Seeking Alpha

LookingConfident's  Instablog

LookingConfident
Send Message
Longstanding investor in Looksmart (and a 69 yr old ex-tradesman), who has a passionate interest in the problems of newspapers along with their success in all their monetisation attempts made, on the web. For the "times are indeed, a changin", I feel. [17th of Aug, 2011 - Print media... More
  • Reply To The AEC - Australia Must Cancel The Election 5 comments
    Aug 14, 2013 12:54 PM

    AUSTRALIA must call off it's Election, due in less than 4 weeks time.

    The Australian "System" is ALL, Unlawful. (It has no basis in Law.)

    (click to enlarge)

    .............AUSTRALIA has been SOLD OUT (To the United Nations.)

    My reply to:

    The Australian Electoral Commission, on Facebook. (The AEC)

    The AEC (according to the Act) is tied to or, receives appointment from the GG, who as advised (by you) represents and is "powered by", the Queen of Australia. ("the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia is the representative of the Queen in Australia.") See ** below.

    The Act: www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00165

    We (the people of Australia) have "an indissoluble" contract with the monarch of the day who is NOT that same 'fiction' queen, established by Gough Whitlam, at the time.

    Yes. "We" the living people here in Australia are "contracted" to the monarch of the day via - the Commonwealth Constitution of 1900/1901.

    You (the AEC) have told me previously in a reply (* below) that this election is being conducted under the (our) constitution of 1901.

    [I mean] How can "we" the people (like you, the AEC & the Australian Government) possibly be "contracted" to this "paper queen" (the fiction Queen of Australia), who you and the Australian Government must feel, can 'serve two masters'?

    Just as you must feel the current Governor General can, also do? And that she (the Governor General-Quentin Alice Louise Bryce), serves two masters?

    WHEN was 'our' contract (one that is "indissoluble") ever 'officially' dissolved? And if it is said to have been without a referendum (of the people) this would have then breached the law of "our" constitution.

    Larry Hannigan's Australia - The True Australian Constitution

    Wouldn't any possible dissolvement require the approval of or, coming from "we" the people within or, via a Referendum?

    The "Queen of Australia" is purely a "fiction" or, a "paper" Queen, invented by Gough Whitlam. (And NOT any part of the 1900/1901 Commonwealth Constitution ...of "we" the people.)

    AEC .... can you please guide me with a link to any "sealed" document that gives her (our Governor General-Quentin Alice Louise Bryce) this 'perceived power', and one that is assented to by Her Majesty QE11?

    You the AEC, should never refer to the "Commonwealth of Australia" in the same breath of ....or, when you are really meaning, the:

    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

    Business registered address in D.C. (District of Columbia)

    Business Address: 1601 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW C/O AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY WASHINGTON DC 20036

    www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company...;action=getcompany

    True or, FALSE?

    < In their book, "Australian Constitutional Law and Theory", Tony Blackshield and George Williams wrote:

    The Australia Act was assented to on 4 December 1985 and came into operation on 3 March 1986 when it was proclaimed by Elizabeth II, who traveled to Canberra for that purpose to make it clear that she was acting in her capacity as Queen of Australia. >

    Sue Maynes:

    "Elizabeth never signed the Australia Act in agreement- she signed at the top of the document indicating that it had nothing [lawfully] to do with you and I. ["We", the people of Australia.]

    She never agreed to become queen of Australia either, so that [AEC's] comment is false. The trap in accepting the Australia Act as legitimate is clearly explained.

    ............If it did remove the Statute of Westminster allowing for our constitution to be repealed or amended then it would breach the constitution. So if it could not do that, then our constitution [clearly] still exists.

    But the Australia Act has removed a major part of it and they [the Govt] want us to think that [the] removal is legitimate - can you [now] see the dilemma in accepting the Australia Act as being lawful, creates?"

    .

    "We" the People...Ross Bradley

    .

    * - Q? - Will this Australian election be constitutionally "lawful"? And if so, what constitution will it relate to?

    The reply: (Sic)

    AEC: "Ross, we do our absolute best to ensure that we comply with all applicable legislation.

    The constitition is the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1901, with amendments made by sucessful referendums. All federal legislation currently in force is at Comlaw:

    www.comlaw.gov.au/Home >

    https://www.facebook.com/AustralianElectoralCommission/posts/509347382484935?comment_id=53968549&offset=0&total_comments=6&notif_t=feed_comment

    ** - www.facebook.com/AustralianElectoralCommission

    The Constitution (Listen to my Story)

Back To LookingConfident's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (5)
Track new comments
  • Author’s reply » .
    Sue Jess:

     

    "AEC supposedly has a piece of paper somewhere which they have been told is a law; enforceable onto human citizens of this land. This is a lie as it would require the correct authority under very 'specific' guidelines to make a created idea a law.

     

    When Whitlam and Hawke criminally, unconstitutionally and unlawfully changed our Constitution to suit their own and 'foreign' agenda's, it was not done within the 'specific' guidelines of our Constitution by way of Referendum (Section 128).

     

    The Royals Styles and Titles Act 1973 removed the crown and replaced it with a statutory instrument; the Queen of Australia. Our Great Seal was changed, which was our law making seal. It was replaced with a corporate stamp.

     

    The Commonwealth (we the people and the crown) was removed (unlawfully) from all titles under which the Government are meant to function. A Referendum was held in 1999 to turn Australia into a republic but on the 24th of November 1999, Australia said 'No'. This made no difference as our Constitution had already been unlawfully suspended weeks earlier and registered as a Corporation belonging to D.C.

     

    ALL OF THESE ACTIONS ARE HIGH TREASON.

     

    This means the current 'Government' is a fraudulent corporate entity that has NO AUTHORITY over any Australian citizen, law, act and/or act amendment, tax, court ruling, commissioned office or officer, judge, police officer, lawyer or anything that requires the ultimate Royal Assent, (more often via the Governor General) and is NULL AND VOID!

     

    This is nothing less than a DICTATORSHIP with the masquerading government just 'appearing' to act under the Constitution, oblivious to the average Australian, who is losing common law rights daily, excessively and unlawfully.

     

    Any church leader, employee or officer of a supposed Government department who is aware of an act of treason being committed is required to follow through with an investigation; informing or exposing the crime or they will risk being found guilty of 'Misprision of Treason' (concealing treason) which is punishable by 2 years in prison. With great power comes great responsibility."
    14 Aug 2013, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » .
    The AEC's reply: [Is not good enough] :(

     

    Note that the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Act) has some 6 pages of "changes" made to it, since 1918!!

     

    http://bit.ly/14Mx9F2

     

    AEC

     

    "Last night we received a lot of interest regarding under what law the AEC conducts the federal election, the role of the Governor General, how we define elector versus voter, and some questions regarding the constitutional qualifications of candidates

     

    The AEC administers the conduct of federal elections under the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Act).

     

    The Governor-General is the Queen’s representative in Australia. The position has ongoing responsibilities within the political system and its powers are often debated.

     

    The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 at Section 4(1) provides the following interpretation: ‘Elector means any person whose name appears on a Roll as an elector.’ The AEC uses the words elector and voter interchangeably.

     

    Following on from the definition there were comments regarding compulsory voting. The AEC itself does not have an official view on whether enrolment and voting should or should not be compulsory. this is a matter for the parliament to decide. the AEC conducts all elections according to the law in force at the time. The AEC has put together information on compulsory voting in practice which is available on our website at:

     

    http://bit.ly/14Mx6ZS

     

    The AEC has also put together information regarding constitutional disqualifications for intending candidates which is also available on our website at:

     

    http://bit.ly/14Mx9F4
    Like · Reply · 9 minutes ago via mobile
    14 Aug 2013, 08:06 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » .
    Government employee Gene Nevin posts: "Dude I work in and for the government of the day , I understand the constitution and legislation better then most. My point was not personal I mean lets all have our say, be thankful we have a proper vote and a say in a democratic process.

     

    I do care about the vote but I do not care why people question the process!!!"

     

    (Click on AEC hyperlink.) http://on.fb.me/14zNBSk
    14 Aug 2013, 09:50 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » .
    .
    I guess it was my FOLLOWING reply to Gene Nevin that saw all my comments "deleted" and my being banned from posting to the AEC Site...

     

    "I work in and for the government of the day" [Gene Nevin]

     

    I guess that you Gene (in having a/your contract or, workplace agreement with this U.S. registered private corporation called the AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT) would then understand that you have 'signed' this agreement in accordance with "their" rules?

     

    [And, as such] You are a virtual shareholder.

     

    As "we" (the people of Australia) do not have any agreement and are NOT 'contracted' like you are Gene, we are not and won't be responsible for any debt that your "boss" is running up, on behalf of it's shareholders. (Like you.)

     

    Ordinary Australian people have an indissoluble "contract" with the 'monarch of the day', under the Commonwealth Constitution of 1900/1901. Whereas YOU (Gene) have your very own "lawful" contract that binds you to the 1986 'set of constitutional rules', that you have agreed to become a member of and as I've posted, you are 'lawfully' bound to.

     

    That includes you having a share of the debt and repayments related to any & all the unlawful "acts" that your employer ("the corporation"), may or, will have to pay back.

     

    ............The Nuremburg defense ("I was only doing my job") will apply in that it will NOT get to save your 'skin in this game', that you are Lawfully contracted, within.

     

    Unlawful Governments CANNOT make laws, that are Lawful.
    14 Aug 2013, 11:20 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » .
    For Jacki (my reply E mail to her follows below), IF you have gotten this far:

     

    [Jacki]....Search for, find and Understand....the Truth...

     

    http://bit.ly/14st6YH

     

    FWIW, here's a copy of my E mail sent to SPER, here in Queensland.

     

    There's nothing like "getting the message out there", right? ;)

     

    Monday, 19th of August, 2013

     

    Attention: Jacki
    Senior Processing Officer
    Tolling Offence Unit | Central Operations and Support
    Customer Services Branch | Department of Transport and Main Roads

     

    Hi Jacki, [Good morning to you.]

     

    "In Religion and Politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand,& without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the question at issue, but have taken them at second hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." ~ Mark Twain

     

    THIS (the above) also applies to LAW

     

    Please be advised that I do NOT consent to any of the following:

     

    < "If you were in charge of the vehicle at the time of the trip, in order for this matter to be considered, you are required to provide a Statutory Declaration nominating yourself as the driver of the vehicle including the:

     

    · Infringement Notice Number
    · The date/s in which you were responsible for the vehicle
    · You name, address and drivers licence number.

     

    The Statutory Declaration must be signed and declared before a Justice of the Peace/Commissioner for Declarations or a person authorised in your State or Territory." >

     

    In acting on behalf of both myself and my son, you were asked and [you] have failed to provide me with details of the following:

     

    "My question to Queensland Motorways Pty Limited, in regards to where do they LEGALLY and under what particular Law can they involve my son with their statement they made to me ("It may end up that your son will have to fill out a statutory declaration assigning the notice to you...........I would suggest that your son contacts us regarding this vehicle."), remains unanswered. Perhaps you will be prepared to and can provide me with this information in detail?"

     

    Bearing in mind that ...the deferred toll amount as [you advise, is] required by a Demand Notice from Queensland Motorways Limited (QML), is simply as is stated......meaning, that it's a Demand Notice. No?

     

    Now Jacki, you might well say...."It's my job, Ross" ....or, ..."I'm just doing my job"...to harrass and coerce me? Is that really your job? After all, I have offered to pay "double" the Toll Fee that is in question.

     

    With the election in a couple of weeks I approached the AEC (the Australian Electoral Commission) a Corporation much like your own.

     

    They (the AEC) are conducting the election on behalf of this unlawful Australian Government under the (perceived) authority of the Governor General.

     

    In a reply from the AEC as to where (?) this Government gets it's 'power' from, they advised-that it came from the GG through the Queen of Australia.

     

    In asking the AEC to provide me with a link to any "sealed" document that gives her (our Governor General-Quentin Alice Louise Bryce) this 'perceived power' (one showing that her appointment has been assented to by Her Majesty QE11), rather than answer me, all my posts were deleted and I was blocked from any further comment or, questions to them. My reply:

     

    http://tiny.cc/sa1u1w

     

    You see Jacki ... (and in reading the Mark Twain quote once again) LAWS are NOT laws simply because you have been told that they are LAWS.

     

    At this point of time, a 'reminder' to you Jacki of the following (that is) "LAW", perhaps?

     

    Trades Practices Act 1974 - 60 Harassment and coercion - Coercion at place of residence.

     

    A corporation shall not use physical force or undue harassment or coercion in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a consumer or the payment for goods or services by a consumer

     

    http://bit.ly/14st7eW

     

    The following is a post I've copied from Facebook, that I found interesting.

     

    "There are no such things as public servants any more. There are people hiding under the Public Sector Management act (illegal) but who employs them because the corp cannot. It does not matter which way you look at it the staff have stopped existing hence there are no public servants -= they do not have to obey what you say. They do not have to protect you. They do not have to offer fairness and balance. Equality or any human right..And that is what we are witnessing and basically all around the world. Dictatorships as they wrote it without us looking."

     

    I look forward to your reply that includes a copy of the "Law" that clearly states (and with a reference to the actual date of enactment of this Law), that [and in spite of my generous offer], as I was in charge of the vehicle at the time of the trip - I am required to provide a Statutory Declaration nominating myself as the driver of the vehicle.

     

    Thank you in anticipation.

     

    Sincerely,

     

    Ross James Bradley.
    18 Aug 2013, 08:54 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.