Lawful vs Legal / Law vs Legislation?

Also me: @blackbeltsecrets
My wife's cooking: @EasyChineseCooking
Video Requests: [e-mail]
Send your clips for use in videos: clips@@blackbeltbarrister.com
Personal messages: Instagram: @BlackBeltBarrister
Formal advice: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it, as there is no contract between us and I am not instructed by you.
For formal advice, please contact [e-mail].
💌 Become a channel member to access stripes and perks!
/ @blackbeltbarrister
LAW FAQS
• Common Law
CONSUMER LAW PLAYLIST:
• Consumer Law
TREE LAW PLAYLIST:
• Tree Law Miniseries
ROAD TRAFFIC LAW PLAYLIST:
• Road Traffic Law
FAMILY LAW PLAYLIST:
• Family Law
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action. Videos on my channel are not legal advice and should not be taken as such. I accept no liability for any reliance placed upon the content of these videos or references, therein.
#blackbeltbarrister #barrister #law
Description contains affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Description may contain affiliate or sponsored links, for which we may receive commissions or payment.

[@Paul-zx8rx]

A Law is an immovable fact I.e. the law of gravity, the law of physics, the natural law (do no harm) etc. If a government prohibits something by legislative (legal) act such as driving without a license, whilst it may be illegal to do so, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is unlawful. As you cannot legalise something that would otherwise be an unlawful act. No governmental body can create real law because the Natural laws of the universe are already self evident. When a government creates legislation that is in harmony with natural law, it is the law because all it is confirming the natural law already in place,, to act in contrary would be unlawful. If a government creates legislation that punishes without an injured party and not in tune with the natural law, it is not law because it is a movable act that can be abolished, and to act contrary would not be unlawful, but illegal

[@Stuart_George]

Thanks for clarifying. I was erroneously calling my brothers wife my sister in legislation.😀

[@thomasjmeade]

The first week in the police training college one of the training sergeants asked our class “what’s the difference between unlawful and illegal?” After going around the class and getting about 20 different answers, he told us the true answer. “One means an act contrary to law, the other is a large sick bird.”

[@thomasm1964]

Groan!

[@phoenixrose6608]

😄

[@MazzaEliLi7406]

Very droll. The Black Belt Barrister recently posted a video about such legal definitions.

[@thomasjmeade]

@@MazzaEliLi7406 Yes, this exact video.

[@robmortenson4720]

lmao, love this , so true poor eagle

[@jakebyronjones]

This is incredibly useful! I've always wondered about what the correct application of all these words and terms are in a legal context! This now all makes total sense to me! Thank you Mr BBB! :-)

[@BlackBeltBarrister]

Glad it was helpful!

[@phoenixrose6608]

I had this convo the other day but I couldn't explain my point as clearly as BBB lol, Thank You for breaking this down for us 🤗🥋⚖

[@flybird5481]

Thanks so much...I always wondered about the use of these types of words.

[@carolramsey6287]

I think it can be explained quite succinctly. Solicitors follow the legal profession while prostitutes follow a lawful profession (not a lot of difference really). However, it is lawful for a solicitor's wife to live off his earnings but not for a prostitutes boyfriend to do the same as that is living off immoral earnings. Perhaps Daniel can explain this apparent disparity between the earnings between one type of soliciting and another. By the way, I think the Street Offences Act 1959 probably applies to both occupations

[@Choober65]

Apart from the fact that prostitutes provide a USEFUL service, and when you pay them, you get a GUARANTEED result...Allegedly.

[@adriancoppin977]

Thanks for that. I’m fully understanding now…and I’m a retired chartered surveyor and arbitrator!

[@googlesucks925]

You're the best BBB. I posted this a few weeks ago on one of your vids. Thank you so much for the explanation.

[@BlackBeltBarrister]

Any time!

[@donovanking.3725]

Hi, great stuff. Please can you explain how I can correct my status from being legally dead and lost at sea (act of 1666) to being back on land. Also how do I claim the compensation from the trust held on my behalf by the government?

[@first-up-best-dressed5548]

Contact the Corona court. Tell them your a living being and to take you off the dead list.

[@Divinitatem]

You already know the answer to that

[@DerekWiltshire]

Legal is about legislation, acts and statutes. Whereas lawful is about common/natural/fog-given laws.

[@fergusdangerfield156]

Thanx daniel, wS under the impression that something legal was the the subject of legislation that is, decided by Parliament as part of an act. Also, I heard that the people can do anything that is not prohibited by law but the state can only do what is allowed by law, there is a difference! I would appreciate your clarification x.

[@MarkGalbraithVideos]

It might be interesting to distinguish between unlawful and criminal. Unlawful would seem to imply without legal authority, whereas a criminal act would seem to be more specifically in breach of a specific law (e.g. theft, fraud, murder etc). Or am I wrong ? Perhaps there is scope for a follow up video on this topic ?

[@Radagast-]

Fun [not so] hypothetical question for you... In the event that Amazon completely arbitrarily decides to withhold a settlement from one of its Marketplace Sellers for sales made during a period, what recourse does one have? Amazon has a system of "Deferred Transactions," via which it withholds payment to sellers on the basis that "Funds for these transactions are pending due to the delivery date policies or buyer invoice payments". This translates as "the buyer hasn't paid, or the goods haven't been delivered," but it is not unknown for Amazon to withhold funds, even when neither of these criteria are valid. This apparently means that it can hold funds due to a seller for as long as it likes, and the seller can do nothing to force Amazon to hand over the money. One might go to the Small Claims, I suppose... but if the sum is small, then the initial fee makes that inefficient.

[@robmortenson4720]

to understand, is to be understood, its legal, not law,

[@MazzaEliLi7406]

Please cover the NEWLY PASSED law that prohibits peaceful demonstrations in the UK of even one person. Please compare & contrast this law with that of Russias' law that also imprisons people for demonstrating for instance against the war in Ukraine.

[@loojishtc9899]

The new law doesn't prohibit demonstrations or protests. It prohibits demonstrations and protests which cause "serious disturbance or annoyance". In practice, each individual demonstration would have to be assessed by the police. They would have to balance the rights of the protestor/s against the parameters of the new legislation. The issue is that protests by their definition will always cause obstruction/annoyance to someone. Therefore making them illegal as proxy. It will be interesting to see how the legislation will be interpreted by the police and courts. It's a very dark time for freedom and liberty in the UK.

[@MazzaEliLi7406]

@@loojishtc9899 Very dark indeed. The fact that the law gives power to the police to decide who should be allowed to demonstrate & about what, & that they (the police) will be subject to pressure from the Executive, effectively means that no citizen will be able to voice their opinion without fear of prosecution & imprisonment. That is the end of free speech as well as the right to freedom of assembly for a peaceful purpose.

[@jonbarosa8692]

you need to tell the people at the so called common law court lol

[@Magicalfluidprocess]

Bbb will you please do a vid on what a person is ? Some older blacks law dictionary’s have a definition that it’s a corporation , they also have the term natural person

[@davidsmart8594]

Yes please! (I'd like some clarity on this too).

[@trickygoose2]

Land has to be owned by a legal person, which includes bodies such as companies, local authorities as well as private individuals. This can become relevant if a body like a sports club wants to buy some land. They can either form a company to own it or some individual officers will have to act as trustees for the club. A legal person is capable of being sued, for example.

[@Magicalfluidprocess]

@@trickygoose2 you have distinguished between a legal person and a private individual yes ?

[@trickygoose2]

@@Magicalfluidprocess A private individual is a legal person but a legal person isn't necessarily a private individual. A legal person is someone who can be sued or be taken to court and can own land.

[@Magicalfluidprocess]

@@trickygoose2 a legal person is a fiction that needs a living man or woman to accept responsibility for or act in the capacity of be it a title or a corporation, a corporation cannot stand in a dock to be sued a corporation can’t do anything as it is asomatous and is at best an artefact of book keeping, the commercial/legal system is at present a fiction

[@stevenhodgson834]

I fear this video will bring out the FOTL types with their (mis)interpreations of words and names.

[@martincopeland8153]

See “just some guy” immediately above your comment for emphasis of your point!

[@servicekid7453]

Oh yes, they’re out in force! 🤣🤣🤣🤪🤪🤪

[@petermainwaringsx]

This is why we need lawyers.

[@tommywright753]

Love your channel bbb. I would like you to explain what “Legalese” actually is. Years ago I saw videos where it was described as a form of language which only Lawyers etc. would understand.

[@omp199]

It's not a technical term. It's an informal and perhaps slightly derogatory word for legal jargon. If you're reading a document that uses a lot of obscure words that sound like a lawyer might use them, you might say that you can't read it because it is in legalese. Edit: I'm not trying to be snarky, but I'd say that if you have questions about what words mean, the quickest way of getting an answer would be to look them up in a dictionary. If it turns out that they are technical terms, then a general-purpose dictionary will probably not be sufficient, and you might have to try a more specialised dictionary or an encyclopaedia, but for informal terms like this one, a general-purpose dictionary would be sufficient.

[@amalfimike]

@@omp199 Or Blacks Law Dictionary. That clearly defines what the true lawful meaning is, of words like 'mandate' that soooo many people get wrong!

[@purplewos]

Black Belt barrister is a fraud. In a fight he'd get choked out in the first round. Legal is the colour of law and not law. And he's choked!

[@Jasho-Beam]

Anything legal must be also lawful. It must be based on the existing law. However some things might be legal and lawful but not necessarily just. For example a couple might go to court over their divorce and, as often happens, the court will award the wife the husband's estate with him having to walk away with nothing. It is said that the law is an ass. It is often used by governments to cause people unjustified loss. Consider, for example, the ULEZ right now that is being used by the mayor to commit daylight robbery in the city of London.

[@anti-stupid-not--vax9629]

The only reason you go to court is because you invited the government into the marriage with the marriage licence

[@davidsmart8594]

Thank you, BBB. Please discuss the difference between 'may' and 'must', as defined by Black's Dictionary.

[@Magicalfluidprocess]

David smart are you familiar with Robert menards work ? He insists that we are not persons we are people who have a person , should we wish

[@the_once-and-future_king.]

I thought that was self-evident. 'May' infers there is a choice to do something, or not to something. As in 'you may use the hotel gym during your stay', whereas 'must' is a direction or instruction that is to be followed, as in 'you must wear a hard hard in this area'.

[@martincopeland8153]

@@the_once-and-future_king. even lawyers get this wrong. I saw a submission recently where a very reputable law firm attempted to have a submission struck out because the statement of truth was different to the one recommended with the words “should be in the form” having misunderstood it as “shall be”.

[@omp199]

The word "may" can cause confusion, because it is used sometimes to indicate permission ("You may use the hotel gym") and sometimes to indicate possibility ("I am just going outside and may be some time"). I will often use "might" to indicate possibility, to avoid any ambiguity. However, checking online articles as I write this, I see that quite a few sources say that when discussing an event whose future occurrence is uncertain, "may" implies a higher probability than "might". I am a native speaker of British English, and this suggestion is entirely new to me. I am puzzled as to how this conclusion might have been reached.

[@davidsmart8594]

@@Magicalfluidprocess Yes. That's partly why I'm asking.

[@jayturner3397]

Good article 👍..How about Power(s) V Authority?

[@leeanness4846]

We are more powerful than you know. Lawfully and spiritually. Why do you think they put as much effort into taking our power . No matter how much they take from us they have to come to us to use our power or authority. It all belongs to us because it's us that has it by law.

[@exwhyz33]

Thank you

[@russpearson9802]

Legal is corporate law based, lawful is our constitutional commonlaw as i understand it. Lawful can never be illegal or unlawful. Legal can be unlawful and illegal. If legal actions conforms to lawful process and practices it is permitted. If legal actions fall outside lawful practice, process or jurisdiction, it is unlawful and not permitted by law.

[@anti-stupid-not--vax9629]

​​@user-xj2im1ep3otell me if this is wrong We have a birth certificate which is part of the copyrighted crown aka the crown owns that certificate 😂😂 so I can one million percent tell you legal isn't law for man. only a person created by the crown simply look at royals birth certificate 😂look at royals occupation Ask why they have no licences or passport 😂

[@leeanness4846]

Lawful is common or civil law and is the actual law. Legal is legalese and is a rule that gains the force of law by those who consent. Trouble is we are never asked for consent it is presumed. Even if consented to it still never becomes law it merely gains the force of law by those who consent to it. And they receive us into consenting by stating your name. This is deception therefore unlawful

[@martincopeland8153]

I wonder if you would agree that under our legal system everything is lawful unless and until it is prohibited either by legislation or under the Common Law. If memory serves, Murder for example was charged as “Contrary to the Common Law”.

[@Mart5000.]

If a goverment is a registered corporation( see companys house, dunns and bradstreet), how can a corporation make laws?surly they can only make policys and call them acts,statues and legislation (funny how they dont call them laws in the official gov websites🤔) what if the people/employees do not consent?.i have never heard of the government sacking a citizen.

[@Mart5000.]

@Richard Fox lol type in uk goverment into companys house mate also see the clearfeild doctrine it all clearly states governments are now private corporations. And private corporations need the consent of the governed. Just facts mate😁

[@Mart5000.]

@Richard Fox I literally just typed in uk government into companys house find companys tab and uk goverment came up.anyone can see this information mate it's not a secret.if you dont know your rights you have none .no man can oppose his will upon another man .this is the foundation of law.there for a man must give his consent this is usually done in the form of a contact. If you have no contract there is no obligation to obey simples🙂

[@Mart5000.]

@Richard Fox the governments have been corporations since they started taking fiat currency loans and orders from the world bank that they couldnt pay back .

[@Mart5000.]

@Richard Fox hi rich aswell many if not all of the mp's have registered themselves as companies on companies house .so they can get away with various fraud its rife mate go type in the prime minister ex prime minister in to the search .corrupt AF .you seem like knowledgeable dude take care mate.👍

[@leeanness4846]

Why do they go to university to study law when there are only 4 actual laws?? ; Do not breach the peace Cause nobody any harm Cause nobody any loss Don't use mischief or deception in your promises and contracts Everyone is obliged to stand under common law. Everything else is either legislation or an act of parliament to which common law states legal rulings gain the force of law by those who consent. So why do they decieve us into accepting or believing we have no choice because it's law, when they are obliged to ask for consent by law. They presume we consent so this is unlawful

[@damionlee7658]

Am old joke comes to mind... "What's the difference between unlawful and illegal? One will get you in trouble with the police, the other is a sick bird."

[@leeanness4846]

Civil is taken from the Latin word Civilli and translates as the meeting place of the gods. Therefore civil law perceives us the people as gods and aslong as you don't breach the peace, cause no one any harm, cause no one any loss and don't use mischief or deception in your promises and contracts you remain lawful. Deceiving people into believing a rule or policy is law then it's unlawful

[@wexii4609]

i have a question, can you go a few MPH above the speed limit to test a speed limiter, they've fitted them to all vehicles at my work and if it doesn't work i must report it, but obviously i wpild have to be over the limit to know it's defective, thanks

[@servicekid7453]

Of course you CAN, but that wouldn’t be a valid defence against a speeding ticket. If you need to test a speed limiter you would have to do it on a privately owned test track, not the public roads.

[@douglasedward227]

This Esquire is not In Honor .

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

'Honer' as in the manufacturer of mouth organs?

[@douglasedward227]

oops .@@StudentDad-mc3pu

[@vman7765]

Is it mandatory to pay council tax ?

[@servicekid7453]

Yes. The councils have been given powers in legislation to set the level of and collect revenue from Council Tax. If the council tax due for a property is not paid, the Council can apply to the court for a Liability Order against the adult members of that household who are jointly liable for paying it.

[@themanontheedge2243]

@@servicekid7453 That's not totally correct. Councils do not apply to the court as the court is not involved, in any case, for non payment of council tax. If you ring the court they wont know anything about your case and refer you back to the council. Instead the council hires a room in a building known as a court and carries out it's own hearing. It's just a bulk admin procedure and the so called liability order doesn't actually exist. It's a complete scam.

[@servicekid7453]

@@themanontheedge2243 OK boomer 🙄🙄🙄🙄

[@willgoodfellow]

@@themanontheedge2243 The court is involved as non-payment of council tax is a civil matter heard in Magistrates' Court. It's true that where people don't challenge liability upon receipt of a summons for an application to obtain a Liability Order, the Liability Orders are rubber stamped in bulk during a private hearing but that doesn't mean it's a fake Liability Order. The Magistrates' Court may not have details of any hearing as it's not a criminal hearing, and unless the person summonsed to court challenges the liability order application, there will be no court hearing anyway.

[@atonewithnature_]

No it isn’t. If you’d like a freedom of information request I have proving this I’m more than happy to send it to you

[@justsomeguy101b]

I was confused by this video slightly. If I sign a contract that says it is legal for my manager to murder me then it will be legal in a court of law?

[@loojishtc9899]

No. The contract has to be fair and reasonable. And no contract will provide immunity from an illegal act.

[@willgoodfellow]

@@loojishtc9899 Contract law doesn't override other relevant legislation or common law.

[@michaelmurphy9049]

Can you ellaborate further the difference between statutes and acts, and LAW? My understanding is that legislation (statutes and acts) is consensual. Especially when no man or woman has ever signed over power of attorney to the MPs to make such choices regardless of royal assent. Can you also ellaborate on our right not to be governed BY a belligerent, corrupt government, and our right to withdraw consent even if was not given in the first place?

[@anti-stupid-not--vax9629]

The birth certificate signed you to the crown 🤐👀

[@leeanness4846]

Record all interactions with the authorities, state you don't consent so that you have proof of keeping your authority. Register your name and birth certificate with the common law courts it's online and costs nothing. You then become owner of the corporation in your name aka your legal fiction. Do this and you have the means to challenge in court any arrests for doing something illegal. It's not unlawful to drive without a license etc. Common law grant us the freedome of travel

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

The Common Law Courts are an absolute scam - who would be taken in by that? It is absolutely unlawful to drive without a licence - this is also nonsense.

[@robmortenson4720]

legislations, allow officials to walk around law, while unofficials in uniform, con trick and decieve the law abiding citizens with legal trickery,

[@robmortenson4720]

@Richard Fox official secrets my friend, its treason, yet legal and legitimate

[@onairrecordings]

Give me 1 crime that is legislation that is not civil?

[@leeanness4846]

Legal is a rule or a policy from a corporation. Which is something made by man therefore can never be above man!

[@rbrooks2007]

It doesn't help when Brussels used 'illegal' as a trigger term to mean something that's not on a corporate and political preferred list of goods, which once was perfectly fine.

[@willgoodfellow]

In most professional fields, words can take on different meanings to absolute dictionary definitions, referred to as jargon. Legal jargon is often referred to as legalese, which some people misinterpret as being some sort of misleading language or terminology designed to obfuscate.

[@first-up-best-dressed5548]

Lawful...create a victim and it's instant arrest. Legal ... We may enter into a contract with them if we wish.

[@leeanness4846]

How about a legal fiction???

[@mga59xbd38]

Legal advice etc.

[@rossmax767]

The difference between unlawful and illegal. Unlawful is against the law and illegal is a sick bird.

[@henryparsnip]

Wording is paramount

[@joyspace8478]

How do I challenge tv license? Is there a letter I can draft to send them. I dont watch bbc tv or even live tv 😐

[@anti-stupid-not--vax9629]

Go online tell them you don't need one do not put your name they'll leave you for two year's

[@alancross1987]

So we could say photography in public is both legal and lawful, but as you say, there are some exceptions.

[@candlewax5234]

when parliament changes laws how are the general public ublic expected to know. Are the new laws in any community office we could check out say monthly.

[@Choober65]

Which is why I ignore EVERYTHING they say. They don't follow their own rules, why should I?

[@joannthomases9304]

Pos law enacted etc ...non statutory....acts statures and codes are Ad-hesions to LAW !!!!

[@philthorpe6942]

Has a pensioners is it lawfull to charge me £ 3.50 to have electric meter in my property.(49p ) a day???

[@servicekid7453]

Depends on the contract you have with your electricity supplier. What does it say? Oh gosh, you mean you didn’t read it? Oooooopssss……

[@ColSearlsmith]

If you still disagree feel free to contact us

[@BenBen-yx6ug]

DEAD ENTITY - PERSON- ( gov make you a company upon registration , registered at birth . My argument is this , for a contract to be valid there needs to be full disclouser and everyone ment agree to the term's . I was unable sign the contract no signature of mine on the registration so that is fruad . I questioned this when i was younger was told i was conspiracy as i refused my tax and won ! Only won by never registering to vote not voting dont do the census form worked for goods not currancy , Fruit of my labour is mine & i don't scare into intimerdation threats no action no fear . I wont ever own a home but i have a plot of land can claim a title but wont i rather be left alone . Police dont no the law i had a judge tell me a direct lie so how is he being a honest memeber of society ? Currupt bent dodgy system

[@SuperSquark]

UK citizens are expected to know the law. The law is such a vast body of work its words cant be counted. No one shall be expected to do the impossible. Contradictions can not be understood and are always the result of an error or a lie. My claim is the deliberate infliction of mental distress. How do you plead legal professionals?

[@leeanness4846]

Register your name with the common courts and you become owner of your legal fiction. Do this and state you don't consent to the authorities then their rules don't apply to you!!!

[@ColSearlsmith]

Have you said that nonsense in the Old Bailey much? There is a massive difference between lawful and legal and you should not be spreading misinformation to the public. As Commando Royal Marine I can promise you that Admiralty law is very important in Defence. Legal commercial contract law is not always valid or allowed. Equity and law of trusts is what English law is founded. Sorry but you are seriously wrong. And I doubt you can make a jurisdictional argument with that nonsense in the Supreme Court . CDO SEARL LLB 2PGC GSM

[@jons9721]

Common law has to be the worst and most confusing description in history. Common law is judge (ie elite) law, while laws passed by the House of Commons is not common law even though it is passed by what are supposed to be common people (but still generally less elite than judges)

[@astroflyinsights]

Judges or jury?

[@jons9721]

@@astroflyinsights Judges decide the law, juries decide if its been broken

[@astroflyinsights]

@@jons9721 I think it's the opposite, just playing with ideas here. Judges interpret and apply the law enacted by Parliament as the case progresses and make sure procedure is followed smoothly; they do the sentencing. Juries may decide to acquit or convict regardless, like a perverse verdict (?) This is what sets precedent and is the only backstop against govt overreach. It's also been measured as being the fairest to BAME people. Isn't that how common law works, and why jury trials are so important to protect as they're under threat?

[@jons9721]

@@astroflyinsights I would argue 'interpreting' is making the law but that is semantics I guess. Juries are under no obligation to follow the judge's directions but I don't think that means they set any precedents. To be honest I'm not a great fan of juries (having 12 random people who at least half are going to be as thick as shit is not a good way of deciding someone's fate, you reckon 12 random people are likely to be less racist than a judge?). Most 1st world countries do not use juries or use hybrid judge/juries

[@astroflyinsights]

@@jons9721 It's a slow crawl to the bottom when we eat away at our own safeguards. Yes I thought jury service showed a fairness and balance; a diverse group of people that noticed different things and listened to each other.

[@joannthomases9304]

Legis isn't even lawful...legal means to do something that is not lawful !!!! Or to be able to break the Law...your far toooo vague. Read those maxuims of law. If they are too stupid to know they are being robbed, then let them .

[@Chonoryokusha]

It's all nonsense. Is it moral? (I'm sure your 先生 has explained this to you.)

[@thumbs.k.4510]

Law is the word and law of God, the law of peace that which is right, moral, and just which does not change as God is not the author of confusion, and is known as "the-law-of-the-land", natural law, the law of peace, immutable law as the founding principles of law is that it has to "known" and "consistent" (which is where president or "case-law" (wrongly called as it is a misnomer) comes from proven true as even LAW DICTIONARIES written by "legal society members" define "the-law-of-the-land" as: "nothing that may pass by enactment is the law of the land", it is therefore law NOT WRITTEN BY MAN......therefore "lawful" is the standard of law that all of man's law is to be in compliance with: moral, right, and just where "just" is synonymous with due-process-of-law which is a publix court of record that proceeds according to the rules and principles of the "common law"; common as it requires no oath and no contract; which also makes it "public law" as "public" means "free and common to all". "legal" on the other hand is ALL LAW WRITTEN BY MAN, which is all contract law, and is the realm of the "legal-practitiomers" private and foreign law society members (who are Roman citizens as this is what it means to be called to the Bar and who "give oath") it is the-law-of-the-sea; admiralty/civil/statutory law/ (though there is no such thing as "statutory law", it is "civil law" lawlessly imposed by government overreach as there are no "civil codes"; and civil-law governance operate via a lawless "presumption of a contract" with the state and church parties acting as governments.

[@johnrobertd748]

There is a subtle difference between the two?? Why are you misleading people? There is a great difference between the two. They are like night and day.

[@psocretes8183]

This is interesting. I have been documenting serious ASB and criminal behavior by a Drug Charity and the Police. The charity were caught dumping medical wast on my property. It is considered so serious that there is no upper limit to the fine. The Council and police refused to prosecute saying: "it's the landowners responsibility to get rid of the waste." No it's not it's the responsibility of the criminal who dumped it there. They very cleverly didn't register as a Social Housing provider so they thought they didn't have to comply with Statutory Social Housing legislation. Well as I understand it it doesn't matter if they are registered. They are a de facto Social Housing Provider and should comply. I was constantly complaining about the criminal behavior by the residents of the hostel and the Police started a campaign of harassment against me. I have made a formal complaint about the officer and I am now making a formal complaint about the Norfolk Police Force for not knowing and complying with Statutory Legislation leading to years of opression and harassment by the different agencies. Thanks for the little snippet. I feel I'm right to pursue this for the community.

[@paulohara1502]

👩🏼‍🦲👏👍⭐

[@garyodriscoll3009]

Legal and lawfull are 2different things ... lawfull is law of the land ...common law ..legal is government pollicy which is NOT law ...you accept that bull ...i do not ..you should know better by now ....they are conmen because them policys dont apply to them who make them

[@htcmlcrip]

so in human language: legal meas this does not violate law (maybe law does not define said thging at all?) lawful means that law defines it and you comply with it. for example: i legally walked down the pavement (as in, theres no law telling you how to do that) vs i lawfully crossed the street (as in. i waited for green light to cross) ? i never studied english so not sure how correct is this (self taught pretty much) but those things gets confusing as hell lol

[@themuir]

I disagree with your interpretation.

[@DavyDoo69]

USA Law = Common Law, this country is a common law country. Legal = Legislators Statutes and Codes, that are not Law, they are the color of law, and only applies to some, but not to everyone.

[@firefox-vc6rb]

Lawful comes under common law, legal is policy for the corporations. Like the UK government and its institutions are corporations. Even the police and courts are on companies House. Even you are a CORPS (dead) with the Crown owning your ALL CAPS NAME see your birth certificate Crown copyright. You are a employee of the UK corporation. A Living man operates under common law, a dead Corps operates under legalise. The dead cannot contract with a living entity, there can be no meeting of the minds. So they trick you into claiming the Crown copyright name ALL CAPS. Either confirming in court by standing up to claim the name, or by your signature. So trust law is the secret bridge which connects common law to legalese. That's why you dont really own anything, your home, car is registered under your ALL CAPS NAME. You only have right of use, the Corporation of the UK owns everything which it holds under trust law. These freedom of the land people who claim it doesn't apply to them without consent are wrong. It does apply because when you were born your parents registered you as a maritime asset. That's why your birthed not born when your mother's waters broke, travelling down the birth canal. Then you were registered and given the ALL CAPS NAME. Hence all policy... legalise does apply because you as mentioned above claim your legal fiction, strawman and sign documents marrying the common law living man to the dead Corps legalise.

[@firefox-vc6rb]

@@stevenhodgson834 what's so hilarious? You obviously lack understanding of how the system really works. Because if you would look Into it you would see that what I've said is correct.

[@jonbarosa8692]

@@firefox-vc6rb guess what, i have looked in to it, and what you are talking about is complete and utter nonsense!

[@firefox-vc6rb]

@@jonbarosa8692 You say on other posts that you have many years practising law. So legal work is your profession you've invested your time in. However any tradesmen likes to keep the tips of the trade to themselves. All courts start in trust law using the trusts set up from the 3 cest a que acts (spelling wrong) but French for proof of life. Everyone is dead lost at sea until a living man claims his trust created at his birth which he doesn't know exists. By claiming the name or signing documents you create joinder becoming trustee for your trust. So you either know but don't want this public knowledge as it may create problems for your paid proffession. Or your not that knowledgeable regarding law.

[@firefox-vc6rb]

@@jonbarosa8692 legalise has its own dictionary... blacks dictionary. All the English words have different meanings in the Blacks dictionary. Under Blacks definition a person is a corporation. Legalise is maritime law , law of the sea, money, commerce. Hence all contracts worldwide are conducted in English. That's why you need a solicitor, barrister to represent you because all the English words have been given different meanings. So you have to employ these people who know how to play the game in court.

[@firefox-vc6rb]

@@jonbarosa8692 And as legalise is maritime, and to do with money. And we have the London square mile and the temple Bar located in the financial district (money men). The courts, solicitors, barristers are connected to the bankers who register you on banking paper on your birthing shipping manifest at birth. Yes your a financial asset, its all about money and the masons who incidently control the temple Bar, Bar exam... courts control the banks too. As I said its a fraud and its all about money, that's why the courts, police are on companies House. And that's why prosecutors have to have their cheque book on them. Because if the court cannot charge the defendants secret trust fund they the prosecutor has to pay. Usually before they get to this point the prosecution usually withdraws charges.

[@grumpywelshman1]

All lies.

[@angr3819]

The differences between the lawful law of the land vs the fraudulently imposed on the land 'pirate law/admiralty law of the sea. Now that is worth knowing. As in Magna Carta, on the first page of many law books because it still applicable as the law of the land and those not at sea. It is worth knowing about freeman of the land even if you don't decide to take back your born rights from before your 'berth' was registered. Also learn 'word magic' as in word tricks. Much is phonetic. For instance, when in court and asked if you understand you are being asked if you stand under, in other words accept the court (caught) being higher than yourself and your natural born rights. If you agree you understand then you agree that they can impose their pirate law on you. Comprehend? Go and read about it. It's a game changer. However, a written agreement or a contract stands. Don't try to get out of paying off your mortgage by the methods one or two suggest. At least one had his house repossessed yet still somehow thought he had won (cognitive dissonance). A fair legal contract is a contract. Also read about 'legalise'. That will shock you.

[@servicekid7453]

Ahh, Freemen on the Land woo….. what a lark! 🤪🤪🤪

[@angr3819]

@@servicekid7453 It is the first law of the land and still valid. Thus why still in law books and cases have been won with it. Laugh about that then.

[@servicekid7453]

@@angr3819 there are three clauses of the Magna Carta still in effect. The rest has been repealed. As for the rest of the woo, none of it has ever won a case for anyone, or repudiated anyone’s debts. It’s all a scam that, sadly, preys upon very vulnerable people

[@Divinitatem]

@@servicekid7453 Many people have succeeded against the beast system MANY

[@servicekid7453]

@@Divinitatem mmm-hmmmm yes they have 🙄🙄🙄 nursey will be bringing you the pills soon, just relax

[@paulhiggins6175]

Lawful: that which is permitted by the people of the land country costumes practices beliefs Legal : a society rules regulations bylaws act codes for the persons of that society which the person belongs to ( pertaining) So is that wrong or legal what one did : acts codes statutes rules regulations bylaws. And what if one is an idiot in legalese and never been a legal member. And if one is of a foreign culture ? And is this land know as England a common lore/law nation and common lore/law still prevails on on this land England, that which one took an oath and gave ones promise and word that which one sits on stands on and England is a part of. Common lore/law that which is unwritten. Nature lore, Gods lore , man and woman lore So what’s all this legal or illegal rubbish again just say what a man or woman did wrong to another man or woman. And have the man or woman come forward and swear it’s true.

[@servicekid7453]

An yes, FOTL are out in force. Must be a full moon… 🤪🤪🤪

[@paulhiggins6175]

@@servicekid7453 Dose FOTL Mean Fear of the lord ?

[@servicekid7453]

@@paulhiggins6175 nope. Guess again (or just Google it….)

[@paulhiggins6175]

@@servicekid7453 The list is endless i, a man: am a idiot in legalese and do not know what it is, but happy thou the man or woman knows it

[@servicekid7453]

@@paulhiggins6175 Freeman On The Land. Google that 😝

[@reviewofinterestingitemsma8003]

this is far too long, you took 4.11 minutes talking about a subject that was no clearer at the end of the video than it was at the beginning. the real answer to this is: unlawful is something to which there is an act of parliament against said act. where as illegal is a sick bird. lol

[@massil153]

Wrong

[@PUBLICSECTORJOBSWORTHS]

Common Law has no place in the administrative courts, please explain the different types of court Mr BBB. Also could you cover maritime law?

[@servicekid7453]

Aha, i detect a whiff of Freemen on the Land! 🤣🤣🤣🤪🤪🤪

[@PUBLICSECTORJOBSWORTHS]

@@servicekid7453 🤣😂 how?

[@servicekid7453]

@@PUBLICSECTORJOBSWORTHS anyone mentioning common law and admiralty / maritime law in the same breath is usually drinking from the FOTL Kool-Aid

[@PUBLICSECTORJOBSWORTHS]

@@servicekid7453 Mabey I should have added civil court to that. So because someone is seeking clarity on their research and use certain words they are a FMOTL? Are you AI or some kind of bot or just a FMOTL troll? Point I'm making here is you have just made assumptions based on my use of maritime law, perhaps I should have used the word court instead of law.😉

[@servicekid7453]

@@PUBLICSECTORJOBSWORTHS note my use of the word *usually* - sorry if I upset you

[@anti-stupid-not--vax9629]

With your birth certificate you was handed to the copyrighted crown corporation. You have two certificates work out why 🤐

[@andrewgilbertson5356]

Thank you