Formula via which Non-counterfeit Rule of Law Activity can be distinguished from Reign of Terror Activity. (Contents will be provided in a more readable form when time permits) (ROLS, NROLS & Good Faith Standard are terms utilized interchangeably) In the simplest form in which the formula can be herein formulated: Activity conducted according to The Non-counterfeit 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 that can be defined as a "Cartesian, Agnostic, Hegelian, Pantheist, Relativist, Determinist, Utilitarian, Positivist, Nietsz[e]chian, Machiavellian, Anti-nomian standard 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 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 "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 the differences between the Good Faith Standard (ROLS) and the Bad Faith Standard (ROTS) contained herein infra: Activity that is conducted according to what can be identified to constitute a "Good Faith Standard" is activity that is characterized by a conspicuous commitment on the part of the various parties involved to operate according to the requirements emanating from and corresponding to the balance of harms formula referred to as the Doctrine of Double Effect. In other words the 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 procure some 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 course of action available as an option whereby the morally good objective of the act(s) can be procured and in which the morally evil or harmful consequences of the act(s) can be prevented. If there were, the moral agent would be obliged to select to follow that course of action which would not include the forseeable but unintended evil or harmful consequences as consequences. 4. The good effect (objective) of the act(s) can not 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 moral act. 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 or 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 contain a moral value 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, just plain onerous, standard is morally acceptable. Activity not conducted according to this standard is not morally acceptable. In juxtaposition to the Good Faith Standard is the Bad Faith 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 the Bad Faith 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 Bad Faith Standard is activity conducted according to the apprehended short term interest of the party conducting a given instrument in a given forum. The majority of the activity in Modern Day America evidently would deserve to be classified as activity conducted according to the Bad Faith 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 get away with such activity without suffering deleterious consequences, really cannot be classified as good faith activity either. In summation, from the admittedly limited perspective of one human being, it cannot be pretended that the author of this document es do not sense the obligation to testify that it is the Bad Faith 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 Bad Faith Standard which is evidently the point of reference according to which the shamelessly cutthroat competition for possessions, positions, 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 of society. Undoubtedly, even more of the conflicts result from activity in which more than one party has been operating according to unacceptable standards. There are evidently more villians out here at this point than anyone could possibly expose much less apprehend. When such villians have encountered other such villians, 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 innocent suffer. As it is evidently the case that the devil is obviously running just about everything in these sordid times, innocent victims have been suffering right along with the plethora of villians whose suffering is not evidently anything other than the reaping of what they have been sowing (Gal 6:8).