You are on page 1of 23

They of the material world cannot touch the spirit of the law as it is

World Wide Invisible Invincible Inalienable
I’m not sure if I heard Attorney General has the runs, on the run or I on final run

Spirit Intent Precedence
De jure Constitution or Romans 13 gaming the system De facto?
Rule of Law … Rule by Man or Rule by Law?

proclamation, announcement, pronouncement, law, decree, statute, act, diktat 

De facto
De facto (English pronunciation: /diː ˈfæktoʊ/, /deɪ/,[1] Latin pronunciation: [deː ˈfaktoː]) is a Latin expression that means
"concerning fact."
In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially
It is commonly used in
contrast to
de jure (which means "concerning the law")
when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common
experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation.
When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says,
while de facto designates action of what happens in practice.
It is analogous and similar to the expressions "for all intents and purposes" or "in fact".
The term can also be used in the context of conducting activity as a "matter of course" e.g. copying an individual on
an email de facto.

They of the material world cannot touch the spirit of the law as it is
World Wide Invisible Invincible Inalienable
I’m not sure if I heard Attorney General has the runs, on the run or I on final run
Ad hoc is a Latin phrase meaning "for this". It generally signifies a solution designed for a specific
problem or task, non-generalizable, and not intended to be able to be adapted to other purposes
(compare a priori). Common examples are organizations, committees, and commissions created at the
national or international level for a specific task. In other fields the term may refer, for example, to a
military unit created under special circumstances, a tailor-made suit, a handcrafted network protocol, or a
purpose-specific equation. Ad hoc can also mean makeshift solutions, shifting contexts to create new
meanings, inadequate planning, or improvised events.

In science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory
to save it from being
Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form.
Scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain
them. Ad hoc hypotheses are often characteristic of pseudoscientific subjects.[1] Ad hoc hypotheses are
not necessarily incorrect, however. An interesting example of an apparently supported ad hoc hypothesis
was Albert Einstein's addition of the cosmological constant to general relativity in order to allow a static
universe. Although he later referred to it as his "greatest blunder," it has been found to correspond quite
well to the theories of
dark energy.[2]

Constitution Façade Fake Democracy
A constitution
is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other
organization is governed.[1] These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these
principles are written down into a single collection or set of legal documents, those documents may be
said to comprise a written constitution.
Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and
unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its
constitution in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, whether sovereign
or federated, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which
laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially written constitutions, also act as limiters of
state power by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross such as
fundamental rights.
Generally, every modern written constitution confers specific powers to an organization or institutional entity,
established upon the primary condition that it
abides by the said constitution's limitations.
According to Scott Gordon, a political organization is constitutional to the extent that it "contain[s] institutionalized
mechanisms of power control for

the protection of the interests and liberties of the citizenry,

including those that may be in the minority."[7]

Human rights
are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled
simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable
everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal
rights, in both national and international law.[2] The doctrine of human rights in international practice,
within international law, global and regional institutions, in the policies of states and in the activities of
non-governmental organizations, has been a cornerstone of public policy around the world. The idea of
human rights [3] states, "if the public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common
moral language, it is that of human rights."

Despite this, the strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable
skepticism and debates about the content, nature and justifications of human rights to this day.

the question of what is meant by a "right" is itself controversial and the subject of continued philosophical
Many of the basic ideas that animated the movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War
and the atrocities of The Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The ancient world did not possess the
concept of universal human rights.[5]Ancient societies had "elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of
justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or
well-being entirely independent of human rights".[6] The modern concept of human rights developed
during the early Modern period, alongside the European secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics.[7] The
true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the
medieval Natural law tradition that became prominent during the Enlightenment with such philosophers
as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and featured prominently in the
political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution.
From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the twentieth
century. Gelling as social activism and political rhetoric in many nations put it high on the world agenda.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
—Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[9],_1982
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights.
The Charter is intended to
protect certain political and civil rights of people in Canada

the policies and actions of all levels of government.
It is also supposed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights.[3][4]
The Charter was preceded by the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was introduced by the government of
John Diefenbaker in 1960.
However, the Bill of Rights was only a federal statute, rather than a constitutional document.
Therefore, it was limited in scope and was easily amendable. This motivated some within government to
improve rights protections in Canada.
The movement for human rights and freedoms that emerged after World War II also wanted to entrench
the principles enunciated in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[5]

Hence, the government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau enacted the Charter in 1982.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The pursuit of human rights was a central reason for creating the UN. World War II atrocities and
genocide led to a ready consensus that the new organization must work to prevent any similar tragedies in
the future. An early objective was creating a legal framework for considering and acting on complaints
about human rights violations. The UN Charter obliges all member nations to promote "universal respect
for, and observance of, human rights" and to take "joint and separate action" to that end. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights,

though not legally binding,

was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 as a common standard of achievement for all. The
Assembly regularly takes up human rights issues.
A large share of UN expenditures addresses the core UN mission of peace and security. The peacekeeping
budget for the 2005–2006 fiscal year was approximately US$5 billion, €2.5 billion (compared to
approximately US$1.5 billion, €995 million for the UN core budget over the same period), with some
70,000 troops deployed in 17 missions around the world.[60] UN peace operations are funded by
assessments, using a formula derived from the regular funding scale, but including a weighted surcharge
for the five permanent Security Council members, who must approve all peacekeeping operations. This
surcharge serves to offset discounted peacekeeping assessment rates for less developed countries. As of 1
January 2011, the top 10 providers of assessed financial contributions to United Nations peacekeeping
operations were: the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, China, Canada,
Spain and the Republic of Korea.[61]
Special UN programmes not included in the regular budget (such as UNICEF, the WFP and UNDP) are
financed by voluntary contributions from other member governments. Most of this is financial
contributions, but some is in the form of agricultural commodities donated for afflicted populations. Since
their funding is voluntary, many of these agencies suffer severe shortages during economic recessions.
In July 2009, the World Food Programme reported that it has been forced to cut services because of
insufficient funding.[62]
It has received barely a quarter of the total it needed for the 09/10 financial year.

Many of the basic ideas that animated the movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War
and the atrocities of the Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of the

Universal Declaration of Human

in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.
The ancient world did not possess the concept of universal human rights.[5] Ancient societies had
"elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that
sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights".[6] The
modern concept of human rights developed during the early Modern period, alongside the European
secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics.[7] The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept
of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval Natural law tradition, became prominent during
the Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques
Burlamaqui, and featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the
French Revolution.
Multinational companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and have been responsible for
numerous human rights abuses.[52] Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the actions of
governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multinational companies is both controversial
and ill-defined.[citation needed] Multinational companies' primary responsibility is to their shareholders,
not to those affected by their actions. Such companies may be larger than the economies of some of the
states within which they operate, and can wield significant economic and political power. No international
treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies with regard to human rights, and national
legislation is very variable. Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on
the right to food stated in a report in 2003:
In August 2003 the Human Rights Commission's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of
Human Rights produced draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other
business enterprises with regard to human rights.[54] These were considered by the Human Rights
Commission in 2004,
but have no binding status on corporations and are not monitored.
Person http://www.scby-the-Law-to-Exist-as-a-Legal-
A lie told Often enough becomes the Reality
Fake Democracy
Iraq War
Bush broke every law in the books of the US Constitution and UN Charter

Now I lay me down to sleep if I should die before I ... Say again the purpose of financing the United


Banked into submission

Truth kills truth saves Save yourself and the world

Video Gone

Video Replaced
In this lecture by Michel Chossudovsky, he blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11
was an attack on America by "Islamic terrorists". Through meticulous research, he has uncovered a military-
intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush
Administration. According to Chossudovsky, the "war on terrorism" is a complete fabrication based on the illusion
that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The "war on
terrorism" is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the "New World Order", dominated by Wall Street
and the U.S. military-industrial complex. September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without
borders. Washington's agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S.
corporate control, while installing
within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.
Truth Kills
Fema Detention Camps Marshall Law

1982 Queen signs Canadian Constitution Act Charter Of Rights ceding to the Spirit
Supremacy Of God

Whereas Canada is founded on principles that recognize the

Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law

The following was extracted from the Law Society of Upper Canada ­ Lawyers Pro Conduct
103) Interpretation
(f) rules of professional conduct
 cannot address every situation, 
and a lawyer should observe
 the rules in the spirit as well as in the letter.

Rule of Law
The Rule of law in its most basic form is no one is above the law.
Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is
legitimately exercised only in accordance with,
publicly disclosed laws,
adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process.
The rule of law is hostile to dictatorship and to anarchy.
According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of adherence to the rule of law commonly
a clear separation of powers,

legal certainty,
the principle of legitimate expectation and equality of all before the law.
The concept is not without controversy, and it has been said that
"the phrase the rule of law has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general over-

General Over-use Proclamations Only Elusivity

publicly disclosed laws

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada,
and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution
to the extent of the inconsistency,

of no force or effect.
The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the
law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but
not the intent of those who wrote the law.
when one obeys the spirit of the law
not the letter,
one is doing what the authors of the law intended,
though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording.

Moses Oppresses Jesus Ordinance

Spirit of the Law Nazi Catch 22

Facts must have root 2 take root God Coherency "Catch 22" must have semblance 2 catch doG chase tail

"Law" originally referred to legislative statute, but in the idiom may refer to any kind of rule.
Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting
technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language. Following the letter of the law but not the spirit is also
a tactic used by oppressive governments. [edit] Shakespeare

William Shakespeare wrote numerous plays dealing with the letter v. spirit antithesis, almost always
coming down on the side of "spirit", often forcing villains (who always sided with the letter) to make
concessions and remedy. In one of the best known examples, The Merchant of Venice, he introduces
the quibble as a plot device to save both the spirit and the letter of the law. The moneylender Shylockhas
made an agreement with Antonio that if he cannot repay a loan he will have a pound of flesh from him.
When the debt is not repaid in time Portia at first pleads for mercy in a famous speech: "The quality of
mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes." (IV,i,185). When Shylock refuses, she finally saves Antonio
by pointing out that Shylock's agreement with him mentioned no blood, and therefore Shylock can have
his pound of flesh only if he sheds no blood.
[edit]U.S. Constitutional law
Interpretations of the U.S. Constitution have historically divided on the "Letter v. Spirit" debate. For
example, at the founding, the Federalist Party argued for a looser interpretation of the Constitution,
granting Congress broad powers in keeping with the spirit of the broader purpose of some founders
(notably including the Federalist founders' purposes). The Federalists would have represented the "spirit"
aspect. In contrast, the Democratic-Republicans, who favored a limited federal government, argued for
the strict interpretation of the Constitution, arguing that the federal government was granted only those
powers enumerated in the Constitution, and nothing not explicitly stated; they represented the "letter"
Modern Constitutional interpretation also divides on these lines. Currently, Living Constitution scholars
advocate a "spirit"-esque interpretative strategy, although one grounded in a spirit that reflects broad
powers. Originalist or Textualist scholars advocate a more "letter"-based approach, arguing that the
Amendment process of the Constitution necessarily forecloses broader interpretations that can be
accomplished simply by passing an amendment.
[edit]The Bible
This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often
accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or
removed. (September 2009)
See also: Law in Christianity
The Christian Bible references the letter and the spirit of the law in Romans 2:29 NASB. Though it is not
quoted directly, the principle is applied using the words "spirit" and "letter" in context with the legalistic
view of the Hebrew Bible. This may be the first recorded use of the phrase.
In the New Testament, Pharisees are seen as people who place the letter of the law above the spirit
(Mark 2:3–28, 3:1–6). Thus, "Pharisee" has entered the language as a pejorative for one who does so;
the Oxford English Dictionary defines Pharisee with one of the meanings as A person of the spirit or

character commonly attributed to the Pharisees in the New Testament; a legalist or formalist. Pharisees are
also depicted as being lawless or corrupt (Matthew 23:38); the Greek word used in the verse
means lawlessness, and the corresponding Hebrew word means fraud or injustice.
In the Gospels Jesus is often shown as being critical of Pharisees, precisely because of his position that
the "Spirit of the Law" is the better way. He is more like the Essenes than the other Jewish groups of the
time (Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots), however, The Pharisees, like Jesus, believed in the resurrection of
the dead, and in divine judgment. They advocated prayer, almsgiving and fasting as spiritual practices.
The Pharisees were those who were trying to be faithful to the law given to them by God. Not all
Pharisees, nor all Jews of that time, were legalistic. Though modern language has used the word Pharisee
in the pejorative to describe someone who is legalistic and rigid, it is not an accurate description of all
Pharisees. The argument over the "Spirit of the Law" vs. the "Letter of the Law" was part of early Jewish
dialogue as well.

Some[who?] might connect 2 Corinthians 3:6 with such an idea, but that passage talks about "the letter"
versus "the Spirit", where "the letter" refers to the Old Covenant and its rules, while "the Spirit" refers to
the Holy Spirit (and the New Covenant). The new covenant described in Jeremiah 31:31-33 is a common
theme of the prophets, beginning with Hosea.[1] According to Jeremiah, "the qualities of the new
covenant expounded upon the old are : a) It will not be broken; b) Its law will be written in the heart, not
merely on tablets of stone; c) The knowledge of God will deem it no longer necessary to put it into written
words of instruction."[1] According to Luke (Lk 22, 20), and Paul, in the first epistle to the Corinthians (1
Cor 11, 25), this prophecy was fulfilled only through the work of Jesus Christ,[1] who said "This cup is
the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you." Christ did not come to abolish the law but to
fulfill it. His purpose was to encourage people to look beyond the "letter of the law" to the "spirit of the
law"...the principles behind the commandments and the law's intention. The law was never intended as a
moral slide-rule, but as evidence of transgression. Mankind turned this declaration into a moral code
book. Jesus quotes the book of Deuteronomy and Leviticus: "All the Law can be summed up in this: to
love God with all your heart, all your mind and all your heart, and to love your neighbor as yourself"

[edit]Gaming the system

Gaming the system, also called "rules lawyering", is the following of the letter (sometimes referred to as
RaW or Rules as Written)—over, or contrary to—the spirit (sometimes referred to as RaI or Rules as
Intended) of the law. It is used negatively to describe the act of manipulating the rules to achieve a
personal advantage. It may also mean acting in an antisocial, irritating manner while technically staying
within the bounds of the rules.

Constitution of the United Kingdom

The constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed.[1]
Unlike many nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document.
It is therefore often said that the country has an

uncodified or de facto
constitution. [2]

However, much of the British constitution is embodied in the written form, within statutes, court judgments, and treaties.
The constitution has other unwritten sources, including
parliamentary constitutional conventions
royal prerogatives.
Since the English Civil War, the bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of
parliamentary sovereignty,
according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law. [3]
It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament.
There is some debate about whether this principle remains
entirely valid today, [4]

in part due to the UK's European Union membership.[5]

Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a
It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests 

on a political fact for which 
no purely legal explanation can be provided. 
In theoretical terms, the idea of "sovereignty", historically, from Socrates to Thomas Hobbes, has always necessitated a
moral imperative on the entity exercising it.

Rule of Law
The rule of law is a legal maxim which provides that no person is above the law, that no one can be
punished by the state except for a breach of the law,
and that no one can be convicted of breaching the law except in the manner set forth by the law itself.
The rule of law stands in contrast to the idea that the leader is above the law -

a feature of Roman Law, Nazi law, and certain other legal systems.
The phrase has been used since the 17th century, but the concept is older. For example, the Greek
philosopher Aristotle said, "Law should govern".[2]
One way to be free from the rule of law is by denying that an enactment has the necessary attributes
of law.
De facto
The rule of law has therefore been described as
"an exceedingly elusive notion"[3] giving rise to a "rampant divergence
of understandings".[4]
At least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" and a
substantive or "thick" definition of the rule of law.
Formalist definitions of the rule of law
do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself,
but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance
with the rule of law.
Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive

rights that are said to be based on, or derived from,

the rule of law.[5]

Different people have different interpretations about exactly what "rule of law" means.
According to political theorist Judith N. Shklar, "the phrase 'the Rule of Law'
has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general over-use",
but nevertheless this phrase has in the past had specific and important meanings.[22]
Among modern legal theorists, most views on this subject fall into three general categories:
the formal (or "thin") approach,

the substantive (or "thick") approach,

the functional approach.[23][24]

The "formal" interpretation

is more widespread than the
"substantive" interpretation.

Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality,
equality, and certainty.
Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law.[23]
This formal approach allows laws that protect democracy and individual rights,
recognizes the existence of
"rule of law"
in countries that
do not necessarily have such laws
protecting democracy or individual rights.

The substantive interpretation holds

that the rule of law intrinsically
protects some
all individual rights.

The functional interpretation of the term

"rule of law",
consistent with the
traditional English meaning,
the "rule of law" with the "rule of man."[24]
According to the functional view, a society
in which government officers
have a great deal of discretion has
a low degree of

"rule of law",
whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law".
The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable.[24]

Rule of man is absence of

rule of law.
It is a society in which one person, or a group of persons, rules arbitrarily. The Sovereign exercises
absolute authority and is not bound by any law, he as a person stands outside law. The philosopher
Thomas Hobbes advocated such a society, saying that a society would be better if it had one absolute
monarch as he would be free to choose and do what he thinks is best for the society without taking into
account the opinions of others.
Others dissent by historical evidence that points in the opposing direction claiming the impermanence of
the systems brought on by dictators like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong which are
remembered in having fared more by despotism than government system and thereby typifying the
exertion of "rule of man" within their reigns. The results of which comprised violations to internationally
recognized basic human rights. Relating the common inference of warning against the utility of such
regimes that many have cited within the adage that Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts

The ancient concept of rule of law can be distinguished from

rule by law,
according to political science professor Li Shuguang:
"The that, under the rule of law,

the law is preeminent and
can serve as a check against
the abuse of power.
Under rule by law,
the law is a mere tool for a government,
that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."[25]

Renewed interests?

The General Assembly has considered rule of law as an agenda item since 1992, with renewed interest
since 2006 and has adopted resolutions at its last three sessions.[41] The Security Council has held a
number of thematic debates on the rule of law,[42] and adopted resolutions emphasizing the importance of
these issues in the context of women, peace and security,[43] children in armed conflict,[44] and the
protection of civilians in armed conflict.[45] The Peace building Commission has also regularly addressed
rule of law issues with respect to countries on its agenda.[46]
[edit] International Bar Association

The Council of the International Bar Association passed a resolution in 2009 endorsing a substantive
or "thick" definition of the rule of law:[47]
An independent, impartial judiciary; the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair and public trial
without undue delay; a rational and proportionate approach to punishment; a strong and independent legal
strict protection of confidential communications between lawyer and client;
equality of all before the law;
these are all fundamental principles of the Rule of Law. Accordingly, arbitrary arrests; secret trials;
indefinite detention without trial; cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; intimidation or corruption
in the electoral process, are all unacceptable. The Rule of Law is the foundation of a civilized society. It
establishes a transparent process accessible and equal to all. It ensures adherence to principles that both
liberate and protect. The IBA calls upon all countries to respect these fundamental principles. It also calls
upon its members to speak out in support of the Rule of Law within their respective communities.

On 4 October 1943, Himmler referred explicitly to the extermination of the Jewish people during a secret SS
meeting in the city of Poznań(Posen). The following is a translation of an excerpt from a transcription of an audio
recording [77] that exists of the speech:
I also want to refer here very frankly to a very difficult matter. We can now very openly talk about this among
ourselves, and yet we will never discuss this publicly. Just as we did not hesitate on 30 June 1934, to perform our
duty as ordered and put comrades who had failed up against the wall and execute them, we also never spoke about
it, nor will we ever speak about it.
Let us thank God
that we had within us enough self-evident fortitude never to discuss it among us, and we never talked about it.
Every one of us was horrified, and yet every one clearly understood that we would do it next time, when the order
is given and when it becomes necessary. I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, to the extermination of
the Jewish People. This is something that is easily said: 'The Jewish People will be exterminated', says
every Party member, 'this is very obvious, it is in our program — elimination of the Jews, extermination, a small
matter.' And then they turn up, the upstanding 80 million Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. They say the
others are all swine, but this particular one is a splendid Jew. But none has observed it, endured it. Most of you here
know what it means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when there are 500 or when there are 1,000. To have
endured this and at the same time to have remained a decent person — with exceptions due to human
weaknesses — has made us tough, and is a glorious chapter that has not and will not be spoken of. Because we
know how difficult it would be for us if we still had Jews as secret saboteurs, agitators and rabble rousers in every
city, what with the bombings, with the burden and with the hardships of the war. If the Jews were still part of the
German nation, we would most likely arrive now at the state we were at in 1916 and '17 . . . .
—Heinrich Himmler, 4 October 1943
Obstruct Justice truth and source kill



Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people

the belief
that the legitimacy of the state is created by the will or consent of its people, who are the source of all
political power.
It is closely associated to the social contract philosophers, among whom are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke
and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Popular sovereignty expresses a concept and does not necessarily reflect or describe a political reality.[1]
It is often contrasted with the concept
of parliamentary sovereignty, and with individual sovereignty.

Law by Man? Nope just an alien puppet … Romans 13 Substantive Thick de facto!!!


Attorney General wears far too Many

Honor Among Thieves

Responsibly Unaccountable Nuances Substantive

Attorney General, guardian of the public interest

13. (1) The Attorney General for Ontario shall serve as the guardian of the public interest in all matters
within the scope of this Act or having to do in any way with the practice of law in Ontario or the provision
of legal services in Ontario, and for this purpose he or she may at any time require the production of any
document or thing pertaining to the affairs of the Society. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (1); 1998, c. 21,
s. 7 (1); 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 13.

(2) No admission of any person in any document or thing produced under subsection (1) is admissible in
evidence against that person in any proceedings other than proceedings under this Act. R.S.O. 1990,
c. L.8, s. 13 (2); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (2).

Protection of Minister
(3) No person who is or has been the Attorney General for Ontario is subject to any proceedings of the
Society or to any penalty imposed under this Act for anything done by him or her while exercising the
functions of such office. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (3); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (3).

Ultimately the Attorney General is accountable to the people of the province,

through the Legislature,
for decisions relating to criminal prosecutions. Such accountability can only occur, of course, once the
prosecution is completed or when a final decision has been made not to prosecute. The sub judicae rule
bars any comment on a matter before the courts that is likely to influence the matter. The sub judicae rule
strictly prohibits the Attorney General from commenting on prosecutions that are before the courts. Given
the stature of the Attorney General's position,
any public comment coming from the office
would be seen as an attempt to influence the case.

Heck No!! … Wouldn’t want to be seen!!!

The first opportunity to OJ – Obstruct Justice prior to going to court as in

The Attorney General does not, however, direct or cause charges to be laid.
While the Attorney General and the Attorney General's agents may provide legal advice to the police, the
ultimate decision whether or not to lay charges is for the police.
Once the charge is laid

the decision as to whether the prosecution should proceed,
and in what manner,
for the Attorney General and the Crown Attorney.

The second opportunity to OJ is through the Independent Judiciary sect 24. (2) of the Charter as in
I am informed may not use the information that would hold the administration in disrepute
Obstruct Justice truth and source kill

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied
apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and
just in the circumstances.

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner
that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded
if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings
would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Independent Judiciary
Responsibility for Court Administration (s. 5(c))
A key component of the Attorney General's responsibilities to ensure the administration of justice in the
province is the administration of the courts and as a result the responsibility for maintaining liaison with
the judiciary.
Given the fundamental importance of the independence of the judiciary, the responsibility for courts
administration is often a very sensitive and delicate issue. Great care and respect for the principles of
judicial independence must be exercised in this area.

The role has been referred to as

"judicial-like" and as the "guardian of the public interest".
As chief law officer, the Attorney General
has a special responsibility
to be the guardian of
that most elusive concept
- the rule of law.
The rule of law is a well established legal principle,
but hard to easily define.
It is the rule of law that protects individuals,
and society as a whole,
from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties.

Legal Certainty?
The Attorney General has a special role to play in advising Cabinet to ensure the rule of law is maintained
and that Cabinet actions are legally and constitutionally valid.

The responsibility is to present the case fairly - not necessarily to convict. This is a fundamental precept
of criminal law, even if it is not a particularly well-understood concept among the general public.
One of the Attorney General's responsibilities in fostering public respect for the rule of law,
is to assist
the public in understanding the nature and limits of the prosecutorial function

Please explain the Elusive Legal Certainty – AGE - Attorney General Elitist

Pick your Knows
Worldly Wise Invisible Invincible Inalienable


United Perception Sanity
Ultimate Potential Society

Mencius asserted that human nature is good and that it can be developed not only by study, as Confucius
had taught, but also by a process of cultivating
one’s innate (inborn) tendencies.
By this, Mencius meant cultivating our inclination toward compassion for the suffering of others, our
disdain for doing what is wrong, and so forth.
Like Confucius, Mencius believed that the Zhou rulers held their position under a doctrine known as the
Mandate of Heaven;
Heaven was thought to be the impersonal authority governing all the operations of the universe.
Since the Mandate of Heaven was expressed by the acceptance of a ruler by the people, Mencius stated
that if the people rose up and overthrew a tyrant,
it was proof that Heaven had withdrawn its mandate.
In the name of Heaven, Mencius claimed for the Chinese people the right of rebellion

Put down the guns fools

We are IM – Irately Mad not MI – Madly Insane

According to some theories of democracy, popular sovereignty is the founding principle of such a system.[3] 
However, the democratic principle has also been expressed as 
"the freedom to call something into being which did not exist before, 
which was not given… and which therefore, strictly speaking, could not be known."[4] 
This type of freedom, which is connected to human "natality," or the capacity to begin anew, sees
democracy as "not only a political system… 
[but] an ideal, an aspiration, really, intimately connected to and dependent upon 
a picture of what it is to be human —
of what it is a human should be to be fully human."[5]

While there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[6]
equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy
since ancient times.[7]

These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to
legislative processes.
For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can
apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, 
and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected
by a constitution.[8][9]

There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedom
for their citizens than others.[10][11] 

However, if any democracy is not structured
so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, 

or any branch of government  from altering the separation of powers in its own
then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy.[12][13][14]
Mulroney of Canada stole the RCMP making Commissioner a Deputy Minister

Representative Democracy, Consensus Democracy, and Deliberative Democracy 

are all major examples of attempts at a form of government 
that is both practical and responsive to the needs and desires of
Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include elements such
as political pluralism; 

equality before the law; 
the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; 

due process; 
civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government.

An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive
elections that are fair both substantively[15] and procedurally.[16]
Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and
freedom of the press
are considered to be essential,
so that citizens are adequately informed
and able to vote according to their own best interests as they see them.[17][18]
It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of individual participate freely and fully in the life
of their society.[19]

Media spewing propaganda are complicit in serious crimes against humanity

The United Nations

currently only requires that a sovereign state has an effective and independent government within a
defined territory.
According to current international law norms, states are only required to have an effective and
independent system of government pursuant to a community within a defined territory.[2]
For centuries past, the idea that a state could be sovereign was always connected to its
ability to guarantee the best interests of its own citizens.
Thus, if a state could not act in the best interests of its own citizens,

it could not be thought of as a “sovereign” state.[3]

When complicit humanity is hard work ransacking while keeping them dumb

Forthright Forthwith Forthcoming


In the name of God of, for and with the People WTF?

Fickle Fate Finger

Debt incurred by the complicit outside the spirit of the law authorized are theirs
Power of the Spirit
Enough to make the Anti-Christ believe in the Spirit


You might also like