Formula via which Rule of  Law Activity can be distinguished from Reign of  Terror Activity.
(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 Rule of  Law Standard ("ROLS") 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 ROLS activity is that it is conducted in compatibility with the  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 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 ( & 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 target-specified animus]. The standard is also characterized by other elements, but due to the dishonesty of so many attorneys who might use formulas provided in this site for unjustified purposes, those other elements must for now remain unspecified. Upon request via email or other medium, the DNRCPN would be glad to 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 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, 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 already having 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 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 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 enormous umbrella of the presumption of  "good faith".
Thus, it is obvious that these two entirely incompatible, & categorically, mutually exclusive, principles complete the universe of  possibilities of  the standards according to which human activity has ever been or can ever  be, conducted.
 

.

 

 

 

 

 

1