Statutes vs Law


by Roger Hayes

Although Roger is part of the British Constitution Group, which I now believe to be controlled opposition. I sense Roger to be a genuine soul caught up the cogs.


The main issue I have with the ‘Freeman-on-the-Land’ topics is that they never speak about the root cause of why we have all of this perverted laws. Who is perverting them.


Please translate the following legal references, government and politicians, ruling classes to the judaic/talmudic cabalistic laws and the people currently in authority.


I feel the freeman principles are an important element to this whole agenda, but we must be realistic about ‘what’ we are dealing with, as opposed to just ‘who’ we are dealing with. I now strongly feel these tyrants are acting under a demonic influence and they have no boundaries whatsoever. So we can be clued up to the hilt with all this Lawful Rebellion, but the bottom line is we are dealing with demonic/satanic entities.


However please don’t let that put you off from familiarizing yourself with this important information.


This article pertains to the British legal/law society; which is based around Admiralty/Maritime (shipping) laws. Contract law. However the principles are pretty much consistent throughout the judaified world.


I have highlighted some areas which I thought were very important, but I could have highlighted most, if not all of these points.





1/. All acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws.


Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ barristers and solicitors, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law – and for a purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are different.


If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Law of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit.


2/. A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of society – they are edits of legislation used to govern that society. Statues are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice.


3/.  The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations; re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous).


4/. There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection.


5/.  Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed  (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours.


6/. Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority.

There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told

Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent.

This is the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms.


7/. Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they frequently like to claim.


8/. The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office) is the people’s ability to withdraw their consent to being governed – and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and government then becomes tyrannical. We never give ‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to act on our behalf. Today’s governing bodies are slowing mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves.


9/. The ‘divine’ right of kings’ was destroyed by rebellion – we are now living under the yoke of the ‘divine right of politicians’ who saw fit to pass the Lisbon Treaty against the will of the people. Lawful Rebellion is a right – and the means by which we deal with the abuse of office.


10/. A rejection of statues does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of statutes is a rejection of governance. It is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they make are acceptable. The distinction between laws and statues has been lost in the fog of time. Many long-in-the-tooth ‘legal’ practitioners will argue that statutes are laws – but if statutes were laws they would be described as such to avoid ambiguity. The ‘legal’ profession has failed in its duty to maintain and understand the distinction between laws and statues – through ignorance – but also because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘legal’ profession enhanced authority – why would they promote knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do so. It is after all, the legal profession that runs the court system – with magistrates (our representatives) having been pushed to the side by statue. (The Magistrate Court Act 1980). Magistrates having been made subservient to the decision of the legal adviser in court. This was a power-grab statute.


11/. Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of society are given preferable treatment under statutes. Politicians for example have given themselves pension provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU common agriculture policy (a statute) rewards wealthy land owners – but not tenant farmers. The police can park on double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) when they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty (at work).


Special interest groups often benefit from statutes – banks being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing professional legislation. A disproportionate large number of ex-Minsters of the Crown now work (I use that word advisedly) for the banks. Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in mind.


12/. If a statute is passed transferring their authority (to Brussels for example) – we can withdraw our consent because such an act is unlawful.


13/. It has become the habit of the legal professional to describe statutes as laws. Habits, no matter how entrenched do not however create facts. Statutes are not laws.


14/. If statues become overly prescriptive, restrictive, onerous and oppressive – the people not only have a right to withdraw their consent – they have an obligation and a duty to do so in order to defend themselves against tyrannical power. 


15/. Statues are supposed to protect society and help in fair and just governance, but from time to time (over centuries) statutes mutate to become more oppressive and work against the wider interest of the community and invariably  benefit small sections of society. During these times these groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have accumulated    for   themselves – invariably at our expense.


16/. Without statues we have greater freedoms. The ruling class do not like ordinary people having too many freedoms, it makes them nervous as it has the potential to rock their boat, thus there is always the tendency to inflict more regulations than is necessary – in order to keep control.


17/. Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation.


18/. Statutes do not protect – they are used to keep control.


19/. Statutes are often unjust – they can be punitive, unfair, unreasonably prescriptive and authoritarian.


20/. We are all equal in the eyes of the law – we are not all equal in the eyes of statutes.






1/. Law refers to common law.


2/. Law are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms. 


3/. Law is based on principles – statutes are based on practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed.


4/. Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time. Statues often come and go on a whim.


5/. Laws may be taken into statutes but if repeated in statue they remain in force in law.


6/. Lawful refers to the law. legal refers to legislation.


7/. Laws are used to keep the peace.


8/.  Without law we have anarchy. *


9/. The people make the law – by acceptance and validation by jury decisions.


10/. Nobody is above the law. The law applies equally to us all. 


11/. Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation.


12/. Judges do not make the law – they interpret legislation and keep a record of laws.


13/. Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the legal profession are not even taught about our constitution – that should tell you all you need to know about where this is taking us.



* I don’t necessarily think anarchy is as bad as we are led to believe.


I would only add to this that common law tops any form of legislative statute. Also God’s/natural laws top common law.


May I suggest you copy, even print up this article for possible future reference.


Related info

Roger Hayes video

FMOTL page

Leave a comment


  1. Girl With A Dirty Mind

     /  May 27, 2014

    Reblogged this on The Other Side Of Girl With A Dirty Mind and commented:
    Natural law is not being adhered to in the UK and abroad. I stand under Natural Law. Anyone who states otherwise will have to put their own soul AND conscience on the line.

    • Agree. DO NO HARM. Wotso bloody difficult about that!!?? Too simplistic for these brainwashed goons.

      Thanks for contributing.

  2. Reblogged this on Awaken Longford.

  3. This is excellent. Thank you.
    I posted this and comments on the following facebook page and post…

    And I am putting parts into a notice of claim and right form which I plan to use to notify govt. offices and individuals like cops on scene when they bother me for exercising rights (like holding a sign on the dirt next to the Highway off ramp which they call ‘trespass’ on ‘ADOT Property’ which they think is ‘private’ though I show the financial report that says otherwise, and when asked WHY they think that, the answer: “I dont know”).
    So when I “Serve” this to the cop, and convince him to read it for the reason that it will protect him from liability if he obeys it, or if he doesnt, he will be more liable for violating the laws I cited in there…
    And then hopefully I will succeed in stopping an arrest. I have found that court rulings are sufficient to stop most police ‘warnings’ and demands, but not been able to stop an arrest in progress, yet.
    When I sue some cops, judges, and lawyers using the ‘failure to deny within time limit waives rights to challenge later’ Rule 8 of Civil Procedure, lien their bonds, have a notary protest method declare them to have violated their oaths, file criminal charges, conduct a grand jury and common law court with civilians, and then force the normal courts to enforce the peoples will…
    And have paper to show that I have done this (at least sued one public servant ‘Personally’, not the govt. funds)…
    THEN I am pretty sure I can make them go away.
    I have seen vehicle stops where an arrest was stopped (my first/second stop without a license/tag -YouTube), and here is how that worked….

    They had filed already notices with the courts, so the cops checked on the papers the people showed them, and then let them go when a judge told them to I guess.

    As long as you have notified them that they are breaking the law by doing ANYTHING to you against your will when not ‘protecting individual rights’ of another (Must be a victim or your consent to give govt. jurisdiction over you)…
    Then they cannot claim ‘good faith’ and ‘immunity’ when you sue them personally.

  1. Postępować zgodnie z prawem (część I) – “ustawy a prawo” « Stop Syjonizmowi
  2. Gazeta Polska - Postępować zgodnie z prawem (część I) – “ustawy a prawo”
  3. Do You Need a License to Drive? — Of Course You Do! | Philip Marks – philipem1000
  4. Are Statutes Laws? | Philip Marks – philipem1000

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: