Legal vs Law

Legal vs LawLegal vs Law -The Question

Lately I’ve come under attack again because of my opinions and advice regarding how one should conduct themselves in court. Mostly regarding the “legal name” issue in my video Do NOT refuse to be recognized as a legal person in court. Most of the attacks come in the version of “there’s a difference between Legal vs Law and I acknowledge that fact. The question is do these people making these statements themselves understand what the Law is and how it applies to them?

It would appear that in most cases they do not as they can never give a sufficient response to the Legal vs Law debate when challenged. Most people argue that they wish to be ruled by “Common Law” and evidence shows they have no real clue as to what that is either. Some even claim they wish to be ruled by “Natural Law” but again demonstrate a lack of comprehension. I suppose the real question is what Law do they wish to be governed by and do they have a choice?

Common Law – What is it?

 Here is the Dictionary.com definition of Common Law

common-law

 [komuh n-law]
adjective

1.of, relating to, or established by common law:

a common-law spouse.
Origin of common-law
1905-1910

First recorded in 1905-10

common law –  noun

1. the system of law originating in England, as distinct from the civil or Roman law and the canon or ecclesiastical law.
2. the unwritten law, especially of England, based on custom or court decision, as distinct from statute law.
3. the law administered through the system of courts established for the purpose, as distinct from equity or admiralty.
Origin
Middle English word dating back to 1300-50
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2017.
Cite This Source
British Dictionary definitions for common-law

common law – noun

1. the body of law based on judicial decisions and custom, as distinct from statute law
2. the law of a state that is of general application, as distinct from regional customs
3.(modifier) common-law. denoting a marriage deemed to exist after a couple have cohabited for several years: common-law marriage, common-law wife
Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
© William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012
Cite This Source
Word Origin and History for common-law

common law  n.

mid-14c., “the customary and unwritten laws of England as embodied in commentaries and old cases” (see common (adj.)), as opposed to statute law. Phrase common law marriage is attested from 1909.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source
common-law in Culture

common law definition

Law developed in the course of time from the rulings of judges, as opposed to law embodied in statutes passed by legislatures ( statutory law ) or law embodied in a written constitution (constitutional law). ( See stare decisis.)

Note : The importance of common law is particularly stressed in the legal system of Britain, on which the legal system of the United States is based.

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Now this may seem all a bit confusing but let me summarize it for you. Common Law is the random decisions made by other people, Judges and Juries, based on their opinions and interpretations of what is right. It’s NOT The Creator’s Law. Statutory Law is defined as follows:

statutory law – noun

1.the written law established by enactments expressing the will of the legislature, as distinguished from the unwritten law or common law.
Also called statute law.
Origin of statutory law
1875-1880

First recorded in 1875-80

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2017.
Cite This Source
statutory law in Culture
statutory law [( stach -uh-tawr-ee)]
A law or group of laws passed by a legislature or other official governing bodies. ( Compare common law.)
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

So what is the difference really? One is the Law created by Legislature, a group of people trying to decide what is moral and right, the other is Law decided by a person or group of people trying to decide what is moral and right. BOTH ARE MADE UP BY PEOPLE so there is NO REAL DIFFERENCE. People who claim they wish to be treated by Common Law when they are accused of traffic violations claiming they have no “contract” with the state/crown are asking for what can not be done. Traffic violations, prohibition violations, etc. are not Common Law and can’t be decided under those laws. The ONLY thing a Common Law court can decide in these matters is whether or not the accusatory court/prosecutor has jurisdiction on the matter and the obvious and blatant fact of that is that Yes they do have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Contract Law

This post is getting longer than I already wanted so I will be brief on this point. Contract Law is Law regarding agreements between people. They could be written or oral and the former is preferred for both parties to be able to prove their claim should one arise. There are various components of Contract Law and you can learn about them here if you wish.

Legal vs Law Revisited

All of the above “Laws” are factually dealt with within the Legal system. If you cannot competently function within the legal world I strongly suggest that you hire someone who can be it a lawyer or other counsel. Further I advise you to stay away from foolish “I’m a man not a legal fiction” or Solutions In Commerce (SIC, MIC) claims as they have no real basis in law regarding these matters.

Yes they may be using you “legal name” to address you but you need that name to also defend yourself. They are NOT accusing a  legal fiction of committing a violation, they are accusing the (WO)MAN of the violation and the only defense you have is that of jurisdiction. What legal right do they have to accuse and punish you for your actions. Marc Stevens is very good at these points for those in the US and McKinney v. University of Guelph is a good inquiry for those on Canada. The latter is a legal decision that I have never received a reply to merely withdrawal of charges or appeal-able “Because I said so” answers.

Legal vs Law – Natural or God’s Law

Many claimants state that they hold to Natural Law or God’s Law and claim no man has a right to punish them. That is a gross error demonstrating their lack of knowledge and understanding of the Hermetic Principles (Natural/God’s Laws) and how they apply. I can’t get into the full details here but suffice it to say that when faced with a fine or prison term vs the punitive consequences of Natural Law the former is likely to be better for you.

Under Natural Law when one harms another the injured party has the Natural Right to take whatever action they deem appropriate to compensate for the damages. That includes confiscating the offender’s property including life should they see fit. Example: If your running a stop light results in another person’s death then Natural Law would dictate that your life be sacrificed as punishment. A short prison term of 10 – 20 years for manslaughter may seem preferable to you in this case.

Legal vs Law – Do You Have a Choice?

Now based on my statement above some might think that I believe we have a choice in the matter which Laws we choose to follow and that we can hold to legal decisions (man-made laws) as an escape from the Laws of God, or Nature if you prefer. That Legal vs Law is an option for man. That is not the case. I have spent decades researching and discovering the Laws of the Universe through many traditions including but not limited to the Occult, Christianity, Philosophy and more. I have studied, not read but actually studied, many documents including the Torah, all the Books of the Bible, Manly P. Hall and Anton LeVay to name a few.

The short answer is that when you truly comprehend these Laws that many people claim to want to hold to, you quickly realize that you have no choice. They are not optional and you can not escape their consequences. The Laws of God are immutable, they are infallible and violating them has great consequences that those who have eyes to see witness going on all around the globe. The results are wars, famine and disease to name a few. They are the results of people not living moral and just lives in accordance with understanding the Law. They are the results of greed and desire for self above all and the lack of consideration for the fact that we are all a part of the All and cannot escape that fact.

The Solution

Unless and until people begin to realize that and stop arguing among each other trying to find and secure this Natural God given freedom which is our Right we will continue down this path of destruction to the end. I have no concern for the future of this planet as I know, like George Carlin said, it will  shake us off like a bad case of fleas. Does that mean we won’t destroy life on this planet? No it does not. Man has already done much to that end and continues in the interests of false gods. Gods like authority and money to name just two of the greatest of them.

We must stop this bickering among ourselves. We must stop believing in the duality of existence. There is no Legal vs Law, there is no us and them, there is no black and white, and there is no love and hate. Fear is the opposite of love and fear of what we do not understand is causing this horror show called consciousness. End the fear of that which cannot hurt you and fear That which can. Learn the truths of the Universe and be at one with it. The more people that do that the weaker the evil that permeates this existence will become until it dies of a slow eventual death and the world can once again begin to heal itself.
– Rob

About Rob

I have over 10 years experience assisting people at looking at their problems and shifting focus so that they can begin to resolve the issues at hand. I don't "practice" psychological principles or homeopathic disciplines, I actually help real people learn how to shift their focus and see things in a different light. A light where they have the power and ability to resolve their issues practically and successfully.
Bookmark the permalink.

4 Comments

  1. if legal was the same as lawful they would be spelled the same – that which is unlawful can never be legal – that which is lawful is lawful from the beginning – common law goes way back before england and its legal system -the highest law on this land is common law and the customs of the people – legal is just the colour of law that might change with the change of the administration that serves the public – the law is forever and does not change – on this land, no victim no crime, UNLESS, YOU scribe to a certain society and act under said society[s] dictatorship, [authority;]; on this land everything your government offers is voluntary, [a benefit;]; no man who acts under any title as any person has a right or a mandate to force another man against said man’s consent – that would be unlawful on this land- [slavery]; because u don’t know how our system is set up or how the courts are set up, i ‘believe’ u act no different than a freeman on the land or one of those sovereign dudes – the first and foremost duty, responsibility, and obligation of the government of this common law land is to protect property – i could go on and on about this very important topic but, my person has other duties, obligations, and responsibilities at the moment: it is the wish of i to close with this- the queen and the land are one, the people and the land are one, the queen ‘serves’ the people at her pleasure, slavery is outlawed in ALL its forms on this land- kind regards, i: [a]man; Al

    • I am confused by your statements of claim here. You seem to believe that any “government” interaction is, as you say it, “voluntary”. That somewhere in ancient history laws came down from magical men with whom we all consent in some way or another. Further, you claim that I adhere to “freeman” or “sovereign” ideologies but fail to state what those claims are or where and when I made them.

      I do NOT conform to any “freeman” concepts of contract or “duty”. I further hold no allegiance to said “Queen” who claims that because of her inbred bloodlines she holds some special power or obligation to “serve the people” at her whims and thus “deserves” my respect. No such quarter will be given by me.

      All forms of “government” are nothing more that organized crime and any alleged obligations placed on some people by others as a “duty to society” are false. Democracy is NOT freedom, it is mob rule and chaos. Any claims to the contrary are bald and lacking any logical or documentary support in any way. No gods came down and blessed some magical bloodline with anything and no gods demand that we all follow imagined rules of some fictitious “society”.

      The fact is that ALL people are sovereign unto themselves and owe no allegiance to anyone or anything outside of themselves and God as they understand it to be. This is fact. This is what the “founding fathers” of the united States in America acknowledged as “self evident”. I do not “hail” from some land calling itself the UK nor do I claim that a bunch of pagan worshiping occultists who’s primary purpose is to “protect their bloodline” have magical powers over me. They are criminals; murderous, raping, child sacrificing, sodomizing scum. What relevance you claim they have to me I do not comprehend. And their cousins and other inbred pukes claiming a divine right by vote or pieces of toilet paper you call “constitutions” and such are equally vile and repulsive. Accepting anything to the contrary is merely one’s attempt at embracing their own slavery and shirking their own moral responsibilities.

      With that said can you please clarify on how and when you believe this magical “common law” came into being and what gods ordered it upon us? I have demonstrated where the terms you use came from and what mental constructs they represent but you seem to believe they are something different. Kindly explain yourself and why you believe that one man has power over another and where that magical power came from.

      -Rob

    • you are 100% right,

  2. Rob greetings; i hope u and ur family have a lovely Christmas – those are wonderful opinions u put up and if that is what u wish to believe, great: common law – common lore or law common is not under the legal society but, rather mankind; like so many others u confuse English Common-Law as in the great charter ‘magna carta’ that was created by the legal society of the day and law common to i can be but, not limited to what is inside all mankind- the best way i wish to express said law, is ” freedom is the right to be wrong not do wrong”: at this time i wish only to write about the legal person in itself; a person is a man and a man has a person, (usually many), a legal person is a man who scribes to the legal society that is competent with said societies customs and rules and can read, write ,and speak legalese- i have no legal person and it would be a fraudulent ACT of i to partake in said society: no man, no matter title or office has the right on this land to force his fellow man to ACT, not only is that my belief but, does not the legal society maintain the same position;[c/f: Canadian constitution act 1982 – slavery is OUTLAWED in ALL its forms]; there are many courts that operate on this common law land and only a couple where man can stand which are the peoples courts, the third branch of government, held at public buildings to which said society and others rent space, so much so that our public servants do forget that mankind has a right to access these buildings and the legal society are our guests: i was at court a while back over some legal garbage, the man ACTING as prosecutor did wish to put my ass in prison for 10 yrs over some legal code – i stood at court and did point at said man as i looked at man in black robe and said, ” by what righ does one man have to force another man into his society, is slavery not outlawed in all its forms on this land” the black robed one said this is ur society; i then did state at that open public forum that when i came to be a man, i also became a husband and a father- that is my society- any way to much to right but one day u may man up and figure this very unique land of ours and how the system was created by our forebears as a benefit for all mankind on this land: kind regards, – i: [a] man; Al.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *