Nov 022013

Surveillance Is only for Peons

The political class will not be spied on


We’re supposed to believe BORG President Obama had no idea the NSA was spying on Angela Merkel’s cell phone, but the Liar-and-Thief was effectively refuted by his own underlings when NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines huffily told the Wall Street Journal:

“The agency’s activities stem from the National Intelligence Priorities Framework, which guides prioritization for the operation, planning and programming of U.S. intelligence analysis and collection.”

The NIPF is essentially a list of intelligence targets that sets the general parameters of US covert surveillance activities in various countries, and is personally approved by the President. It’s therefore well nigh impossible Obama didn’t know about the NSA’s surveillance of Merkel, not to mention all the other world leaders we’ve been keeping tabs on. It may very well be that spying on Merkel began in 2002, before she was elected, but the German paper Bild am Sonntag – citing a “U.S. intelligence worker involved in the NSA operation against Merkel” – is reporting the President personally approved the surveillance in 2010, when he was informed of it by NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander.

It’s fun to watch the consternation in Obama-land as the blowback from the Snowden revelations lands on Washington’s doorstep in the form of angry phone calls from world leaders. Of course, most of them were to some extent complicit when the NSA wanted to spy on their countrymen: in Germany, the intelligence services cooperated with the Americans, as the Brits certainly did, along with the French. It’s just that they thought they were personally exempt.

Their outrage is echoed by BORG Sen. Dianne Feinstein, once the Senate’s biggest champion of the BORG Surveillance State, who is now on the warpath because of the Merkel eavesdropping scandal. After announcing she is “totally opposed” to NSA spying on our European allies, she declared her intention to conduct a comprehensive formal review of US intelligence-gathering programs.

While many commentators remarked that if the NSA has even lost Feinstein they’re screwed, the oddity of her unexpectedly harsh reaction was pointed out by Spencer Ackerman and Dan Roberts writing in the UK Guardian: “Her position,” they noted, “left many longtime intelligence observers puzzled. NSA spying on foreign leaders is far more traditional than its domestic bulk collection, which Feinstein has not criticized. Regardless of Feinstein’s motivations, intelligence veterans seemed to understand that the political momentum is not on their side.”

Yes, but what is her motivation, anyway? It seems to me worthwhile pursuing the subject, since, if the US intelligence apparatus has any legitimacy at all, it’s one legitimate function is to haul in intelligence of this very sort. Surely knowing what’s on the mind of a leader we must deal with regularly is almost a prerequisite for a successful relationship, one that’s in the national interest to maintain. In this realpolitik sense, then, it is routine – or “traditional,” as Ackerman and Roberts put it – and arguably justifiable.

Surveillance Is for Peons ONLY!

Sep 182013

The Constitution and the 3 Organic Laws

Introduction to the new Constitutional Law and welcome to the revised Basic Course in Law and Government

It is my pleasure, as Founder of the Organic Laws Institute, to present this short introduction to Constitutional Law as viewed
through the prism of the other three Organic Laws of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 and the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787.  This introduction has been especially written for the student new to the concept of the strict separation of written law from unwritten law for a more accurate study of law and government.

I can begin this introduction, appropriately, with the devious Preamble to the Constitution of September 17, 1787, the unofficial beginning of the last of the four Organic Laws, because I started my basic research into the much easier to understand transition of the federal courts in territories as those territories were admitted into the Confederacy, the United States of America, under the authority of the Articles of Confederation.  That research established that none of the federal courts have been ordained and established as judicial courts-they were merely legislated into existence. That research was easy compared to unraveling the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The court research was easily confirmed by the way the Constitution of September 17, 1787 treated the alleged highest officer of the alleged highest federal court-the Chief Justice. The only duty imposed on the Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 Chief Justice is stated as follows: “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”  Clause 7 of Section 3 of the first Article then makes it clear that Impeachment is a non-judicial proceeding resulting only in removal from office. It was now apparent to me that the Constitution was not what everyone believes it to be. Almost every natural born American believes he or she to be a Citizen of the United States and a member of the posterity of “We the People of the United States,” and that conclusion is exactly the misconception Gouverneur Morris was after when he wrote the Preamble. Gouverneur Morris is widely credited with writing other parts of the Constitution of September 17, 1787; he is one of only five men to sign both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Gouverneur Morris knew both documents so well he managed to write one sentence that has fooled billions.

The language in the Preamble is some of the most duplicitous ever written yet every word has some truth in it.  The phrase, “We the People of the United States” in the Preamble to the Constitution of September 17, 1787, is never properly interpreted to mean the free inhabitants of the United States of America, who have become Citizens of one of the two kinds of States of United States of America. The accuracy of that interpretation is proven by asking, where do the people in the nine Article VII Conventions come from? Here’s how to make the constitutional connection between, “We the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” to the People meeting for “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”  “We the People of the United States” and the “Conventions of nine States” are the same “People”.  Free inhabitants had given up their freedom to become Citizens of the United States, just so they could vote in favor of State ratification of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, Taking on the mantle of citizenship may not have been much of a burden in 1787, but it has grown to be quite a hardship today.

Article IV of the Articles of Confederation secures to the free inhabitants of the several States of the United States of America the right to live free of government without any loss of the privileges and immunities of State citizenship:

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them.

When a free inhabitant becomes a Citizen of one of the two Unions that free inhabitant suffers a net loss in freedom, which is worse if the non-perpetual Union is picked.  The original stated purpose and intent of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 was to make revisions to the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, which would make the administration of the Northwest Territory more efficient.  This was, of course, a subterfuge to hide a government power grab led by George Washington and supported by both the States and the federal government. Both the federal and State governments were becoming painfully aware that unless uprisings such as Shays Rebellion were ended permanently and soon every State and local government would be in danger of collapse.  In the end the Articles of Confederation were revised by the misrepresentation that the Constitution created a “more perfect Union” that Union was first created as a not so perfect temporary one by the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787.

Now, practically every American believes himself or herself to be among “We the People of the United States,” the “more perfect Union,” without realizing that by being one of the “People of the United States” much freedom is lost.  Because of the complexity written law, hardly anyone knows the Articles of Confederation have not been replaced or repealed.  The perpetual Union of States of the United States of America bound to Article IV of the Articles of Confederation is dormant not dead.  My Organic Law Institute can help you awaken the sleeping giant, the United States of America. President George W. Bush was briefed “the Constitution is just a piece of paper.”  The Organic Law Institute will provide you with the legal education, so you can prove that and much more.

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

Ed Rivera’s mailing list

Jun 072013

Thomas Jefferson was a remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.

At 5, began studying under his cousin’s tutor.

At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.

At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.

At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.

At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.

At 23, started his own law practice.

At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.

At 31, wrote the widely circulated “Summary View of the Rights of British America and retired from his law practice.

At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.

At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.

At 33, took three years to revise Virginia’s legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.

At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.

At 40, served in Congress for two years.

At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.

At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.

At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.

At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.

At 57, was elected the third president of the United States.

At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation’s size.

At 61, was elected to a second term as President.

At 65, retired to Monticello.

At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.

At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.

At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams.

Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:

John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: “This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

Thomas Jefferson Quotes

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property – until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.

And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter.

In matters of style, swim with the current; In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.

The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.

When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.

Liberty is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both in proportion as it is free.

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

In a government bottomed on the will of all, the…liberty of every individual citizen becomes interesting to all.

I’m a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it.

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.

The right of self-government does not comprehend the government of others.

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.

History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.

If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.

It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father.

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.

The man who reads nothing at all is better than educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.

In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to Liberty.

Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

The Bill of Ethics


The Bill Of Ethics


The following Bill of Ethics was written by Robert Podolsky and Gregory Sulliger in 1993. It is an interpretation and extension of the work of John David Garcia, as presented so thoroughly and clearly in his book, Creative Transformation.

Organizations of all types can use it to amend or define their founding constitutions or by-laws.


We, the undersigned officers constituting a quorum of (Name of Organization)___________________________ do hereby adopt the following “Bill of Ethics” as the highest priority policy for governing all our future actions and procedures, both in our dealings with those outside our organization and in our relationships with members and/or employees within our ranks. Henceforth all other written and unwritten rules of conduct for persons associated with this organization shall be understood, reinterpreted, or if need be revised to conform to the definitions and principles stated in this Bill of Ethics.

ARTICLE 1: Philosophy & Rationale of This Bill of Ethics

1.1 WHEREAS this organization exists for the pursuit of ethical purposes by ethical means;

1.2 WHEREAS the charter of this organization establishes the right of its officers to alter and reform governing policies as they may think proper; and

1.3 WHEREAS the officers and members and of this organization have expressed their belief that the establishment of a Bill of Ethics would substantially promote the rights and well-being of all who come in contact with this organization;

1.4 THEREFORE the policy of this organization is hereby amended, this Bill of Ethics being appended thereto.

ARTICLE 2: Definitions

2.1 We believe it to be self evident that people are neither “good” nor “evil” except as their acts are “good” or “evil”

2.2 And that a person’s actions are “good” (or equivalently “just” or “ethical”) if they increase the creativity of at least one person, including the person acting, without limiting or diminishing the creativity of any person, including the person acting.

2.3 Since creativity is the product of ethical awareness and intelligence (as symbolized by the equation: C = EI) there are two ways an act may increase creativity.

2.3.1 An act may increase creativity by increasing someone’s ethical awareness, degree of personal evolution, love, and/or growth, these creativity enhancers being logical equivalents of one another, in that any act which increases one of them must necessarily increase the others, and vice-versa;

2.3.2 An act may increase creativity by increasing the intelligence of any person who uses their intelligence creatively rather than destructively; where access to objective truth, access to energy, and freedom are enhancers of intelligence, since they increase one’s ability to predict and control the environment or to initiate and maintain causal relationships between events in the observable world.

2.4 The lists of equivalent creativity enhancers given above are incomplete. There may in fact be an unlimited number of such equivalencies that apply. Hereinafter we shall use the words, “ethical awareness” to include all of its logical equivalents, and the word “intelligence” to similarly encompass all of its logical equivalents. The word “creativity” will be used to encompass both the preceding sets of resources, the distinctions between the two sets being duly noted.

2.5 From the preceding it follows logically that it is ethical to limit or reduce a person’s intelligence in order to stop or prevent that person from acting destructively (unethically). This is generally accomplished ethically by limiting or reducing that individual’s access to intelligence enhancers.

2.6 Where by “person” is meant any being having awareness of its own awareness… thus excluding those lower forms of life whose actions are merely “natural”; and to whom this Bill of Ethics does not apply.

2.7 And acts which limit or reduce another person’s creativity (or any of the equivalent resources listed in Section 2.2 above) are – with the exception explained in Section 2.5 above – generally “bad”, or equivalently “evil”, “unethical”, or “entropic”

2.8 And further, that good and evil acts by aware beings fall on an ethical continuum… where the best (most ethical)acts are those which contribute the most to the evolution of an individual or a group… and the worst (most unethical) are those which most increase the entropy (chaos or disorder) thereof;

2.9 And still further, that acts which are not “ethical” according to Section 2.2 above and which are not “unethical” according to Section 2.7 above may be said to be “ethically neutral”, “innocent”, “trivial”, or merely “natural”.

ARTICLE 3: Principles

3.01 From the foregoing self-evident truths we infer that to act ethically each person must do his/her utmost to maximize creativity and its equivalents;

3.02 That ethical actions always increase someone’s creativity;

3.03 And that ethical actions never destroy, limit, or diminish anyone’s creativity except as described in Section 2.5 above.

3.04 And from the foregoing we infer that unethical means can never achieve ethical ends… this principle rejecting the notion that we can ethically sacrifice the creativity of the individual for the “greater good” of society, the “many”, and so forth; from which it follows that:

3.05 Unethical means always produce unethical results (ends); trivial means always produce trivial results at best; and similarly

3.06 Means which are not ethical ends in themselves are never ethical;

3.07 From the foregoing it is also apparent that inaction is unethical. Creativity cannot be passively expanded or increased… this must be done actively to overcome entropic destruction inherent in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This principle is basically equivalent to the adage that, “For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.”

3.08 It also follows that it is unethical to tolerate unethical behavior. To do so is to violate Section 3.07 above. For this reason we are ethically bound to defend ourselves and others actively against injury or deceit when we or they are imminently imperiled by another’s unethical behavior; from which:

3.08.1 It follows that it is unethical to augment the creativity of anyone whom one reasonably believes will use such augmented resources unethically… and it is therefore ethical to withhold the augmentation of creative resources from anyone whose ethical commitment one reasonably distrusts; and furthermore:

3.09 It is ethical to learn and unethical to be certain. When we close our minds on a subject we cease to learn… to increase our own awareness and creativity. Learning always increases creativity; and

3.10 It is ethical to doubt. Ceasing to have doubts about a subject we become certain about it and have ceased to learn. Doubts create new questions …some of which yield new answers. Doubt is one of the cornerstones of creativity.

ARTICLE 4: Laws, Rules And Regulations
Compatible With This Bill of Ethics

4.1 Be it understood that the proper role of an organization’s laws, rules and regulations is to empower those people acting singly or in concert who would embrace the foregoing Definitions and Principles set forth in Articles 2 and 3 above and who are willing to make the moral commitment to live their lives as ethically as they can… as suggested by Section 3.01.

4.2 And it is also the proper role of laws, rules and regulations to prohibit, by the most ethical means possible, any actions which are unethical as defined above.

4.3 Nor is it ever the proper role of rules and regulations to intrude, coerce, or interfere, in the lives of any people except as is truly necessary in order to accomplish the aims of Sections 4.1 and 4.2 above …such intrusion even then to be that which is minimally required.

4.4 Moreover, whenever the laws, rules and regulations of an organization are in conflict with said Definitions and Principles the ethics shall prevail …the rules being deemed to exist solely as the servant of the ETHICS, the latter being always superior to the rules.

4.5 RESPONSIBILITY for actions: Under the aegis of ethical rules and regulations compatible with this Bill of Ethics:

4.5.1 All people are responsible for their own actions and the consequences which result from those actions. In determining who shall bear the burden of financial or other costs when someone’s actions result in harm to another person, ultimate (though not sole or total) responsibility rests with the individual who had the last available opportunity to prevent such undesirable effects from occurring.

4.5.2 Also, responsibility under ethical rules is not mitigated by the failure of an individual to understand, comprehend, rationalize, or anticipate the consequences of his or her acts… except as such failure may alter the availability of opportunities to prevent harm from occurring.

4.5.3 In any case, persons who enact harm on others in a self-induced state of mental incompetence (e.g. intoxicated) may still be required to bear the costs of the consequences of their actions when the act of inducing such incompetence was the chronologically last opportunity anyone had to prevent the unethical act from being performed.

4.5.4 Harm enacted by one person on another is solely justifiable when necessary in self or another’s defense against the person harmed.

ARTICLE 5: Cooperation of Officials

5.1 NON-INTERFERENCE: No elected or appointed Official, officer, or employee shall take direct or indirect action or exert direct or indirect influence which would result in the circumvention, deflection, abrogation, evasion of or interference with the purpose of this Bill of Ethics.

5.2 PENALTY:Any person found to be violating Section 5.1 above shall be reprimanded or removed from their position office or appointment as determined by the authority cited below.

5.3 JURISDICTION: Jurisdiction for purposes of this Bill of Ethics, shall be with the board of directors of this organization.

ARTICLE 6: Previously Existing Rules And Policies

6.1 CONFORMITY: Henceforth all the rules, regulations, and policies of this organization, whether they originate at board, executive, managerial, supervisory level or below shall be brought into compliance with this Bill of Ethics within (time period)__________of this date

6.2 Wherever this amendment conflicts with or contradicts other rules, regulations, or policies, be they written or unwritten, this measure shall supersede and take precedence over the other, it being the ultimate touchstone for valid procedural regulation throughout this organization.

Officers’ Signatures:                    Date:


______________________________    __________

______________________________    __________

______________________________    __________

______________________________    __________
The foregoing Bill of ethics is intended for the formal use of contracts, bylaws, and constitutions – legal purposes generally. the Bill of Ethics embodied in the Titanian Code of Honor. Meanwhile, as Paragraph 3.05 above indicates, ethical ends can never be achieved by unethical means. Since this is counter-intuitive for many readers, we need to look more closely at the relationship between ethical means and ethical ends.