Make your own free website on Tripod.com

thirstforjustice.tripod.com/rolrot122013.htmlFormula Via Which Non-counterfiet Rul of Law Standard (“NROLS”)can be distinguished from Reign of Terror Standard Activity (“ROTS”).

(Contents will be provided in a more readable form when time permits)

In the simplest form in which the formula can be herein formulated:

Activity conducted according to The Non-counterfeit Rule of Law Standard ("NROLS") is activity conducted according to a standard characterized by the processing of matters within what can be identified to constitute a closed universe of possibilities anchored in the principle of non-contradiction. One of the most fundamental elements of NROLS activity is that it is conducted according to a standard that is in no way incompatible with the metaphysical principle present in Canon 2200.1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church which states: "In a situation in which a violation of a law is manifest in the external forum, malice is presumed [as the cause thereof] until the contrary is proven." [RJM would add that it is RJM’s position that any non-accomplishment of compliance with the requirements of the moral law in any conduct in any sphere of activity must likewise be imputed to malice in the broadest sense of the word - ie unjustified priorities or defined in the alternative, priorities not adequately enough adjusted to ensure that the conduct that emanates therefrom would not be morally unjustified in a given instance and in any and every, instance ( & for purposes of this definition, it is added that in a situation in which the matter is grave, the malice is also) as distinct from a human target-specified animus – ie an endeavor implemented upon a deliberate intent to injure a given human person or group of persons]. The standard is also characterized by other elements, but due to the dishonesty of so many attorneys who might use formulas provided in this website for unjustified purposes, those other elements must for now remain unspecified. Upon request via email or other medium, the DNRCPN would provide such to anyone who would use them to help fight the Reign of Terror.

Activity conducted according to The Reign of Terror Standard ("ROTS") is activity conducted according to a standard that can be defined as a "Cartesian, Agnostic, Hegelian, Pantheist, Relativist, Determinist, Utilitarian, Positivist, Nietsz[e]chian, Machiavellian, Anti-nomian, Talmudic” standard (a standard that if only a single adjective could be utilized to describe it, would have to be described as “Talmudic”) and activity conducted according to such type standard is characterized by the processing of matters within what can be identified to constitute a closed universe of possibilities anchored in the apprehended self-interest(s) of a human party, whether individual or collective, conducting activity out of a fundamental disposition of insubordination to Almighty God, which condition is of course caused by, & further influenced over a given time period within which a given activity is conducted, by, the effects on the intellect(s) & will(s) of the human actors in a given case conducting activity, of not adequately mortified carnal appetites & the moment by moment temptations, subdivided into deceptions presented to the intellect and instigations of the will of those tempted, & with which Lucifer ceaselessly endeavors to incite the commission of individual sins, beyond the abominable enormity of those which would have already been committed at a given juncture in human history (the effects of which, of course at any given juncture, continue to inflict damage upon the social order in the nature of an endless ripple effect) – to the exclusion of the requirements corresponding to what can be identified to constitute logical necessity emanating in a given matter from the principle of non-contradiction. One of the most fundamental elements of ROTS activity is that it is conducted according to points of reference and methods categorically incompatible with the principle present in Canon 2200.1 or 2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church which states: "In a situation in which a violation of a law is manifest in the external forum, malice is presumed [as the cause thereof] until the contrary is proven." [RJM would add that any non-accomplishment of compliance with the requirements of the moral law in any conduct in any sphere of activity must likewise be imputed to malice in the broadest sense of the word - ie unjustified priorities, as distinct from a human target-specified animus]. In other words, ROTS activity, when it is not conducted according to an outright satanic origin-acknowledging standard, is conducted under the protective veil of the imputation of a presumption of "good faith". Thus, what is encountered in this species of ROTS activity is the accomplishment of duty breaches and malefactions of even the most egregious sort under the protective cover of "good faith." And so it is frequently encountered in this abominable period of history, that even the worst of atrocities are all whitewashed under that seemingly limitlessly expansive umbrella of "good faith".

Some of the constituent elements of the varying standards of the ROLS and ROTS are further enumerated and explicated in this additional explication of some of the differences between the (ROLS) and the (ROTS) contained herein infra:

Activity that is conducted according to what can be identified to constitute the ROL Standard is activity that is characterized by a conspicuous commitment on the part of the various parties involved in the conducting of a given course of activity to conduct such activity according to the requirements emanating from and corresponding to, the balance of burdens and harms formula referred to as The Doctrine of Double Effect. In other words such activity can be defined as a cooperative endeavor on behalf of the various parties engaged in it to satisfy the requirements of the moral law. For any activity which results in any type or degree of harm, suffering or loss to any party to be morally acceptable, the requirements of the DDE must be satisfied. The requirements of this balance of harms formula known as the Doctrine of Double Effect are enumerated as follows:

1. The activity under consideration (the object of the moral act) must be morally good or morally neutral in itself. In other words the object(s) of the act or acts do /does not include any violations of negative precepts of the natural law. One may never perform an intrinsically evil act, even to accomplish some purportedly or even, evidently, morally or partially morally, good, objective.

2. The evil or harmful effect(s) of the act(s) cannot be positively willed by the moral agent executing the act(s).

3. There cannot be an alternative to the course of action according to which one is considering proceeding in a given case, available as an option whereby the morally good objective of the act(s) can be accomplished and by which the morally evil or harmful consequences of whatever the act(s) is (are) that is (are) under consideration at a given juncture, can be prevented. If there were, in a given case, such alternative available, the moral agent would be obliged to choose to proceed in his or her conduct, according to that formula of action by which the good objective could be accomplished/evil result could be prevented, which would not result in the forseeable but unintended evil or harmful consequences as (a) consequence(s) of a course of conduct (“formula of action”) chosen in a given case, to accomplish the good objective/prevent the evil result, which would have been the purpose of the choosing of the course of action chosen.

4. The good effect (objective) of the act(s) cannot only not be dependent upon any intrinsically evil act but also cannot be dependent upon any evil or harmful effect of the act that is the object of the course of conduct under assessment. It must be the case that the good effect (objective) can be procured directly from act(s) or developments that are not either in themselves evil nor the evil consequences of other acts.

5. The good effect(s) /objectives to be accomplished, must follow at least as closely in terms of causality (though not necessarily chronologically) from the act(s)/course of activity as do(es) the bad effect(s).

6. The good effect (objective) to be accomplished must be characterized by a moral importance of proportionate significance analyzed in the entirety of its moral dimensions, to justify the evil or harm of the forseeable unintended evil or harmful effect(s), analyzed in the entirety of it's (their) moral dimension(s).

Activity conducted according to this admittedly comparatively demanding, and in some circumstances, and indeed in many circumstances, just plain onerous, standard, is morally acceptable. Activity not conducted according to this standard is not morally acceptable.

In juxtaposition to the NROL Standard is the ROT Standard. Any activity conducted according to criteria, priorities, points of reference and/or agendas which are unacceptable is activity that has been conducted according to this ROT standard. This type of activity inevitably includes one or more of the following characteristics: the disregard of; 1. the conventional definition of English words, 2. the established rules of English syntax, 3. the immutable rules of logical analysis, 4. fundamental rules of evidence utilized in legal proceedings and 5. the requirements emanating from and corresponding to self evident ethical principles. Put simply, activity conducted according to the ROT Standard is activity conducted according to the apprehended short term interest of the party conducting a given activity in a given forum.

The substantial majority of the activity in Modern Day America, in regard to which RJM is cognizant would obviously have to be classified as activity conducted according to the ROT Standard. Activity which is not conducted according to corrupt and unacceptable standards only because an agent conducting it does not believe that he or she can succeed in getting away with such activity without suffering deleterious consequences, obviously cannot be classified as good faith activity either. In summation, from the admittedly limited perspective of the author of this document, it cannot be pretended that the author of this document does not sense the obligation to testify that it is the ROT Standard which has evidently been the point of reference according to which a tragically, lamentably considerable portion of activity in this country has been conducted, at least in the lifetime of the author of this document. It is indeed this ROT Standard which is evidently the point of reference according to which the shamelessly cutthroat competition for possessions, positions, gratifications, power and influence that characterizes modern day life, has been and is conducted.

It is indeed self-evident that the activity emanating from the two standards is incompatible and mutually exclusive and results in many of the conflicts that characterize the present activity and condition of society. Undoubtedly, even more of the conflicts result from activity in which more than one party has been conducting activity according to unacceptable standards. There are evidently more villains out here at this point than anyone could possibly expose, much less apprehend and punish. When such villains have encountered other such villains, it has not been easy, at least for the author, to sympathize with any of them. When individuals get what they evidently have coming, the situation is radically and fundamentally different than a situation in which the altogether innocent and truly penitent suffer. As it is evidently the case that the devil is obviously running just about everything in these sordid times, innocent and truly penitent victims of predations, injustices of various sorts and evils by whatever named classified, have been suffering right along with the plethora of villains whose suffering is not evidently anything other than the reaping of what they have been sowing (cf. Gal 6:8, et al). (Last revised: 10/7/07).