Seeking Alpha

LookingConfident

LookingConfident
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View LookingConfident's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • What Is A "Juridic Person"? - Rule Of Law [View instapost]
    .
    Things appear to be happening yet is it just .... that we are not being told, that things are happening?

    Is this the Pope's Decree (issued Motu Proprio), in "action"?

    Bulgaria is a member state of the UNITED NATIONS' corporation.

    [Google: http://tinyurl.com/oxm...]

    STORY: "Bulgarian CorpBank remains with revoked licence"

    < Bulgaria’s Supreme Administrative Court has refused to consider the complaints of the major Corporate Commercial Bank (CorpBank) shareholders, the Bulgarian National Television (BNT) reported.

    The court sitting was due on February 9 but the magistrates earlier ruled the complaints were inadmissible. The motives say the juridical person affected by the revoked licence is CorpBank AD. The shareholders do not have legal grounds to appeal against the decision of the Bulgarian National Bank (BNB) as it does not affect them directly but indirectly. The court ruling was signed by Judge Sonya Yankulova, who expressed a dissenting opinion, and can be appealed against before a 5-member court panel. >

    Yes .... (what was that?) "The motives say the juridical person affected by the revoked licence is CorpBank AD."

    We know all corporations are "registered" under the law of the Holy SEE:

    What is a "juridic person"?

    From the Pope's Decree (issued Motu Proprio) we find that his Law applies to the following:

    c) those persons who serve as representatives, managers or directors, as well as persons who even de facto manage or exercise control over the entities directly dependent on the Holy See and listed in the registry of canonical juridical persons kept by the Governorate of Vatican City State;

    That above confirmation: http://tinyurl.com/od6...

    This is a BIG story, is what I feel: http://tinyurl.com/occ...

    Bulgarian CorpBank remains with revoked licence
    13 January 2015 | 21:26 | FOCUS News Agency

    http://bit.ly/1uF1r3W

    LC
    Jan 29, 2015. 10:19 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • "VatiLeaks" - Archbishop And Butler Did It.... (Signalling End Of Roman Cult) [View instapost]
    .
    Yes, the "fiction of law" (once 'powered by' the corrupt Roman cult), is dead.

    (Heavy stuff.) Significant? (Why the change?)

    The Law is only about the living man/woman.

    I don't know - just saying here. ..... Has this anything to do with or, does anyone detect this change relates to the death of the "fiction" (Legal NAME) person and that its to be changed - to the naming of a/the natural persons (as a/the living entity), I wonder?

    Instead of lumping both corporations and natural men/women as being a same (and termed as being a “Designated Person”), they have defined the two now, as separate in this?

    European Union December 26, 2014

    Updating the existing rules in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.

    Introduction

    The draft Fourth EU Anti Money Laundering Directive (AMLD4) is designed to update and improve the EU's Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorist Financing (CTF) laws.

    This is what caught my eye:

    < ....... The defined term “Designated Person” is proposed to be replaced by the term “Obliged Entity” under the current proposals set out in AMLD4. For the purposes of this article we use the existing more recognised term, Designated Person. >

    Two separate entities...

    As we are now dealing with living men/women (at law), and instead of using the 'old' term for a dead fiction entity or, “Designated Person”, that they are now to use the term, “Obliged Entity”?

    This change (by their generalising with or, this move to “Obliged Entity”) would appear to me to cover both the dead corporate "corporation name/entity" and the naming of natural persons (a/the living entity), certainly when considering the last of these sanctions, and the two distinctly defined, proposed financial punishments.

    < Sanctions

    [The upgrade to the requirement] AMLD4 specifies a number of administrative sanctions which it is proposed may be available to Member State competent authorities to penalise Designated Persons [“Obliged Entity”] who fail in meeting their AML/CFT obligations. The following is an example of what is proposed pursuant to AMLD4:

    **Publishing statements in the media in relation to instances of a Designated Person's [“Obliged Entity's”] breaches of AML requirements.

    **Making orders requiring a Designated Person [“Obliged Entity's”] to cease and desist specified conduct.

    **Withdrawal of a Designated Person’s [“Obliged Entity's”] regulatory authorisation.

    **Fines of up to 10% of the turnover of a legal person, or a fine of up to €5 million in the case of natural persons, and fines of up to twice the amount of any profits gained or losses avoided. >

    http://bit.ly/1yo346y

    LC
    Jan 26, 2015. 07:59 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Is A "Juridic Person"? - Rule Of Law [View instapost]
    .
    More of the same.... (Lawlessness.) It's not Law.

    The "Information Ministry" of an independent Belarus (a small state of approx 10 million people and no longer under the control of Russia), is "acting" like all policy enforcement in the western world - as the story tells of a book publisher being FINED, for having no Licence.

    (Belarus was among the 51 founding countries of the United Nations Charter.)

    It's madness. All unlawful now, of course. (No "crown" to underpin or, "power" any such determinations.)

    < "After introducing special license for selling books ...... its next step will be a license for reading them, the famous publisher is sure." >

    < "Your bookstore was reregistered on a new juridical person [Register]. However, if the former juridical person isn’t able to appeal the court’s decision, will the store and the publishing house survive?">

    The OP tells us all that "registered" entities as being directly dependent on and are all under the law of the Holy See and as are listed in the registry of canonical juridical persons kept by the Governorate of Vatican City State; [Roman curia.)

    < "I think that the next logical step will be a license for reading books, and in a year or two a librarian will become more dangerous than a drug dealer. Now publisher in Belarus is accountable to the law more than a bootlegger." >

    Story: http://tinyurl.com/mr3...

    Belarus: http://bit.ly/1GxGMtj

    LC
    Jan 21, 2015. 07:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Pay No Bank Loans, Credit Cards, All Finance, Council Rates... Etc  [View instapost]
    .
    This is quite a read:

    The banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn in. The plaintiff’s (borrower’s) attorney asked the banker the routine questions concerning the banker’s education and background
    .
    The attorney asked the banker, “What is court exhibit A?”

    The banker responded by saying, “This is a promissory note.”

    http://bit.ly/15jr6cQ

    LC
    Jan 19, 2015. 03:36 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cactus Fuctus - The Queensland Election [View instapost]
    .
    RATIONALE FOR JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT

    It's clear to me (and as has been explained in my above post "Cactus Fuctus - The Queensland Election"), all corporations acting as goverrnments don't have/had no "power" (clearly, at Law) to create any such binding or, "Lawful" jurisdictions as, the Federal Court.

    < A Federal Court with a general jurisdiction was established by legislation in 1976, after three previous legislative attempts had been unsuccessful.

    The element of distinctive Federal quality, (or special nature as Barwick put it) was described by the Attorney-General, Mr Ellicott in his Second Reading Speech on the Federal Court of Australia Bill:

    ......"The government believes that only where there are special policy or perhaps historical reasons for doing so should original Federal jurisdiction be vested in a Federal Court." >

    Referred to as being (when proposed) a "Commonwealth Superior Court" (ie the Federal Court), the following is a real concern:

    [Page 3/15]

    "The Federal Court, which already exercises appellate jurisdiction in some cases decided by State Courts and various Commonwealth tribunals, is the appropriate court to provide judicial review of Commonwealth administrative actions." (Recommendations - Kerr Committee and the Ellicott Committee.)

    Separation of Powers? (The Fox guarding the Hen-house?)

    (Just 15 pages.) http://bit.ly/1udxvl4

    LC
    Jan 17, 2015. 07:05 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Is A "Juridic Person"? - Rule Of Law [View instapost]
    .
    From a link pointed out to me today, is the following:

    Can. 114 §1. Juridic persons are constituted either by the prescript of law or by special grant of competent authority given through a decree.

    http://bit.ly/1xKldQo
    Code of Canon Law - IntraText
    http://www.vatican.va

    LC
    Jan 8, 2015. 05:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Mark McMurtrie:Gunham Badi Jakamarra - And, Blind As A Possum? [View instapost]
    .
    The "Crown"

    The question was asked by an Original Elder, over in another group.

    <"do you think under oz comon (f)law,there is supreme equility for all, [the] inhabitants?" >

    Yes, I do. There is equality for all, before the law. Your "lore" (and the law we are now under), is God's law. The creator.

    The law (God's law - the creator/"Baiame"/Allah) is represented here on earth by the only living sovereign "crown" or, the Lawmaker himself.

    No one is above the law, other than God/creator him/herself.

    Everyone is "equal", in Law. (That's the Rule of Law.)

    Your problem is, that your "Lore-men" (Like your own sovereign, the "King", Mark McMurtrie) want to continue to "fight" what they feel is the "crown" and I mean, they 'take the fight to', the corporate government.

    Any corporation (just like McDonalds) can never be the "crown", at Law.

    LC
    Dec 30, 2014. 07:34 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Deprivation Of Liberty And The Rule Of Law [View instapost]
    .
    A case when Supreme court Justices/Judges have got it wrong...

    Supreme Court says ignorance of the law is an excuse — at least if you’re a cop ..... http://thkpr.gs/3603686

    It proves (and in accordance with the Rule of Law), that all statutes/ Acts or, Road rules, are NOT Law.

    LC
    Dec 25, 2014. 05:53 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Mark McMurtrie:Gunham Badi Jakamarra - And, Blind As A Possum? [View instapost]
    .
    Lecturers and professors of Law can "waffle on" all they like about Law and they do so.

    http://bit.ly/1wB9Yti

    And at all times, not giving people the "TRUE" picture of what true Law really is. (In noting a mention of "Terra Nullius", it reminded me of this, that I had read a little earlier.)

    And that few of these experts are prepared to mention much about, well, "The Doctrine of Discovery".

    < "The Doctrine of Terra Nullius became a morphed and more extreme version of the Doctrine of Discovery and was not overruled until the 1992 case of Mabo v State of Queensland. However, the legacy of Terra Nullius remains with the Crown retaining the underlying sovereignty of all land in Australia.

    The Papal Bulls that sanctioned the invasion and exploitation of Indigenous peoples lands all around the world are still valid.

    The US decision of Johnson v McIntosh has not been overruled. Johnson v McIntosh continues to be relied on around the world including in Australian post Mabo decisions." >

    What was that?

    "However, the legacy of Terra Nullius remains with the Crown retaining the underlying sovereignty of all land in Australia."

    The question is (does it really need any further explaining?), just who/what is the "crown"?

    http://bit.ly/1wB9Zx7

    And it's the very reason why the likes of the little "possum" King Mark McMurtrie will always appear to be the quitessential SHILL in my eyes, through their (his) own lack of "recognise-ion".

    LC
    Dec 21, 2014. 06:21 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Law Of The 193 Corporate States Of The UNITED NATIONS' Corporation. [View instapost]
    .
    A "proper court" of law is a court with a competent Justice/s, at Law.

    (In Australia, it's the Supreme/High court level of Jurisdiction.)

    LC
    Dec 21, 2014. 05:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Law Of The 193 Corporate States Of The UNITED NATIONS' Corporation. [View instapost]
    .
    All readers/followers are welcomed to join our group.

    http://on.fb.me/1vqCbC0

    LC
    Dec 14, 2014. 07:11 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Is The Law? (The 'Color Of Law'?) [View instapost]
    .
    ..... Max Kowalski asks: "My legal person is illegal which makes me unlawful and therefore l do not exist and therefore l can't break the law if l don't exist. If any peoples out there understand this..can they explain it to me please."

    <Your legal person is illegal which makes you unlawful and therefore you do not exist and therefore you can't break the law if you don't exist.>

    What is LEGAL?

    1. Conforming to the law; according to law; required or permitted by law; not forbidden or discountenanced by law; good and effectual in law.

    2. Proper or sufficient to be recognized by the law ; cognizable in the courts; competent or adequate to fulfill the requirements of the law.

    3. Cognizable in courts of law, as distinguished from courts of equity; construed or governed by the rules and principles of law, in contradistinction to rules of equity. 4.

    Posited by the courts as the inference or imputation of the law, as a matter of construction, rather than established by actual proof;

    Law Dictionary: What is LEGAL? definition of LEGAL (Black's Law Dictionary)
    **************

    Does a "Legal person" (any dead corporate fiction entity or, construct) NAME, comform with the Law?

    For it to do so (to conform/comply) it must have the backing of law, to begin with. If it doesn't, it becomes unlawful.

    No living man or, woman can make a Law for any other living men and or, women within the 193 corporate states of the UNITED NATIONS' corporation.

    The means that the UNITED NATIONS' corporation and all those 193 corporate states cannot make Law.

    To do so, would be slavery. (Slavery is highly unlawful.)

    Any/all Statutes, Acts Legislation, Road Rules and council By-laws, and all FINES, NOTICES, etc are not Lawful, as they are man-made (by living men and or, women) within all of the 193 corporate states of the UNITED NATIONS' corporation.

    If they were Lawful (and were binding in a court of proper law), this would be slavery. (Slavery is highly unlawful.)

    Government corporations

    Legal NAMES (those "Legal persons" or, dead corporate fiction entities or, constructs) are used by living men and or, women within all our so called government corporations to enforce their "corporate" (man made) Statutes, Acts Legislation, Road Rules and council By-laws, along with all FINES, NOTICES, etc on you (and other living men and or, women), as they have constructed a "Legal person" (Legal NAME) for us all, to enable them to so so.

    This (all the above) had been necessary because corporations can only legally deal with, another corporation.

    This is referred to as being the 'fiction of law' or, only the 'colour of law' and at all times it deals with dead corporate entities.

    Proper binding Law (itself), is only about living men and or, women.

    [ What is the Law? (The 'Color of Law'?) - http://tinyurl.com/pfq... ]

    This "fiction of law" is now dead. It is unlawful as it now lacks any "crown" support (at Law), to "power" it.

    What does this mean?

    All "Legal persons" (and at Law) are "registered" with the law making body (of the 193 corporate states of the UNITED NATIONS' corporation), that is called the Holy SEE that operates within the Vatican City State, in Rome.

    Most all living flesh and blood men/women here in Australia and from off our 'actual' live birth bond (and at this Supreme law), are born into the law of the Holy SEE - and this has been the lawful means of our becoming part of the Global Estate Trust. (Both under and protected by the Law of the Trustee.)

    The Pope (Francis) is the Trustee.

    This Law is for Living flesh and blood men/women. (It is administered by the Judges and or, Justices who all answer to, this 'Law of the living'.)

    As stated, this live birth bond (at law), places us under the jurisdiction of and protects us with the Law of the Holy SEE. - It is a law that dates back to (at least), the Unam Sanctam, when on 18 November 1302, Pope Boniface VIII issued the Papal bull.- tinyurl.com/pco256w

    UNAM SANCTAM - http://bit.ly/1zbOcgq

    The Pope (Francis) is the "boss", the CEO or, the Lawmaker.

    The Roman Cult

    For centuries (certainly since the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666), a procession of corrupt Popes headed up a mafia style mob called the 'Roman cult' (made up of many Cardinals, Bishops all from within the Vatican church, from the 'Roman curia', from the Holy SEE and from within the Vatican's Bank) had actually "powered" the fiction or, had virtually allowed this form of slavery to be enacted. (At what was very corrupt Law, to say the least.) And as part of (a share of the) the "spoils", these corrupt Popes as the lawmakers - were providing the "power source" that enabled it.

    When Pope Francis became the new Pontiff (and sovereign Lawmaker or, what is the "crown" in Law), following the standing down of a corrupt Pope (in Benedict), he immediately closed down this corrupt Roman cult.

    He (Pope Francis) 'sacked' all those who were involved and is still hunting them down. No longer was there any "power" being given by the lawmaker (at law) so as to 'drive' the "fiction of law" or, the "Legal person" NAME game as we know it or, as has been described above.

    His September 1st, 2013 Decree (delivered "Motu Proprio" or, 'in his own words') makes no bones about the personal LIABILITY at law, that there now is for all those living men and or, women who are coercively enforcing "slavery", as has been described.

    All courts outside of proper courts of Law (courts with competent Justices answering to the Law) are not Lawful courts. They are what are described as being "Administrative Tribunals" that deal only in the unlawful fiction (the Legal person), and all those living men and or, women involved who are all answering, not to law, but to the corrupt corporate state/s - must ultimately face the full force of, the Law.

    They will.
    Dec 14, 2014. 05:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The STORY Of The CENTURY (So Far.) [View instapost]
    .
    < Most ALL living men and women working within these 193 states of the UNITED NATIONS' corporation (and from off their Live Birth date or, the given Name/s - eg; Ross James, for me), are then uniquely numbered and as such are 'bonded' at Law. (Held in Rome.) >.

    Here's what is an example, I feel...

    http://on.fb.me/1sm0faj

    LC
    Dec 13, 2014. 05:41 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • All The Living Flesh & Blood Men And Women 'Enforcing', Are Breaking Law. [View instapost]
    .
    ... So few people have realised the point that we are making over in our Facebook group. And that is, that without a "source" of power (the crown - that was once given, via corrupt Popes), there is no lawful (or, binding) CONtract.

    The writer here, like-wise. Although he does hilight or, exposes the "problem" nicely though.

    < .... "Government is an expression of power relationships, in which some people seek to dominate others by force.

    These dominators gather ‘insiders’ together so that they can take money, power and status away from other people, the ‘outsiders.’ That is not how contracts work." >

    < "The “social contract,” is a fraud. You can’t have a contract unless you have two willing and able parties. They must come together in a meeting of the minds — a real agreement about what they are going to do together." >

    "Government: A 'Social Contract' You Never Signed"

    http://bit.ly/1Aw8gst

    Our Facebook group? (Join the conversation, now?)

    Link: http://on.fb.me/1vqCbC0

    LC
    Dec 7, 2014. 06:50 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Constable Benjamin Arndt/Natalie Barber - An Application For A Judicial Review [View instapost]
    .
    So few people have realised the point that I am making here in this, my application. And that is, that without a "source" of power (the crown - that was once given, via corrupt Popes), there is no lawful CONtract.

    The writer here, like-wise. He hilights or, exposes the "problem" nicely though.

    < "Government is an expression of power relationships, in which some people seek to dominate others by force.

    These dominators gather ‘insiders’ together so that they can take money, power and status away from other people, the ‘outsiders.’ That is not how contracts work." >

    < "The “social contract,” is a fraud. You can’t have a contract unless you have two willing and able parties. They must come together in a meeting of the minds — a real agreement about what they are going to do together." >

    http://bit.ly/1Aw8gst

    LC
    Dec 5, 2014. 03:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
896 Comments
7 Likes