Legal vs. Lawful; What Is The
Difference Between These Two Concepts
If
you want to deceive masses of people in order to gain power and control
over them, what is one of the first things you would do in order to
achieve that end? This question is asked not in a
hypothetical
way in order to whimsically look at the possibilities, but rather as a
sobering question in light of the present moment in history, which may
help people begin to more critically pay attention and apply their
power of discernment with regard to events which seem to be out of
reasonable control. It is a serious question, and deserves
serious thought and proper heedfulness.
When you want people, in general, to agree with your policies or ideas,
what is the best way to go about guaranteeing that outcome?
Somehow, you have to persuade them to see the reasonableness of your
position in such a way that it makes it difficult for them to argue
against what you want. This implies being able to get inside
their minds in such a way that the person finds it difficult to rebut
the misapprehended information that you are proposing. Yet,
how
do you get people to go along with what you want when by all
appearances it goes against their sense of right and wrong, fairness
and unfairness? How do you achieve a mechanical
compliance?
The word “mechanical” here implying
“without thinking
or critical examination,” but just based on the mere
knee-jerk
letter of your assertion.
When an idea or concept becomes recognized by society as being common
knowledge, there is no need to argue one way or the other against
it. Because that argument will fall on deaf ears.
An
example of this kind of manufactured thinking is the following:
“Don’t you know? It’s common knowledge
that you need
a driver license to operate your private automobile on the pubic
roadways.” Ninety-nine percent of people have been
pre-programmed to respond this way. They’ve never
even
stopped to look at the law involved in this issue.
They’re
simply repeating a meme that they’ve heard thousands of times
or
more without thinking about it. How do you break through that
kind of cognitive dissonance, and get people to reexamine the facts?
It’s not difficult to accomplish this cognitive dissonance as
most people might think. All it takes is simple repetition of
the
ambiguous falsehood that you want people to accept, over and over
again, without their being able to discern such, until it is
ingrained in their minds. And yet it does take a great deal
of
reinforcing before people can be worn down to finally—at
least at
a superficial level of mind—accept whatever view is being
planted. Once you’ve captured a person’s
thought
process, you’ve made it very difficult to change their minds,
even in the face of overwelming evidence to the contrary.
This is
how those in government have brainwashed people’s
thinking!
They keep repeating the lie over and over and over again until
people’s minds finally give up resisting.
“It must be
true if I’ve heard it this many times.”
What does all this have to do with the subject of this article, which
is an exploration of the concepts of
law and
lawfulness as those
terms
differ from what the term
legal
implies? Well, it all depends
upon what one has been taught about the definitions of these words and
how they can be applied in the real world. We see one or the
other of these words being mentioned in disclaimers for information
discussions such as on matters concerning the law. For
example, when someone says or writes that “the
following is
for information and education purposes and not to be taken or used as
legal advice.” What are they really saying and
meaning?
One might surmise after reading such a disclaimer, if the subject
matter is about law, why shouldn’t one be able to accept that
the
discussion could be applied to a legal matter?
Don’t the
words “law” and “legal” refer
to essentially
the same thing: the law? In one sense they do. But
in a
greater sense, and in the sense that we mean it here, it depends upon
what kind of “legal” matter one is referring
to. If
your country’s system of law has been hijacked by the British
Temple Bar Associations, then, yes, there could be a lot of difference
between what is
legal
and what is
lawful,
even as it might relate to
any legitimate national constitution. And in that sense, not
everything that is legal is slso lawful. There may be some
laws
purporting to be legal that are, in actuality, unconstitutional and
therefore unlawful!
What we are implying relates to the issue of jurisdiction. In
other words, there is a difference between the jurisdiction over
artificial (dead) entities and that which is over living
beings!
The legal world, not only in the United States but worldwide, deals
primarily with presumed dead entitites in the form of your name printed
in all capital letters. Yet this application of the term
legal is
a whole other ball of wax, even though it has relevance here.
It
is important, though, to keep this relevance in mind as we attempt to
get to the bottom of the jurisdictional questions.
This point is where we step in and clarify the difference between what
is lawful and what is legal, because those in the legal system
don’t want you to understand the difference. Read
that last
idea again and let it sink in. They don’t want you to
understand
the difference. In the everyday parlance of the average man,
when
you say something is legal, shouldn’t it also be
lawful?
For the average man who hasn’t taken the time to look into
the
nuances in meaning between these two words, his first instinct is to
conflate them as having the same meaning. But that would be a
mistake, and here is where the issue of context can make a very
important difference. Because in one sense, we may be talking
about the law (universal law) which is one thing, and in another sense
we may be referring to artificial rules (man-made by-laws or rules)
being used as what is known as “color of law” or
corporate
by-laws—essentially the rules of a private
institution,
organization, or political group wherein the consent of the members to
the contractual nature of the issue
is assumed.
That last statement is very important, because within their man-made
set of self-proposed “laws,” it is possible for
whatever
fact is
assumed
to take
precedence over what has not been proven on the record. In
actual
law, this is not possible. An assumed truth needs to be
backed up
by credible evidence before a court can legitimately accept the
assumption as true. And even then, if rebutted by credible
proof,
the assumption can be overturned. But this is not what is
happening in the courts today. The courts today are
“legal” tribunals existing within a separate and
distinct
jurisdiction which differs from the law of the land based on the common
law as the latter is applied to people who are not identifying
themselves as legal fictions.
Before we go into the differences between the nuanced meaning of these
two words, we need to return to the question that arose at the
initiation of this discussion. That is, if you want to
deceive
masses of people in order to gain power and control over them, what is
one of the first things you would do in order to achieve that
end? The answer to this may seem inconceivable at first,
until
you stop to think about it and imagine how it might come
about.
The answer is: you corrupt the language and mislead people’s
thinking to believe whatever it is that you want them to
believe.
You don’t allow them to question your definition.
You
simply assert it as true and defined, and then a move on.
Therefore the only definition they’ve ever been exposed to is
the
only one that you want them to accept and perceive. Thus if
they
mistakenly use a lawful process in a legal matter which
doesn’t
take the elements of the legal matter into consideration, thinking that
it sounds like a reasonable defense or position, they may be destined
to lose that assertion on the basis that they confused one
jurisdictional matter with a separate jurisdictional matter which the
court that they are in has no obligation to recognize.
How this occurs is that people’s minds are programmed in the
first instance (perhaps first by their family and then society, and
then reinforced by the educational system) to accept whatever
definition or connotation to which you want them to adhere.
The
notable point here being: you corrupt the very language they are using
to define concepts that may have an ambiguous meaning! And
then
you make it difficult for any common man or woman to figure out what
you actually mean by using a jargon of words that they assume they
understand the meaning of, but which have a different legal meaning and
implication
from what is falsely assumed. In other words, this is how you
get
inside their minds and create their reality for them. One
version
of this process is called propaganda. And it exists in all
governments the world over.
For our purposes here, though, we are speaking about the conflation of
the terms
legal
and
lawful
as generally referring to the same thing, the same jurisdiction, when
in reality the latter may be referring to a separate and distinct
jurisdiction other than that to which the former is
referring.
That difference can make a huge difference in how the matter is
perceived by a court. It can be the difference between
prevailing
in court with one’s lawful assertions and losing using those
same assertions..
Now, to return to the issue at hand: what is the difference between
what is law and lawful, and what is legal and belonging to
the
legal system? First one must realize that all concepts of law
had
their beginning as concepts surrounding a dispute between a man (or
woman) against another man (or woman). In other words, they
were
societal proclamations that were universally accepted by all people as
being true, fair, and just. These concepts of a law (some
might
call it natural law) commonly accepted by all people first came to be
memorialized as maxims of law. A maxim is “a
concisely
expressed principle or rule of conduct, or a statement of a general
truth.”
If you wish to learn about the historical origin and roots of the
English and American common law traditions, you must look first at what
are called these maxims of law. In other words, when someone
who
knows the difference uses the term “law,” this is
what they
are referring to: the very origin of law itself based on universally
recognized principles, and not just to some form of written legislation
purporting to be “law.” In our captured
system of
jurisprudence, everything is based on man-made written (legal) rules
for commercial conduct between consenting parties and or fictonal
entities. Outside of a valid contract or agreement between
entities or parties, a written rule (or ordinance) is not
considered to be a law
per
se unless it is properly enacted into law by a
duly
seated governing authority answerable to the people. In the
United States we haven’t had a legitimately seated governing
body
at the federal level at least since March twenty-seventh of
1861. In other words, if there is no basis for a fair meeting
of
the minds, politically and otherwise, there is no law. That
is,
what is being called a law is simply an unagreed upon rule or policy (a
by-law in the case of the corporate federal government) that cannot, in
all good conscience, be enforced because it has no valid meeting of the
minds and agreed upon authority behind it.
As such, the terms
law
and
lawful
refer to the
substance
or spirit of the law. Whereas the term
legal references
strictly the written
form
of a law, a mechanical and strict “letter of the
law”
viewpoint without considering other possible relevant reasons for the
actions taken by the parties involved. The
substance of
law, in order to be just, must include the components of moral and
ethical intentions on the part of both parties, and not just a bare
yielding to the letter (or form) of the law as written. In
substantive law, each disputed situation has its own set of extenuating
human circumstances which ought to be taken into consideration before a
tribunal can fairly and justly adjudge a particular
situation.
But that’s not what happens in a governmental administrative
court
which enforces legal precepts.
When used in casual conversation, both terms
legal and
lawful generally
mean that which is “allowed by law.”
However, as discussed above, the terms
law and
lawful
in nuanced parlance carry a connotation of ethics and morality, meaning
that something “lawful” will be thought to follow
the moral and ethical spirit
of the applicable law and not just the legal letter or form of the
law. Thus, what is viewed as legal according to statutory law
may
not always be lawful in terms of the common law and whatever other
limitations on it may be involved, such as constitutional limitations.
Hence what is deemed lawful (or legal) by a statutory court of no
record, may or may not always be either legal or lawful according to a
court of record under common law which has a limitation placed upon it
by a constitution.
In order to get an idea about the importance and use of maxims of law
in the formation of credible concepts of law, and why they were used in
early times as a way to settle disputes as well as why they were viewed
as universally true, it will help to see a few examples of maxims that
have stood the test of time. The following brief statements,
as
will be seen, are axiomatically proven or established principles of
moral and ethical behavior agreed upon by all honorable people.
A l’impossible
nul n’est tenu. No one is bound to do
what is impossible. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 601.
Actio exteriora indicant
interiora secreta. External actions show
internal secrets. 8 Co. R. 146.
Actio non datur non
damnificato. An action is not given to him who
has received no damages.
Actus non reum facit,
nisi mens sit rea.
An act does not make a person guilty, unless the intention be also
guilty. (This maxim applies only to criminal cases; in civil
matters it is otherwise.) 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2211.
Affirmati, non neganti
incumbit probatio. The proof lies upon him who
affirms, not on him who denies.
A
ugupia verforum sunt
judice indigna. A twisting of language is
unworthy of a judge. Hob. 343.
Consensus facit legem.
Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which
can acquire force only by [mutual] consent.
So now, in this light, let’s review the differences between
the
nuances of the terms of lawful and legal. The difference
between
something “lawful” and something
“legal” is
that something lawful follows
the
substance
of the law (its underlying meaning) which takes into account a
transaction between living beings
in terms of moral and ethical behavior, while something legal (within
the atmosphere of the current legal system) follows
the form
or strict letter of the law, the exact letter of what is stated in a
statute or
ordinance
without
unbiased consideration for the perceived state
(condition or status) of the two parties involved.
Now what is meant by the use of the term “state”
here? It refers to a state of mind. If one party
perceives
itself to be one thing and not another, one entity and not another, if
the terms of the so-called agreement being used to impose the letter of
the contract on that party were never properly disclosed, can the party
alledged to be at fault be blamed if the terms of the agreement were
never fully explained? If that was the case, then, a meeting
of
the minds never occurred! And the party at fault cannot be
legitimately penalized. In criminal law the concept of
mens rea
(meaning “a guilty mind”) is supposed to
come into
play here, meaning that unlawful or illegal intent must be proven on
the record.
The term “lawful” carries with it
an implication of ethics and
morality in relation to the state of the parties in a way
that the term “legal” does not. The term
legal,
the way it’s being used by the legal system, refers to an
inanimate corpus or body (a
presumed “thing” or
res)
being used to substitute for a living being in order to
“legalize” some action or status which has
presumably been
agreed upon beforehand by both parties. This is primarily
because
law, in its original formation, as a common social structure (common
law) for justice among disputes between people was originally meant to
be carried out between living men and women of equal rank under the
law. The concept of corporations (or artificial
“persons,” meaning fictional), was not yet a
prevalent
concept accepted among early societies. During those times
there
was no concept of a fictional interloper, in the form of government in
it’s corporate capacity, waiting in the wings and hovering
above
the people to usurp the power and the rights of men and
women.
Fictions in law (which is what a government is) inherently have no
power or rights over the people who constitute them other than those
powers and rights that may be delegated to them through legitimate
formal agreements (such as written constitutions or charters
authorizing such). Yet even so, in the original American
system
of jurisprudence, whatever rights have not been delegated to public
officials (whose offices themselves are always fictional) are generally
reserved ultimately by the people themselves and never fully
relinquished to officialdom (public office holders).
When the Church of England, in the mid-fifteenth century, created the
concept of the “corporation sole,” in order to
construct a
fictional juristic entity to hold its assets (property in the form of
land, buildings, and money) in perpetuity over time, it also added this
novation to the legal framework for the modern governmental legal
systems which base their authority over the artificial (dead) entities
that it charters called corporations, partnerships, individuals and
persons, which it formally creates and authorizes in written form, and
which are considered as a legal “person” for
purposes of
suing and being sued and for interacting with actual people.
So when you see the term “legal” used somewhere, it
is not
far from the truth to associate it with a separate jurisdiction where
the creation of artificial entities called
“persons,” “individuals,”
and
“partnerships,” all arise from the first government
authorized artificial entity called a
“corporation.”
The concept of the corporation itself has its origin in ancient Roman
law dating back to 49 B.C. So, everything you see in modern
government law has its historical basis in Roman civil law.
It is
dispairing to think that this is the form of institutional law (rule
making) that is being fraudulently enforced to restrain and suppress
the people, not only in America but around the world, using the
compelled assumption that the people are but artifical representations
of juristic persons, in the modern day, and that the people,
for
the most part, do not realize it!
If you would like to learn more about concepts of law so you
can
avoid the whole mess without having to “appear” in
court,
you can download our free ebook
Common
Law Remedy To
Beat Traffic Tickets and learn about the secrets that the
courts and
legal profession don’t want you to know.
_________________
If you’d like to learn more about the law and how it can
serve you, don’t hesitate to check out our
Articles
on Traffic Law
section. Discover some of the secrets of law that you’ve
never been taught!
The
laws sometimes sleep,
but never die.