WHAT IS THE RULE OF LAW? All kinds of Authorities say it's undefined
- So let's start by looking at recognized and respected definitions

For a general broad interpretation of the term 'rule of law' I went to Wikipedia Encyclopedia] which says: The Rule of Law - in the USA
In its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law
- Thomas Paine stated in his pamphlet Common Sense (1776):
"For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."

In England, the issuing of the Magna Carta was a prime example of the "rule of law." The Great Charter forced King John to submit to the law and succeeded in putting limits on feudal fees and duties.[note: USA spells it in capitals & England doesn't]

Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process
- The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule. Thus, the rule of law is hostile both to dictatorship and to anarchy. Samuel Rutherford was one of the first modern authors to give the principle theoretical foundations, in Lex, Rex (1644), and later Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws

In continental Europe and legal thinking, the rule of law has frequently,
but not always, been associated with a Rechtsstaat.
According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of adherence to the rule of law commonly include 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 /general over-use [end of Wikipedia quotes BUT the whole link is very insightful]
________________________________________________________________

Taken from Official Canadian government web site parl.gc.ca/information/library/idb/forsey/rule_of_law_01-e.asp [my comments are under lined]
The Rule of Law and the Courts  Responsible government and federalism are two cornerstones of our system of government. There is a third, without which neither of the first two would be safe: the rule of law.

What does the rule of law mean? - It means that everyone is subject to the law; that no one, no matter how important or powerful, is above the law not the government; not the Prime Minister, or any other Minister; not the Queen or the Governor General or any Lieutenant -Governor; not the most powerful bureaucrat; not the armed forces; not Parliament, or any province.

The statement is a BIG FAT LIE - Since Brian Mulroney "As Supreme Leader of Parliament " declared that he was now a 'natural person" - just like Henry 8th'
- He took this right by declaring that the Charter was under England's concept of uncodified Parliamentary Supremacy, as opposed to Constitutional law, & the courts agreed with him'

-ALSO: They omit to mention Civil or Municipal authority, in fact under oaths of Office, Mayors or Council are exempt from taking an oath of allegiance to Canada
The Meech Lake Accord declared the 1931 Colonial Act intact, This means City Mayors & their Chief Constable hold powers to arbitrarily impose order under Maritime Jurisdiction
- where they are in law, like the Captain of a ship and they really are above the law
-           This is the foundation of the age old advice of never sue City Hall, because
under Maritime jurisdiction the Mayor is the captain of a ship that is in his harbor.
- Because of The Meech Lake Accord and the 1931 Colonial Act no one in any level of government actually now takes an oath of allegiance to uphold Canada's best interests>
PS: By not taking an oath of allegiance, Authority had nothing to stop them from imposing Irish Home Rule on Canadians, because they're not legally bonded to protect the citizens.
____________________________
BACK TO THE OFFICIAL LINE:
None of these has any powers except those given to it by law: by the Constitution Act, 1867, [which permitted Colonial rule in 1931]
[prior to that we were in what England called the Age of Conquest]

THEN THE DISCLAIMER or its amendments; by a law passed by Parliament or a provincial legislature; or by the common law of England, which we inherited, and which, though 'enormously' modified by our own Parliament or provincial legislatures, remains the basis of our constitutional law and our criminal law, and the civil law (property and civil rights) of the whole country except Quebec (which has its own civil code)
[read  it; [later in this article] this means the rest of us don't have those rights _- NOW - 'enormously modified' is actually an understatement - They trashed it
- Our Constitutional rule of law is 3-lines long - it can't be enormously modified without trashing it?]

BACK TO OFFICIAL TEXT
If anyone were above the law, none of our liberties would be safe         
[NOTE: By starting with a "if' - they are actually confirming that it's happening}
[NOTE:  they also don't say any 'body' is above the rule of law.   
The banksters are a 'body' that have never been under the rule of law] 
What keeps the various authorities from getting above the law, doing things the law forbids, exercising powers the law has not given them?
[Again by asking a question, they imply that the rule of law is being broken]

The courts. If they try anything of the sort, they will be brought up short by the courts
[They are not committing themselves to a statement - just an if]
Nowhere in this Official doc. can I see that the rule of law of our 1867 Constitution applies
The entire article uses these 'what ifs' throughout - it assumes that we think everything is OK.
___________________________________________________________________________
Taken from  http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007002
Rule of Law [Note: it's spelled with capitals - Maritime jurisdiction]
[they are actually quoting the 'Irish Home Rule - Rule of Law']

- The rule of law is an underlying constitutional principle requiring government to be conducted according to law and making all public officers answerable for their acts in the ordinary courts
(see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW).[It should read: see Constitutional law]
[In Canada we have common-law courts - ordinary courts is the term used to rule in Roman slave courts - the term ordinary is not a Canadian term. - These are not type-O's they are telling the truth in legalese
- The principle was perhaps first formally enunciated by Bracton (1250), a judge and early writer on English law, who declared, "The King himself however ought not to be under man, but under God and under the law, for the law makes him king." The term was coined by the English legal scholar Dicey, in his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885).  [Sounds good - BUT NOT after you read this Dicey Study]

They justify their POLICE STATE by quoting from AV Dicey who was a principle author of what's called "the uncodified British constitution'.
__ This is the backbone of a Colonial eugenics policy of "lesser human-being
___in law" and he personally enforced it under Colonial Irish Home Rule.
-__ [in law it's legal because it has some quotable constitutional footing].
BUT look at the source: IN LAW - they're saying that Authority is enforcing a legal doctrine that permits how the English treated the Irish during the potato famine and all kinds of other atrocities - They sight this doctrine in order to legally subject Canadians into being less than human]

IN PERSPECTIVE: This explains every BAD courts ruling AND
It explains all ridiculous ruling made by any bureaucrat or politician
After all we're Officially supposed to be abused like Irish peasants were
NOW - How do they get away with it legally? Thru the courts of course
IN LAW everyone is entitled to a fair trial and everyone gets one BUT
Under Dicey Colonial Rule, we simply are not entitled to a fair ruling
we are all subject to equal treatment of the law - under Dicey's Colonial Rule

NOW at least the Irish knew that their rulers were the enemy - We don't
BECAUSE under Irish HOME Rule, the press is not free to print the truth or anything bad about the Official Government policy of "By the people for the ECONOMY"
BUT - It makes you think... If this policy is so good, then why does it need
Irish Home rule terms of engagement for our Public Officials and police?
- Jefferson coined it well by saying: " Information is the currency of Democracy"

What did we do that was so bad? The answer is nothing
- we're being rule by PERVERT PIGS - While under Dicey's uncodified law
Our Constitutional rule of law is permanently suspended & it's legal and gets more legal with each perverted decision and it can never get better without a rebellion
THIS REVELATION MADE ME CHECK: Every court ruling that I call BAD quotes Dicey in their glossary of legal experts for this ruling, & these pervert judges make a point of saying it's the court's opinion that they are handing down
- not his personal decision - AND everyone of these decision codifies the insanity

CONTRARY TO THE OFFICIAL LINE - For anyone to say that Canada's rule of law is undefined is a liar - They say it's undefined BECAUSE the lie keeps them out of jail.
IN LAW: their argument is THAT: Since the Charter [1982] the courts are re-defining case law to reflect the new Official policy of "By the people for the ECONOMY. by enforcing it thru Irish Home Rule in Canada, AND frankly it's impossible for it to get better when case law precedent must be based on Irish Home Rule law and can never get better BECAUSE
The Charter is re-writing case precedents to reflect our new multi cultural policy of by the people for the ECONOMY
____________________________________________

The only Peaceful solution to the mess is by the BAR rebelling against its Superiors by voting to return to the rule of law in Canada's 1867 Constitution.
All of this INSANITY stops by lawyers voting in to returning to Constitutional law. AND
- it's as easy as when the BAR voted themselves into this mess, by reversing this vote that got them into this mess in 1993
IN ORDER to properly undertake this, the BAR needs to be raised [not razed]
My Act of Supremacy Challenge not only offers a fix but it perfects the form.
to quote Jesus in Luke 21:14But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.

If the Canadian BAR cares not to do this, then all I have to do is file in Quebec
AND I'll them I could call them a people ho are not my people - which is also consistent with Romans 9
The reason for filing there is this is still the rule of law of Quebec - in spite of the rest of Canada

RULE OF LAW [DCL- Dictionary of Canadian law]
- Canada's Officially recognized definition source] - IN LAW the order
of the definition is important. - the 1st holds more status then the next.

[1st definition PREAMBLE] is an honest attempt to make a clear
what was contained in the old-English version [the next - 2nd definition]
The principle of constitutionalism and the rule of law lie at the root of our system of government. The rule of law is a fundamental postulate of our constitutional process. -  At the most basic level, the rule of law vouchsafes to the citizens of a stable, predictable, and orderly society in which to conduct their affairs. It provides a shield to individuals from the arbitrary state action.

[BODY]- First The rule of law provides that the law is supreme over the acts of both the government and private persons,
There is in short, one law for all. Second the rule of law requires the creation and maintenance of an actual body of positive law which preserves and embodies the more general principle of normative order, - A third aspect of the rule of law is
“the exercise of all public power must find its ultimate source in a legal rule”
- Put another way, the relationship between the state and the individual must be regulate by law.  Taken together, these 3 considerations make up a principle of profound constitutional and political significance
NOTE: Reference  source: the Secession Act of Quebec [1998],
[it's not called the we threaten to enact the Sessions Act]
and Officially this rule of law only applies in Quebec - I kid you not:
Quebec had every right to secede from Canada to protect itself from what was done in 1982, under the Meech Lake Accord, which is now the third definition of the rule of law

[2nd definition] - Source BNA Act [1867] PREAMBLE:
A fundamental principle of our Constitution must mean at least 2 things.
 [then it lists 3 things - 1 of those Locke omissions to subvert the form]

[BODY]- First the law is Supreme over the government as well as private individuals, and there by preclusive [barring] of the influence of arbitrary power.  Second the rule of law requires 'the creation' and maintenance of an actual body of positive laws which preserve and embodies the more general principle of normative order.
-   Law and order are indispensable elements of a civilized life

This definition always held the mythical concept of 'Perfection in law'- we simply did not see it.
- This term has always referred to 'the creation and maintenance' as 2 adverbs
- Perfection occurs by recognizing that 'the Creation' is actually a RUBRIC
As to Rom: 6: The very pattern of how you think will be transformed when you get it
As to 1Cor15: Do not be mislead. "Bad company corrupts good character"
Come back to your senses as you ought to, and stop sinning.
For there are some of you who are ignorant to God - I say this to your shame.
_____________________________________________________

[3rd definition] NOTE: the Source [I need to point the obvious - it's not a definition if it starts with a ?]
- Questions Concerning the Amendment of the Constitution of Canada -1981]  
Rule of Law: A highly textured legal instrument importing many things and but conveying, for example, a sense of orderlyness, of subjection to known legal rules and of executive accountability 'to' legal authority [not accountable to the people]
The biggest thing they imported was Dicey's Irish Home Law into Canada
- IN FACT: this rule of law definition is worse than meaningless - there's no accountability to anything but projecting an image of there being accountability,
IN OTHER WORDS it against the law to say or act like things are not in order or be subjected to some known law you broke that will character assassinate you & the truth you were riding on - this rule of law protects Authority from any objecting Official

Frankly, by it being introduced thru the uncodified Constitution the year before the Charter was patriated is a repeat performance of what happened in 1930, when Parliament repealed the crime of Treachery -Just before passing the 1931 Colonial Act
This is not a juggling act - it a jugular attack that defines the nature of THE NEW WORLD ORDER

NOTICE OF LIABILITY: The prophetic warning of being possessed by the spirit of death of Romans 7on is too true
[2Tim 3] says that it can only go from bad to worse. This has every 'thing' to do with 'the vise' itself -   God controls mindsets, and what is obvious to me, is that everytime authority cranks the vise to fix a problem, it creates an equal cranking of brains /ethics [stupor] out from everyone who is 'protected' by the vise
It's actually a prerequisite to CHAOS: an equally creative & destructive force
. 
- The horror of victimizing yourself is well expressed in Rom 7:
14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
[This rut is a fate worse than death - It's why I call oath holders the living dead]

Rom 13: Wake up from your slumber:
for the hour of your salvation is much closer than you 1st thought

Rom 9: 28 - For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth, with speed & finality
To not believe this is the Gentiles and the Jews moment of truth is self fulfilling

[Rom 13: 3] Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.
He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer
[But then: it does not matter if they believe or not because they have absolutely no fear of God] [these perverts think they are God's servants of hate and their god really hates all Canadians ]

Archibald Cox wrote this great legal paper in 1968, just before impeaching Nixon

He wrote it to warn of the civil disobedience that Nixon undertook,
- This paper is one of the most impressive legal papers of the century. It's USA's equivalent to Dicey's legal argument for creating and legalizing 'the American uncodified Constitution. It's laced with really well crafted double talk.

It reads at face value like he's approving the actions of Martin Luther King and is impressed by how much progress to civil rights were done thru peaceful civil disobedience. [which back in 1968 was a totally novel concept in law].
- He sites all the relevant case law and legal arguments to support that there are 3-types of civil disobedience in law: there's legal ways to do it, misdemeanor offense, and outright felony offenses.

What he was doing in Higher Constitutional law was laying out the frame-work
for a CLAIM OF RIGHT and then it took 15 years for judge's sighting this paper in their rulings for all the colorful terms to return to Black's 7th Law Dictionary.
This Dictionary added 5000 new words and every one of these new words needed a case precedent to be there]. it would take a book of that many pages to show the horrible affect that it has had on society. The preface says it was done thru LEXICOGRAPHY

[What is important is these 'colorful terms' were taken out to abolish slavery]
This simply could not happen that quick [or at all] without it being the American BAR that was making a Claim of Right, which would require changing the oath to the BAR [like Canada did in 1993] AND the only solution to the mess we are in is the same, which is to return to upholding Constitution law instead of the uncodified Constitution. AND it can be done by filing a Habeas Corpus on my NWDC Tacoma file and this act of civil disobedience by a lawyer could justified by taking my Act of Supremacy Challenge to the American BAR for a vote. [As to Romans 9] This way I could call you my people who are not my people .

I point to the root cause for this is, in the definition of CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
Civil Disobedience: A deliberate but nonviolent act of lawbreaking to call attention to a particular law or set of laws of questionable legitimacy or morality.
“Social protest and even civil disobedience serve the law’s need for growth.
Ideally, reform would come according to reason and justice without self-help and disturbing, almost violent, forms of protest…. Still, candor compels one here and again to acknowledge the gap between the ideal and the reality. Short of the millennium, sharp changes in the law depend partly upon the stimulus of protest.”
Archibald Cox, Civil Rights, the Constitution, and the Courts,
40 N.Y. State B.J. 161, 169 (1968).

Again I could go on for hours, and have written lots on the fact that this civil disobedience was being done to show how evil evil can get, in order to tear it all down. The easiest way to show this is with the closing statement of Civil Rights, the Constitution and the Courts .

To prove my point: I will ask you to change the original version by one-word,
The word is damage and the whole message changes by repair.
He was outlining what Nixon was destroying and basing it on the only legal argument left, which can be found in Romans 3 of "What if we do evil so that good can result".

Possibly there are a few rare occasions on which this goal would be so important and so plainly right as to outweigh the price which a challenge to the rule of law exacts from the community. I know of none today. The argument is probably strongest where one refuses to do what he believes is a direct moral wrong to others.
- In all other cases, it would seem to me that the man who is willing to damage /repair the processes of constitutionalism, which guarantee liberty and the chance of repeated change without force, in order to impose his views upon society, must be either particularly self-confident or extremely shortsighted.
Even when the wrong is not the challenge to existing society.

Past generations have made a mess of things, ours no less than our fathers’.
- The hope of mankind is always that a new generation may begin to make the world over quickly. The wrong, in the simplest terms, is the damage to the foundation upon which rests the best, if not the only real, opportunity for the making-over.

REPENT OF PERISH“One cost we pay for all civil disobedience is the heavy damage it does to the principle of government by consent of the governed
- A principal which is the surest guarantee of individual liberty devised by man”- Archie. Cox: 
- The only Peaceful solution to the mess we are in is thru the BAR rebelling against their new oath.
Frankly - in the end - the only way the make-over can be quick is for Love to Conquer all