I ask: its I already know the law, and have experience with the legal logic (science neglected in the university banks), because I cannot simply cite the law (without making it ipse litteris), to tell to the way case dialectic until leading the judge or the consultant, in the case to seem, to a conclusion logically constructed. He is simple: Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis, bigger premise, lesser premise and conclusion (that in the legal course it receives the names from facts, arguments and conclusion). But this is unhappyly not used. I agree that legally if it cannot freely think total, therefore we finish in finding entailed the normative devices legitimately facts, and have that ' ' in accordance with to play the rules of jogo' ' duly warned to disorganize society. However, because I cannot only use as rules those that legitimately had been made? Because I have that to cite doutrinadores, and same that do not cite them, because I have that to tie to me what they think? Because I have that to tie my legal expression in the ballast of what a court understands who is not legitimate to innovate in the right, and to so only interpret the effective legitimate norms? If I do not have this freedom, duly warned to have a rejected order in judgment or one to seem rejected administratively, then I will not have a free thought. I do not say here that everything what I to speak or to write (also these lines) will be certain, in contrast, many times I am and will be made a mistake. However, if I have a position legally and logically structuralized in the authority that is valid, I the same need to be struck with reasoning. To use an illegitimate authority, as ' ' the position of the cut is in another one sentido' ' or ' ' john doe, doutrinador, understands of another one maneira' ' he is not valid.