What is the difference between legal and lawful?

The conversation between legal and lawful activities is not a very common one but absolutely demands some attention as your freedom literally depends on the proper understanding of this information. In our every day lives, we refer to everything as the law. If you get pulled over for speeding, it’s because you “broke the law.” If you didn’t pay your “fair share” of income taxes, you “broke the law” and will have to pay plus fees & applicable interest. If you “jay-walk” across the street, you’ve “broken the law.” You get the idea. Well, the problem with that phrase is that we aren’t taught what the law is or what it does.

I remember in school having extensive conversations in history classes about the constitution and what it says, what people think it means, that it’s the “law of the land,” and many more hours regarding any and every topic one can imagine surrounding the Constitution for the United States of America. This is where part of the confusion stems within the public education system as they’re correct that the Constitution is most certainly the “law of the land.” However, that phrase doesn’t apply to just any piece of “legislation” put on the books as most people believe is the case. We’re not taught that the law is not everything that’s on the books today. Most would be surprised to know that most of what people refer to as law is far from it. The law according to the founding fathers, law dictionaries, and the Supreme Court, is defined as follows:

COURT OF LAW – In a wide sense, any duly constituted tribunal administering the laws of the state or nation; in a narrower sense, a court proceeding according to the course of the common law and governed by its rules and principles, as contrasted with a “court of equity.” – Blacks Law 2nd Edition (1910)

COURT OF RECORD – See court – Blacks Law 2nd Edition (1910)

COURT – Equity courts and law courts; the former being such as possess the jurisdiction of a chancellor, apply the rules and principles of chancery law, and follow the procedure in equity; the latter, such as have no equitable powers, but administer justice according to the rules and practice of the common law.

COMMON LAW. 1. As distinguished from the Roman law, the modern civil law, the canon law, and other systems, the com- mon law is that body of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed, and formulated and is administered in England, — and has obtained among most of the states and peoples of Anglo-Saxon stock. Lux ¢. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. 674.

2. As distinguished from law created by the enactment, of legislatures. the common law comprises the body. of those principles and rules of action, relating to the govern- mert and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 181 U. 8S. 92, 21 Sup. Ct. 561, 45 L. Kd. 765;-State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 365, 9 Am. Dec. 584;. Lux vy. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. 674; Barry v. Port Jer- vis, 64 App. Div. 268, 72 N. Y. Supp. 104.

3. As distinguished from equity taw, it 1s a body of rules and principles, written or un- written, which are of fixed and immutable authority, and. which must be applied to con- troversies rigorously and in their entirety, and cannot be modified to suit the peculiari- ties of a specific case, or colored by any Judi- cial discretion, and which rests confessedly. upon custom or statute, as distinguished from any claim to ethical superiority. Kle- ver v. Seawall, 65 Fed. 395, 12 C. C. A. 661.

4. As distinguished from ecclesiastical law, it is the system of jurisprudence adminis- tered by the purely secular tribunals.

5. AS concerns its force and authority in the United States, the phrase designates that portion of the common law of England (in- cluding such. acts of parliament as were ap- plicable) which had been adopted and was in force here at the time of the Revolution. This, so far as it has not since been expressly abrogated, is recognized as an organic part of the jurisprudence of most of the United States. Browning v. Browning, 3 N. M. 371, 9 Pac. 677; Guardians of Poor v. Greene, 5 Bin. (Pa.) 557; U. S. ve. New Bedford Bridge, 27 Fed. Cas. 107.

6. In a wider sense than any of the fore- going, the “common law” may designate all that part of the positive law, juristic theory, and ancient custom of any state or nation which is of general and universal applica- tion, thus marking off special or local rules or customs.
As a compound adjective “common-law” Is understood as contrasted with or opposed to “statutory,” and sometimes also to “equi- table” or to “criminal.”

All of that being said, the law is upheld by courts of record (all courts in America) which are courts of law or defined as “courts” which follow the common law which is the opposite of statute. So, the next time you have a conversation about law, make sure and use the word “common law” and correct everyone who things that it’s in reference to all the statutes on the books today. Now you know what courts are SUPPOSED to do and that they’re lawfully duty bound to follow the LAW, what is the “legal” system?

You guessed it. The opposite of the law. Statutes. Statutes is interestingly defined within the definition of “common law” on Cornell Law’s website. In the second paragraph, first sentence, it clearly states that statutes are meant to “…codify common law rules from the courts of their state, either to give the rule the permanence afforded by a statute, to modify it somehow (by either expanding or restricting the scope of the common law rule, for example) or to replace the outcome entirely with legislation.” They claim that statutes main achievement is to offer permanence to common law court decisions, yet, that’s not what we see when reading most if not all statutes. The statutes on the books generally replace the outcome entirely completely abrogating the common law which is unconstitutional because all legislation is to be in harmony with the constitution which is the embodiment of the common law. The legal system is statutes which are in opposition to the common law.

Courts have always maintained that in order to be held liable for your actions under statute, you have to be named in the statute. Interestingly enough, the only thing liable in statute (nearly 99.9% of them) is a “person.” A person is only defined as an “Individual, corporation, trust, estate, co-partnership, etc…” Those are all versions of corporations. The individual throws people because they think that it refers to a human because in common language, we refer to ourselves and other people as persons or individuals all the time. An individual is a sole proprietor LLC. Not a flesh and blood human being. There’s a maxim of law (rule) called “ejustem generis.” This means that anything contained within a list (noted by the word “means” or “including”) must be of like things. You can’t have a list defining different types of road vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles, etc…) and also have a submarine, airplane, or time traveling device. Those are not the same kinds of things as cars, trucks, and motorcycles. Therefore, since all of the things within the list of a “person” are all types of corporations, it has to be fact that the “individual” is also a type of corporation. I don’t know about you, but, that doesn’t apply to me.

So do lawyers practice law? No. Law school doesn’t even teach statute in most cases. It teaches court procedure mostly. There also is no license to become a lawyer as commonly claimed incorrectly. There is not a single statute on the books for any state that says you have to have a license to be a “lawyer.” More accurately termed an “attorney.” The “license” they’re referring to is a BAR card which is no different than a club access card. All courts have maintained that it is your right and duty to practice law constantly. As was recently discovered, you have to have a “BAR card” to practice within the legal sphere, but it is your right and duty to practice law within the lawful sphere. In fact, we do this daily and don’t even know it. Every time a debt collector or utility company contacts you, you’re technically in court. The physical court will recognize your efforts on paper as the majority of the process to be held in court should you seek the courts “approval” to do something. They will tell you to complete your administrative process, then come to the court and seek a tribunal’s decision regarding your claim. You are administering your court when you correspond with any corporation attempting to contract with you.

According to the definitions listed above from Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition (1910), when you go to court for a speeding ticket, are you in the proper court? A court of record has a tribunal independent of the magistrate and proceeds according to the common law. In order for there to be a suit at common law, there must be an injured party. That party cannot be a piece of paper (corporation). When you were stopped for speeding, who was the injured party? The ticket and or suit against your person will say “CITY OF ______” or “STATE OF ________.” It will never say another humans name. This is statutory suit because any attorney will tell you that when you violate a statute, the “law itself is the damaged party.” This is no joke. It is claiming that the statute that was broken is now claiming damages against you. How can a piece of paper claim an action against you? It can’t Unless you allow it. When you’re in this “court” (commonly referred to as a kangaroo court), does the magistrate (erroneously referred to as a “judge”) make decisions for you from the bench? Of course they do. This is treason. The magistrate is absolutely operating in a court of record which we now know is a court in which there are no statutes and the magistrate is independent of the tribunal. Meaning, the magistrate can’t rule from the bench. He/she is only there to make sure the proceedings continue civilly and according to court rules of procedure. That’s it. If they make determinations for you or against you without you having waved your right to a tribunal, then they are committing treason and you’re not in a proper court. You’re in an admiralty/legal court in which you are being judged according to statute. The problem with this is that admiralty jurisdiction requires a contract to be entered into by both knowing and willing parties and can only have jurisdiction over international contracts.

The so called government has pulled a fast one on you and have likely been victim of extortion, racketeering, and maybe even kidnapping on behalf of corporate police officers and or other agents/agencies of the corporation in which you domicile. The good news is, the law offers you remedy through damages via holding these people accountable personally absent their public “qualified immunity.” They violated your rights, therefore, there’s nothing they can hide behind to face justice regarding their treasonous actions. After all, every single “government” employee swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. That means they swore an oath to protect and defend your rights. When they fail, you have great power to deal with their abrogation of your rights through the courts and, in my opinion, a great duty to administer the courts in defense of your rights. Failure to hold our employees accountable is the sole reason we are in the situation we’re currently in.

As a sovereign, knowing the difference between your straw man and your flesh and blood self is of the utmost importance and being able to defend either of those hinges solely on your understanding of the difference between what is legal and what is lawful. Your future physical and financial freedom quite literally depends on this understanding.

Until next time, stay free and keep learning!