Now, I quote you for a second time. First you say that it's been proved that lawful evil characters do not follow law then you used Bali's character as example.
You know his character wasn't acting as a lawful one and was about to get outcasted, then why the hell do you use it as example of him proving anything?
shrug
Sometimes I can't understand you guys...
I think it's been more or less proved in game that lawful evil does not equate to an evil who pays lip service to the laws but breaks them when they can get away with it. I remember Balinor had a FG warrior with this type of RP and he was constantly being chastised by the Tribunal Imm because of his behavior (just an example, not a diss on that character).
I was using Balinor's example to show that in game, you CANNOT play a lawful evil like he did and get away with it. Because the Immortals of Trib will be angry with you. Maybe I didn't say it in the clearest way, but that's what I meant.
I'll rephrase:
It has been proved in game that you cannot play a lawful evil as a person who breaks the law when they think they will not get caught. As an example, look at Akomak. He did this, and got in trouble from the Tribunal Imms.
That's why the hell I used him as an example to prove something. It seems like he understood my post just fine.
so that means a character that generates a personal set of laws and follows those and not the tribunals would be chaotic rather than lawful. 
Oh Nekky, sorry, my mistake. Hm.... 
Yeah, Akomak was a very difficult character to play, and the only reason I was in Tribunal for so long was because the IMMs that were going to deal with the complaints about me (Anume) never managed to catch up with me in game.
Ditto. But if that happens I think Tribunal would be way too OP. They are the cabal with strongest abilities and that is why they have so many restrictions.
Okay, so even if Lawful Evil means you have to follow Tribunal laws, it doesn't mean you can't find loopholes. I can't quote all the laws off the top of my head, but I don't believe it is against the law to hire criminals or hire people to do criminal acts, nor is it against the law to not report a criminal, nor is it against the law to goad someone into attacking you, etc. Lawful Evils, like the Devils of DnD, follow the letter of the law, not the spirit. They follow so it will protect them and so they can use it against others and because they believe there needs to be order in the world (the spirit of the law is open to too much interpretation, and the best way to use the law against people is to get around the law without actually breaking it, then no one can say their actions are unlawful).
A Lawful Neutral is also likely to follow the letter of the law, but he isn't going to try to find loopholes. Laws are very black and white in his world, and trying to think of ways to avoid them while still following them is out of the question. Only a Lawful Good is going to try to follow the spirit of the law, because he believes in using the law for the good of the people and not for himself or some idea of law and order.
so that means a character that generates a personal set of laws and follows those and not the tribunals would be chaotic rather than lawful.
That's apparently what it means in FL. Chaotic, to me, reads against order, meaning trying to destroy order. A character with his own laws that don't necessarily mesh with those of society reads to me as lawful since he is for order and trying to establish order not destroy it. In his mind, the existing laws are wrong and his are right, and he will not break his own laws but will break the societal laws. Again, though, I'm told this is not the case in FL.
Maybe lawful means something else in RL than in FL.
In german language the equivalent would be "rechtschaffend" wich would translate as lawgenerating rather.
Thats what confused me a while, but i think i got it by now.
A creature generating its own laws that do not fit into the given ones, would generate chaotic system disharmony, so might fit in chaotic ethos FLwise.
Hmm, back when I first started I used to think it'd be interresting if the cabals didn't have such a strict set of rules on ethos/alignment but just on rules and compliance. An example would be a neutral evil joining Tribunal. If he hasn't been going around breaking the law there's not much of a reason for an elder to say no. So said neutral does go up in the ranks, taking bribes as said before and such. He gets caught and bam explusion and outlaw, he doesn't and it opens up an entirely new area of rp where perhaps he ends up as a cruel dictator of law and punishment. I'm wiser now and see how this could cause a lot of potential problems so it'd never be used, but the idea of Syndicate having paid spies in other cabals does still seem interresting.
I really like Peras' view of the whole lawful/evil concept. To me it makes me think of a char who is similar to a cop who isn't a cop to help people but just to have the power and to rule over the masses. Maybe he's too quick with his gun or night stick or is too eager to bust people for petty things. A Lawful/Good would have gotten into enforcing laws in an earnest effort to help people.