Sincerely, the combination of legal-instrument technicality with repetitive idiomatic expressions which characterises your diction is, to say the least, disconcerting. I find myself thinking wut? (sorry, what?) as in, what does this mean, what is Cat driving at?

An example that I think (could be wrong) is central to what you're saying here is this:

Reportage alleging "rule of law," procedural or criminal conduct, does not demonstrably rely on relevant code as enacted by HoC...

UK yella sheet amateur and expert opinion, however, proceeds to "criminalize"...

Does this (my comment here) fall under those headings:

A former Supreme Court justice has also said it would not be legal for Boris Johnson to apply for a Brexit extension while simultaneously trying to get the EU to reject it in a second letter.

Lord Sumption was asked if it would be legal for the PM to do so.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "No, of course it wouldn't. The Bill, or Act as it's about to become, says that he's got to apply for an extension. Not only has he got to send the letter, he's got to apply for an extension.

"To send the letter and then try to neutralise it seems to me, plainly, a breach of the Act. What you've got to realise is the courts are not very fond of loopholes."

That's verbatim commentary, unsullied by journalism yellow or otherwise,  from one of Britain's highest authorities on the law. The form letter is presumably there to prevent any chicanery in the expression of the application, but the essential point is that the PM must apply for an extension.

As for the legitimacy of a law that lays an obligation on the executive, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, that you so rightly draw our attention to, abounds in instances of obligation: "a Minister of the Crown must... A Minister of the Crown must... A Minister of the Crown must...". In the case of the newly enacted law, we have

"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an
extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union
ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the
European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act
requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020."

What exactly is wrong with suggestions that the PM would be breaking the law if he (as he has publicly stated he will) refused to comply with this obligation? Is the Act itself corrupt and incapable of withstanding scrutiny in the courts, or does the PM, in your reading, simply have the power to do as he wishes without consequences? If you see a weakness or loophole in the Act, please share!

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen