Subject: (This one's for Theo)
From: Veronica
Date: 24/5/13 8:34 pm
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

During the interview on MKFM, Theo asked me to define the difference between "Legal" and "Lawful".

Something I've done many times, but always in print, or via a screen.

Not having either of those facilities to hand (at the time) I kind-of 'ducked' the question.

However, here it is (in longform):

An example of "Law" is The Law of Gravity.

1. NOT made by mankind.
2. NO Court required to judge that 'things fall down'
3. NO penalty for breaking it, because it can't be broken.

And example of "Legal" is any Statute you care to name.

1. MADE by Mankind (and thus the OPPOSITE of Law)
2. JUDGED in a Court (and thus the OPPOSITE of Law)
3. ALWAYS a penalty for breaking it, because it CAN be broken (and thus the OPPOSITE of Law)

So "Legal" is the EXACT OPPOSITE of "Lawful".

The exact opposite of "Lawful" is "Unlawful".

So "Legal" = "Unlawful"

Unlawful things are done by OUTLAWS

Thus Policymen (also now to be known as State Mercenaries), Judges, Magistrates, etc are OUTLAWS.

An OUTLAW (being 'outside the Law') has, therefore, no recourse to the Law.

It's a good job we don't employ Bounty Hunters these days.

You want it another way?

In “Law”, Truth is Sovereign … it is the most important thing, and the decider of ‘Justice’ (Witnesses must swear to tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth ... no hearsay ... no 'computer says this, computer says that' shit. 'Wot a bloke told me down the Pub' is NOT considered 'evidence'. Judgements must be made by a Jury BEYOND ... BEYOND ... BEYOND ... reasonable doubt ... which means 'as near to bloody certain as makes very little difference')

In “Legal”, Truth is pretty much IRRELEVANT. What is relevant is: “Someone’s interpretation of some words written on paper, by someone else, the interpretation taking place at some point in time, and generally designed to screw you - in favour of some CORPORATE Entity”. In other words “Legal” is thoroughly IMMORAL. (Witnesses are not required, as long as a computer printout is to hand. No-one takes any kind of Oath to tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth ... or to tell anything at all ... hearsay is perfectly permissible, especially if it helps to screw you ... 'computer says this, computer says that' is the meat & drink of "Legal". 'Wot a bloke told me down the Pub' is considered perfectly valid 'evidence', provided it helps to screw you. The judgement is based on 'The Balance of Probability' which means that, unless you have some kind of 'status' or 'title' ... you either did it, or thought about doing it ... which, in Legal, amounts to the same thing)

Vxxx