MO 13 vs LARK

Middle One 13 vs Left And Right Kleptocracy
Truths Holistic Interactive Retrospect Transcendental Electromagnetism Enslavers Nemesis
BS
Big Squeeze

“Thy kingdom come”
The request for God’s kingdom to come is usually interpreted as a reference to the belief, common at the time, that a Messiah figure would bring about a Kingdom of God.
Traditionally the coming of God’s Kingdom is seen as a divine gift to be prayed for,
not a human achievement.
This idea is frequently challenged by groups who believe that the Kingdom will come by the hands of those faithful to work for a better world. It is believed by these individuals that Jesus’ commands to feed the hungry and clothe the needy are the Kingdom to which he was referring.

SOUL
Spirit Of Universal Law
One Family

Pitted Against Germane Anti Nepotism
Pro – PAGAN – Da
Chain Reaction

Spirit Intent Precedence

Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people
is
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.

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
and
royal prerogatives.

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.

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

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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
Sovereignty
is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.[1]
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,
and
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,
but
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
or
all individual rights.

The functional interpretation of the term
“rule of law”,
consistent with the
traditional English meaning,
contrasts
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”.[24]
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 absolutely.

The ancient concept of rule of law can be distinguished from
rule by law,
according to political science professor Li Shuguang:
“The difference….is 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

2009
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 profession;
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.

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 favor,
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
altering the separation of powers

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105694093/RCMP-Sarge-States-Apparently-I-Thought-Were-Actually-Going-to-Investigate-Government-Corruption-as-Per-Complaint

http://www.scribd.com/doc/140514108/Attorney-General-the-Crown-Independent-Judiciary-the-Rest-Just-de-Facto-Words

An important part of the Crown’s – and thus the Attorney General’s – responsibility in conducting criminal prosecutions is associated with
the responsibility to represent the public interest –
which includes
not only the community as a whole
and
the victim,
but
also the accused.

Conflict of Interest

The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available.
It is now an accepted and important constitutional principle that the Attorney General must carry out the Minister’s criminal prosecution responsibilities independent of Cabinet and of any partisan political pressures. The Attorney General’s responsibility for individual criminal prosecutions must be undertaken – and seen to be undertaken – on strictly objective and legal criteria, free of any political considerations. Whether to initiate or stay a criminal proceeding is not an issue of government policy.
This responsibility has been characterized as a matter of
4
the Attorney General acting as the Queen’s Attorney –

not as a Minister of the government of the day.

the responsibility to represent the public interest –
which includes
1
not only the community as a whole
and
2
the victim,
but
3
also the accused.

 

  1. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.15. (1) Every individual is equal
    before and under the law
    and
    has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law
    without discrimination
    and, in particular,
    without discrimination
    based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age
    or
    mental or physical disability.

Consistency

Consistency in “The Spirit of the Law”=The Spirit of the Golden Rule” is obviously mandatory to meet the terms of the Charter, in particular s. 15.(1) and s.52.(1)

1982 Queen signs the Constitution
Ceding to
The Supremacy Of God

http://www.scribd.com/doc/149878237/They-of-the-Material-World-Cannot-Touch-the-Spirit-of-the-Law-as-It-Is
WW III
Worldly Wise Invisible Invincible Inalienable
http://www.scribd.com/doc/148685029/When-the-Queen-is-Tried-and-Found-to-Be-Criminal-What-Are-Her-Representatives

Conflict of Interest

Attorney General wears far too Many
HATS
Honor Among Thieves

RUNS 13
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.

Admissions
(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).

The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available.

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 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,
is
for the Attorney General and the Crown Attorney.

Wishy Washy Eh!!!

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.

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

Anti-Dog ma
Mongrel 1
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.

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]

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]

Human Achievement
???

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

That would be a Truth Rebellion eh … by public disclosure!!

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]

Constitution Act, 1982
Canadian Charter og Rights and Freedom
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 Rules of Conduct
1.03 f – 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.

Spirit Intent Precedence

Common Knowledge fundamental to Common Sense
Sanity Conducive To
POE
Peace On Earth

The Biggest Lie of All. NASA lies and the Flat Earth


What’s Going On!!!

Fall Of Roman Empire

Frank & Stein 13
vs
Jekyll & Hides


ISOG: In Search Of God