This "clarification" offered definitions are most commonly heard from the crowd who hates all lawyers and has heard someone they're persuaded is sharper on the law than any lawyer you might ask. A large portion of this crowd also believes lawyers (or, "attorneys", or "esquires" - terms which they also believe have a materially different meaning from lawyer) are unwitting sworn members of an ancient British club, which in turn makes all attorneys "agents of a foreign power", and thus as well, not American citizens. Yeah, I know.... purely proofless, tin foil hat category stuff.
So to be clear, whatever else was said, the distinction stated in the "clarification" between "statute" and "law" is nothing of the sort - more like an obfuscation.
Further, the suggestion that statutes "are copyrighted for private use" is equally as stupid as it sounds. The law is to be freely and uninhibitedly quoted, spoken, and otherwise used without any such limitations as is the opposite of copyrighted material. Otherwise, someone show me the USPTO application for all statutes in all states. This is inane enough to sound like the reasoning of a small child in a make-believe world.
Another possibly helpful point which suggests the lacking in linguistic familiarity of the author of this supposed clarification is his use of the word "indeed". Note: it's ONE word.
There's so much more to be said about this, but I'm afraid the zealots who are already persuaded of these bits of nonsense won't be helped by a real analysis.
An Analysis of the RV/GCR and the "Restored Republic" 8-22-15