lawful versus legal

This is a concept that most have trouble grasping.
Its also a concept of great value in many ways , once you understand it.
And I shall endeavour to simplify it here to the best of my knowledge.
Could probably be very useful for tax purposes.
But the big picture is that we are being conquered through the law.
And have been since before all of us were born. And it would be nice if the rest of the men of goodwill realised so we might put an end to it before we all end up in the gulag.

What is the Law?

The law in Australia is God's law for men. The bible. That is the heart of it.
We are a British colony and we are British Subjects according to the law.
The Australian constitution ratifies all the common law of the United Kingdom that preceeded it. Back to the Magna Carta. and the bible.
It is nigh on impossible to change the law. It doesn't alter on the whims of elections or the sitting of parliament.
To obey the law is to be lawful. And for most issues, the Australia Constitution has clarified the law. And is the law.

Legal is, in essence, legislation made by state and federal parliaments for the administration of the country. This is the policy of whoever happens to have the majority of votes in government at the time.
The constitution (the law) clearly states that if legislation must be made, then it must fall within the parameters of the law. Or in other words you cannot make legislation that is inconsistent with the law.If you do, then it is invalid.
If I have time I might actually go through and find the sections in the constitution or other laws to confirm what I'm saying here.
But this is a simplified explanantion of the concept, not an effort to prove it.

What has been occurring is a takeover of our country, not by armies landing at Bondi, but by corrupt lawyers, misguided freemasons etc, creating legislation that is not consistent with the law.On behalf of the pope and his papist monarch and her father before her.
And through a combination of our ignorance and that these conquering foes are so insidiously entrenched into positions of power, that the inconsistency of this legislation cannot be tested.

We are supposed to be the government. Us, just ordinary people. It really should be that simple.Most of us however have accepted the big bad government is a seperate entity to us that can tell us what to do. It can't lawfully do so.
Yet it does and we accept it. Due to fear and ignorance.

What are we ignorant of?
Ruses.
In order to get around the law the clever bastards have made all kinds of ruses to get us act outside the law, where they can legally justify what they do to us.
For example, we have a right to use the common roads unmolested. Even if we speed or don't wear a seatbelt or register our car or have no license. This is a right written in law. A right is just that. Its not conditional.
So how can they interfere with that right and not break the law?
They get us to act as corporations or legal entities.
So when you drive down the road, you're not driving as Bill the british subject with the right to do so as promised by the Queen's oath, but as BILL STUPID NUMPTY as on your license and birth certificate. BILL STUPID NUMPTY isnt a man or a British Subject any more than MCDONALDS RESTAURANT is. He is a legal entity.
And he has no rights, so it isnt breaking the law to interfere with his free use of the common roads.


The same applies with tax. If you try to invest or even earn a living these days, you must use a bank and supply a tax number And the bank is only interested BILL STUPID NUMPTY. The ATO is only interested in BILL STUPID NUMPTY. The legal entity so kindly provided to you by the big bad government when you were born. This legal entity has no rights and if it earns money they can make any policies they like to steal his its. And if BILL STUPID NUMPTY doesn't follow their policies they can ask you to go to jail on its behalf. Hoping you're ignorant enough to think they meant you. And more often than not, they'll be right.

Practical application --

What would happen if you drove as Bill the man, son of Arthur of the Numpty line from Numptytown? The free man as listed lawfully in the family bible by your parents, or at the local church when christened. (That's all your parents needed to do when you were born. And its all you need as identification in life.)Or if you applied for a job as that man, or put your gold in the bank as that man?
Then in order to apply policy or enforce unawful legislation upon him, the big bad government would be breaking the law, they trampling his rights in the law as promised by the Queen.
You would have undermined one of the ruses to bypass the law. And be free of tax and so on.

You won't get a booklet issued by the government entitled
" So you realise we are fucking you in the arse- here's the procedure to follow in order to conduct yourself in future"

You have to realise who you really are, and what the law is, and what is real law you must follow, and what isn't. And act accordingly.

A perth Mint Kookaburra is an opportunity to act accordingly. This is lawful money as it is consistent with the constitution and it is legal tender in that it has legislation passed to be accepted as currency today.
( a $50 note is unlawful money but legal tender- the legislation to create it isn't consistent with the law and therefore $50 note is unlawful)

The ATO ( I assume) will want you to define this kookaburra as an investment curio or some such, so it falls into their jurisdiction. The legal but unlawful jurisdiction where they deal with legal (untested) but unlawful tender.
It is up to you therefore to establish firstly that you're a man , a British Subject, not a legal entity as per their records.
And secondly that you are in possession of not an investment collectable, but lawful money.
That being the case its none of their goddamned business.
They will try to argue or test you on this point, so you must stand up for youself. And to do this you must know you're right.
Now if you earnt your living by providing a service or goods, whereby all your accounting was done in kookaburras as lawful money. And you only acted as a man, not the legal entity you've been told all your life is you, then the ATO wouldn't want to go near you.
And you keep all your profits, as you should.

Additional thoughts on above-
There are many ruses used to get around the law in legislation. The legal entity title they suggest we use is just one.
Another example is to make legislation that only applies to employees of their corporation (known as public servants) which they can do lawfully, but then suggest they apply to all of us. And because none of us are lawyers who can read legalese we don't realise we need not comply.
This is where media control and big advertising budgets come into play.

Another ruse I've found, which was a big find, was defining Australia as "including external territories" .
If you read legislation, you soon see that word definition is a means to tell lies. And finding the definition of any word used can be a real pain in the arse. Because they will say "Australia is defined as in the something or other Act 1998. So you go look at that and in that Act it will say Australia is defined as in the something or other Act 1997. And so on. And when you finally find the definition quite often the definition will mean the complete opposite of what is used in common parlance.

So, having found the definition of Australia above I published it on a freeman site, with a link to the legislation. And stupidly didnt make a copy of which Act , or the act itself. And soon after the link was a dead link. That Act was taken offline.
Prior to computer searches this way of lying wouldve been near perfect in concealing definitions. Theres over a million pieces of legislation written in Australia. You'd be stuck in a library for a week tracking down each definition. If its taken offline- I give up.

For those not familiar with legalese "includes" means includes the following and excludes all else
So when that Act defined Australia as "including external territories" it means it doesnt apply in Australia. And this is one of those ruses where they have covered their arse lawfully because who would ever think when they say this legislation applies in Australia actually means it doesnt apply in Australia?
Noone.
And the average numpty would comply when they don't have to.

There is also another school of thought that everything legal is a contract situation. Where you opt to contract or you do not. Almost everyone does because they arent aware its a choice or a contract.
This comes into the area of jurisdiction. Common law versus roman law. Roman law is for trusts and equity - money and so on. I don't have a complete understanding of this as there is alot of conflicting information and I must be too stupid to cut through the bullshit,
Most people call this jurisdiction admiralty like in the law of the sea, I call it Roman law because thats what it is essentially.
In a way, this is what is happening when they get you to act as your legal entity name provided by your birth certificte.

I do undertand that our courts today have almost phased out common law. This is intentional. It is also treason.
When you go to court now they would have you act in Roman law, and you go there as a slave.
(technically I think you're defined as an imbecile incapable of acting on his own affairs, or a pauper, or some people say as a dead man's estate)
Anyhow that's how you're treated from their perspective.And they have some obscure legal justification they use privately.

When i had my success in court recently I created a common law court. This is how I ousted the judge and how I walked out free.
The takeover in WA is so far advanced that the judge has no right to sit in a common law court, they dont have the permission from the Queen or have made the oaths.
Actually in my case it took her a little while to realise, so she acted as though she did have authority for a couple of minutes. And was lording it over me. Before she realised I had her committing treason on public record. And jumped up midsentence and abandoned court. If I had 20 decent men with me, we couldve and shouldve taken her out to the nearest tree and hanged her
But alas I'm adrift in a sea of numpties, who havent the sense to see where we are headed if we don't wake up chopchop.
But how can you expect anyone to care when the football is on TV and its a thrilling game?

The ATO would be easier to deal with than a judge, if you want to stop paying tax.

Additional thought

We have an executive in place in the law to ensure the parliament does not pass unlawful legislation.
That's the governors general
Oddly enough we havent had a lawful one of those for at least 30 years (confirmed) most likely longer.
So its just a rubber stamp by an unlawful governor general who is actually supposed to check that legislation is lawful. But as he doesnt exist, and we have imposters instead- what is legal is rarely lawful.

The Queen of Australia is also a ruse .This entity is unlawful, and has made no oath to uphold the law, protect our rights or defend the faith.
Nor is this entity soverign. You might aswell have Ronald McDonald sign off on legislation, for all the authority the Queen of Australia has.
This is also treason. High treason. I'd need more than 20 decent men to fix that though.

If anyone needs proof of my bold claims please ask, and be specific. And I'll try to wade through my stuff for it.

Additional thought

Some might be confused by my saying we are a British colony and British subjects.
This is what we are lawfully.

Legally we are Australian citizens and Australia is a soverign country.
Australian citizens have no rights whatsoever, only benefits that can be given and taken away at the whim of the big bad government.
And Australia as a soverign country would be owned by the pope.

So while it might rankle with your patriotic sentiments to deny Australian citizenship in favour of being a British Subject, the first is a debt slave of Rome and the last is a free man with alot of rights and the best law the world has yet seen to back them up

What a load of old bollicks.

jimbo what do you really think?
fucking peasant

Short answer please TP.

What has been occurring is a takeover of our country, not by armies landing at Bondi, but by corrupt lawyers, misguided freemasons etc, creating legislation that is not consistent with the law.On behalf of the pope and his papist monarch and her father before her.

Aren't freemasons and the pope and his papist monarch (whoever that is) on opposite sides?

good point
supposedly freemasons initially were popularised as a protestant show.

Back in the days before mandatory education when men knew what was going on in the world.Protestants versus papists was the big deal. Freemasonry was one of the ruses of the Jesuits to control protestant men of power in protestant countries



The romans church still sees us as protestants now, even though most Australians are oblivious of this dynamic. The reason they look at us that way is because it was them that made us so ignorant, stupid and morally corrupted. All part of their cunning plan.

And the monarchy is supposed to be protestant , thats why they had the revolution with cromwell and so on. And brought in our current line of monarchy.

But its not in the monarchy's interest to be protestant. The poor bastards have to respect our rights. Instead of like the olden days when they could do whatever the hell they liked because they were the king.

Freemasons today often support the queen, but most are likely oblivious theyre supporting a catholic queen when they do so who is in bed with the pope to send us all back to the dark ages of overt slavery

The Pope wrote:good point
supposedly freemasons initially were popularised as a protestant show.

Back in the days before mandatory education when men knew what was going on in the world.

Protestants versus papists was the big deal. The romans church still sees us as protestants now, even though most Australians are oblivious of this dynamic. The reason they look at us that way is because it was them that made us so ignorant, stupid and morally corrupted. All part of their cunning plan.

And the monarchy is supposed to be protestant , thats why they had the revolution with cromwell and so on. And brought in our current line of monarchy.

But its not in the monarchy's interest to be protestant. The poor bastards have to respect our rights. Instead of like the olden days when they could do whatever the hell they liked because they were the king.

Ignorant ,stupid & morally corrupted ? I resemble that remark

I didnt see the short answer part of the question.

Yes they are supposed to be on opposite sides, but they're in fact all under the pope's skirts

No, your original reply was short for you TP

I dont know how to make these youtubes work

This is an explanation of banking re: so called loans from a canadian freeman

Interesting point halfway through about legislation to reduce banks neccessary reserves to zero in the future.
Which seems at odds to the system coming into place around the world (the name of which escapes me) whereby banks agree to increase reserves from 2014.
Im wondering now if thats a smokescreen to create false confidence

The Pope wrote:I didnt see the short answer part of the question.

Yes they are supposed to be on opposite sides, but they're in fact all under the pope's skirts

There's no sign of them in the photo. Your just pullin me plonka, Ah.

Can you give us (much) more details surrounding your court case etc??

I would like to know how all this mumbo jumbo can be PRACTICALLY applied

One good example of whats going on which I have tested is when a judge or a cop tells you to do something, its a question, not an order. So answer him/her.
I went into the local copshop one day last year and asked to see the seargent, and then demanded he removed the Australian flag from his flagpole, as it was an act of piracy.
Which it was.
And instead of doing as instructed, he got narky and then all the other cops came out. Next thing you know Im getting threatened and so on.

The seargent said Im going to arrest you.
Which isnt an order, its a question but he makes it sound like an order and hopes you say nothing.
So I said no you're not.
Then he offered again and I said no you're not
So he didnt.
And I went home.
If he was a bastard he wouldve anyway, but some of them are ethical in their own twisted fashion.And the judges are because its recorded. Doesnt mean they're not corrupt but they're a little careful about being obvious because maybe theyll cop it from some unknown dogooder still in the government.
Judge offered me bail, i said no thanks, then she offered me custody i said no thanks to that too and here i am with no bail and no custody.
But bear in mind they dont make it sound like an offer. They make it sound like an order.
I have a few other examples of things that ive proved to my satisfaction, but the big picture is the courts are now thoroughly corrupt beyond any chance of fixing them.

We have a choice between revolution and tyranny like the gulags of Stalin and so on.
And since noone in the country seems aware of whats going on, Im guessing revolution is unlikely

Another one that isnt resolved but I achieved some breathing room with is the ATO. Some bozo sent me evidence of this that and the other , and i replied as my common law name. and as a british subject and accused him of committing severl crimes resultiing from acting outside his jurisdiction.
And demanded 8 ounces of gold for remedy.
He tried to contract with me again and didnt reply to any of my questions. Which put him in dishonour , should it come before a court. ( i win if court isnt corrupt if ive tried to resolve the issue and the other side has dishonoured me)
So now he's laid off me on the original issue and is trying to get me to use the ombudsman, which of course is a cunning ruse to get me to act in his jurisdiction.
My next move is to file criminal charges against the tax agent, which I havent figured out how to do yet.
And have other more mundane things to do before I go there.
Still waiting for the 8 ounces of lawful gold coin

If you're a pragmatist, I wouldnt bother with freeman stuff. The underlying law you'll rely on is being abolished in England now. And the courts are already totally corrupt.If you're a man of principle on the other hand, you are obligated to learn this stuff. And it is useful and you will have successes. But you'll have to fight for them and risk the consequences if you lose in a rigged game.

It wasn't a question TP, it was a threat. Baically he was saying,
"piss off before we get the shits", you did eventually after calling their bluff. Next time, may be different. Actually, why the fuck would you want to do that anyway?

Because they're a foreign army owned by the pope, flying the Australian flag. The W.A. police no longer have their oath of loyalty to the Queen but a corporation called the state of western Asutralia.
Which is treason.
And also means they can no longer fly the flag, they have to fly whatever flag theyre representing , under admiralty law. In fact they can't even have their flagpole in the dirt. It has to be attatched to their building or they're in common law. Law of the land.

And I went and said it because noone else will.

(He couldve arrested me for breaching bail. As i refused bail and usually that means ive breached it or turned it down: and should be arrested.But under their legal system I have to consent, which i didnt, obviously. So he gave up.

Another useful aspect of freeman, that I've proved works is having charges dismissed because of jurisdiction.
I was accused of a crime in the admiralty jurisdiction.
Which is none of my business because I'm a man not a business.
So I went to court and changed the courts jurisdiction to common law and the magistrate abandoned the court to me, because theyre traitors with no oath and cant sit in common law courts in WA
Then I couldve dismissed the charges by simply saying it.
The police prosecutor cant say anything unless he's on his oath, and then you have to have actually committed a common law crime. Which I didn't and most of us dont. We go to court on invented crimes or just pay up so they leave us alone.
(in my case they fabricated the written court transcript and denied access to the audio recording, to alter the outcome and save the neck of the magistrate committing treason- so it didnt really matter if I won or not- take your own transcriber to court if you want to fight these pricks)
Alot of my wisdom was gained in hindsight, and I wasnt as confident as I shouldve been. And didnt act the way I wish I had.
But was I to get a fine for speeding tomorrow, or drunk driving etc I believe Id not be paying it, and have no major hassle negotiating their bullshit.
You have to take them on and be prepared to lose until you find your feet. And break free of this brainwashed authority they have over us.

Tell me TP, If you don't fully understand this Quackery, You must be bloody naive to expect WA police officers have any understanding of it, even if it were true. They would simply detain you for a psychiatric report.

noone can understand the complete web of lies . But I have a basic gist.
I don't read minds, so I don't know why I wasn't put in prison.
I'm pretty sure the police all know the difference between the law and policy.
What used to be acting on your oath as opposed to enforcing policy.

Habeus corpus says that fines cannot be issued without a jury's order.
And as all police seem to do is issue fines, I'm guessing they know they need the consent of the poor sap they're parasiting off, or they're breaking the law.
'I'm going to fine you under the traffic act for such and such (unlawful policy) Do you understand?
Now please sign here to confirm your consent to be fucked up the arse, so I don't go to prison for violating habeus corpus and a dozen other laws.'
No problem occiffer, give me that pen.

The Pope wrote:noone can understand the complete web of lies . But I have a basic gist.
I don't read minds, so I don't know why I wasn't put in prison.
I'm pretty sure the police all know the difference between the law and policy.
What used to be acting on your oath as opposed to enforcing policy.

Habeus corpus says that fines cannot be issued without a jury's order.
And as all police seem to do is issue fines, I'm guessing they know they need the consent of the poor sap they're parasiting off, or they're breaking the law.
'I'm going to fine you under the traffic act for such and such (unlawful policy) Do you understand?
Now please sign here to confirm your consent to be fucked up the arse, so I don't go to prison for violating habeus corpus and a dozen other laws.'
No problem occiffer, give me that pen.

I'd sure like to have a night out in central sydney with you, one saturday night.

shall I bring my clip-on ponytail for the disco?

The Pope wrote:shall I bring my clip-on ponytail for the disco?

Yeah but they'rd probably take it off yer before they locked yer up.

dont I have to commit a crime to go to prison?
Or should I be locked up for having the audacity not to want to be ordered around by the government?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyFpOp8Ft0Q