by PatrickHenry2K

Legal and lawful are two VASTLY different ideas although they are very similar…


Here are some examples of the differences:

Killing = unlawful (but can be legal!)
Cannabis = lawful (but is illegal/legalized in certain states)

Obvious question… Which is worse? OBVIOUSLY the plant is the ‘lesser of the two evils’  but how can killing be legal??? MAN-MADE POSITIVE LAW. What people fail to comprehend is that law works like a cake. It works in layers but unless you cut through all the bullshit you can’t see it’s mechanics. There is a hierarchy if you will, just like creation:

Creator (God, Allah, Earth, Bob, etc) created mankind—>

—>Mankind created legal fictions (govts & corporations)

(Under the ‘Hierarchy of Reality’ as I call it, there is no way something God/Mother Nature(Natural Law) made that is unlawful to man. Thats like saying indians are illegal,  Stupid right? Thats the same reasoning…)

A Maxim of Law:
The power which is derived* cannot be greater than that from which it is derived*[Romans 13:1]

In law there is a hierarchy but it acts more like a foundationary-hierarchy (bottom to top). Think of a house; without a solid foundation it is worthless. Odds are it will blow over in the first big wind storm. Law is like that too. Although that our government is a legal fiction itself, the foundation of the Constitution is under the common law or ‘the law of the land’. This is the foundation (in reality the foundation is God’s/Natural Law because common law is a DERIVATIVE* of these SUPERIOR laws) of our Constitution and everything that has been built on top is considered inferior. In Marbury v Madison, it was made clear that any law repugnant to the Constitution is VOID.  The laws that govern the legal fictions like corporations, governments and agents of those fictions (a man/woman acting on behalf of a govt/corp) are different than those that govern living men/women in which the Constitution was founded. To understand this further you have to know some maxims of law that explain the truth behind ‘persons’, contracts, benefits, consent, and ignorance.

PERSONS—> a statutory fiction, legal position, capacity or status; does not refer to ‘man’ unless in another context. A statutory court CANNOT recognize a man, only a man’s ‘person'(capacity). Lawyers are not a ‘thing’, they are a capacity. They act as the man’s person. When a man goes in without a lawyer, he is considered ‘pro se’ aka the capacity of a lawyer(officer of the court) which is in contrast to ‘in propria persona’ or ‘pro per’ which DOES NOT ADMIT to ‘in personam’ jurisdiction of the court(which a lawyer is subject to because they are an officer of the court). *LOOK UP FURTHER INFO ABOUT in propria persona BELOW*

A person is a man considered with reference to a CERTAIN STATUS(capacity).

 CONTRACTS—> can be implied, silent, done in bad faith, fraudulent but if YOU don’t call out shenanigans your ignorance is their victory.

~The agreement of the parties makes the law of the contract.
The contract makes the law.
The agreement of the parties(contract) OVERCOMES or prevails against the law. 

 BENEFITS—> if you sacrifice rights for benefits and you lose freedom. Rights are given by our creator, benefits are given by legal fictions… It is an inverse. The more ‘benefits’ you consent to, the more legally disabled(less free) you become.

~No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent.
~He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.
~He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden.
~He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 

CONSENT—> is our best defense until you are comfortable asserting your god-given UNalienable rights. Consent can be implied, silent, a signature on a ticket, a verbal agreement, etc. Consent between parties is the ONLY way a contract is binding. 

~Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.
He who consents cannot receive an injury.
~He who is silent appears to consent.
~Things silent are sometimes considered as expressed.
~ALL LAW has either been derived from the CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE, established by necessity, confirmed by custom, or of Divine Providence.

IGNORANCE—> do I need to tell you what this is. If you don’t know what it is , you are ignorant of ignorance. It is simply something you don’t know, it is not necessarily a bad thing. 

~He is not deceived who knows himself to be deceived.
~Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived.
Nothing against reason is lawful.
~Ignorance of law is no excuse.
To be able to know is the same as to know. (This maxim is applied to the duty of every one to know the law.)


~Human laws(positive, statutory laws) are born, live and die(as opposed to God’s/natural law).
~The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. (If you don’t know your rights, you have NONE.)
~Relief is not given to such as sleep on their rights.
~Liberty is an inestimable good.
The law sustains the watchful.
~Those awake, not those asleep, the laws assist. [1 Timothy 1:9]
~Legal remedies are for the active and vigilant.
~Those who do not preserve the law of the land, they justly incur the awesome and indelible brand of infamy. 


Lawful laws governs nature/man—>Legal laws govern persons/fictions

In order for we the people to get fucked over as bad as we have, it is because we are ignorant, arrogant and have lost sense of what is real/nature. NOT perceived-reality but REALITY-REALITY. We have allowed powerful men to hide behind legal fictions and pollute the earth, kill millions of people and animals, and they are doing this by our IGNORANCE and CONSENT. Time to wake up sheeple…

“In propria persona. In one’s own proper person. It was formerly a rule of pleading that pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be plead in propria persona, because if pleaded by attorney they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave (permission), which admits the jurisdiction. See Pro se. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, pg. 712

“Pro se.” For himself; in his own behalf; in person. Appearing for oneself, as in the case of one who does not retain a lawyer and appears for himself in court. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, pg. 1099