandable\n\nto explain , clarify , elaborate on , simplify .