Seeking Alpha

LookingConfident

LookingConfident
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View LookingConfident's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Second Is A Corporate Person - Only A Juristic Entity [View instapost]
    .
    Note the "censorship" to my post script when I tried to down-load a Canada screenshot? (I copied and pasted it, then.)

    LC
    Mar 25, 2015. 07:33 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Second Is A Corporate Person - Only A Juristic Entity [View instapost]
    .
    In view of ... "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second"

    (Only a Juristic entity.)

    This business relating to the Queen being the crown (Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second) is all, only symbolic as you know.

    < Applicants Michael McAteer, Simone Topey and Dror Bar-Natan - all permanent residents - didn't want to state at a citizenship oath ceremony that they "will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and Successors."

    But, as the Ontario [Supreme] court ruling noted, "The oath is secular and is not an oath to the Queen in her personal capacity but to our form of government of which the Queen is a symbol."

    In other words, the current wording of the citizenship oath is about pledging allegiance to a symbol of Canada. >

    Yes ..."to our form of government of which the Queen is a symbol."

    My strong feeling is that the state Governors and including the Governor General all (now), answer to the Pope.

    http://bit.ly/1C9URs0

    LC
    Mar 25, 2015. 05:47 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Jimmy Wululu - Australia (Aboriginal), Artist  [View instapost]
    .
    From Facebook...

    http://on.fb.me/1BEh8yW

    LC
    Mar 14, 2015. 09:17 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Law Of The 193 Corporate States Of The UNITED NATIONS' Corporation. [View instapost]
    .
    So often I make mention of those current 193 states of the UNITED NATIONS' corporation. - They are all corporate states of the UNITED STATES' corporation.

    http://bit.ly/1Mq6C06

    Hey. ........... Does it get any clearer, Folks?

    < "Building on the Geneva Conventions on the laws of war and similar binding agreements, global rules were first institutionalized with the establishment of the United Nations.

    But above all, the international framework for managing global affairs was the creation of the United States." >

    (The words are from Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, and chancellor of the University of Oxford.)

    http://bit.ly/1Mq6Cgk

    LC
    Mar 10, 2015. 09:51 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Was Obama Answering To The Rule Of Law? ("Do No Harm") [View instapost]
    .
    How about it being the supreme law over the 193 corporate states of, the UNITED STATES' corporation of the UNITED NATIONS' corporation?

    That law? http://tinyurl.com/kzl...

    Thanks for your comment.

    LC
    Mar 9, 2015. 11:51 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • CROWN Land - This Land Is Your Land/My Land [View instapost]
    .
    If a dead corporate fiction NAME or, (corporate) "person" (the state) is a juristic person and is "registered" with and UNDER, and so - is controlled by the law of the Holy SEE - and if all who are 'living on the land' are also under that same law....

    ....... then how can any so called "man made" Law (be it Statutes, Acts, Legislation, By-laws, Road rules), ever get to "out-power" the law that we are all, already under?

    http://bit.ly/1BK0a2J

    LC
    Mar 5, 2015. 01:12 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Australia - About "The Crown" [View instapost]
    .
    As 'juridical persons', all of the policy enforcers are now acting, unlawfully.

    As men/women, they are "acting" against the law of the Living Beneficiaries or, against the law of the land. (Do no Harm.)

    See my post scrip, to the OP, above.

    LC
    Mar 2, 2015. 08:22 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Australia - About "The Crown" [View instapost]
    .
    And the corporate Australian Government's Attorney General George Brandis (and the ALRC) need to soon start to realise that we, as a U.N. corporate state are NOT "sovereign" - and that if the very "originals" (that's all the "Aboriginals" in both Australia and the America's/Canada) must all answer to papal law (yes, the bulls - or, the crown), then that law equally applies, to us all.

    http://seekingalpha.co...

    LC
    Feb 28, 2015. 10:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Challenge To The Editor - Queensland's Courier Mail [View instapost]
    .
    A "People's Commission"?

    Total transparency is what is or, must be required. Nothing less.

    (Thinking out loud here, Folks.)

    Does it need to be a Q&A style "People's Commission" or, enquiry and along similar lines to what is commonly known as and that should/would have the full "powers" of, a "Royal commission"?

    With selected questions and cross examination/s coming from and put directly to or, through the Chief Justice (and to all special witnesses who are bound by the "commission" to appear - and for them to be totally transparent /honest and accountable, at law), being put by concerned men and women, in an open gallery/court?

    ("Royal Commissions are called to look into matters of great importance and usually controversy. These can be matters such as government structure, the treatment of minorities, events of considerable public concern or economic questions." - Wikipedia.)

    Whereby in the case of this Q&A or, ("People's") Commission itself, it is or, can/will be created, by the crown.

    (...Yes, the Sovereign, or his representative in the form of a Governor-General or, the state Governor?

    Or, is this question in itself still very much to be a central part of the 'body' of the very Q&A, itself? And, it certainly can be and should be so?)

    And couldn't/shouldn't it be one such Q&A or, ("People's") Commission where, in practice, and unlike lesser forms of inquiry- once a ("People's") Commission has started, the corporate government cannot stop it.

    Where only "the people" can bring it to a conclusion? Via some form of a consensus?

    http://bit.ly/1ET9pMw

    LC
    Feb 26, 2015. 06:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Mark McMurtrie:Gunham Badi Jakamarra - And, Blind As A Possum? [View instapost]
    .
    From the OP ...

    "British parliament and the 'crown' will cease to exist when The Lisbon Treaty comes in to full effect on 1st November 2014, power will no longer reside in Westminster, but in Brussels."

    An update on the Lisbon Treaty:

    http://bit.ly/1FYhjIp

    LC
    Feb 26, 2015. 02:47 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Queensland/AUSTRALIA - The Royals ... Never Had, Never Was The Crown [View instapost]
    .
    .
    Michael Manetta 'Upholding the Australian Constitution'.

    THE SAMUEL GRIFFITH SOCIETY - Publications

    < "No internal separation

    By contrast, no such evolution and separation has occurred between the Crown as representing the Commonwealth and the Crown as representing any of the States, and, accordingly, it cannot be correct, in my opinion, to speak of Australia as a so-called heptarchy of seven "Crowns", in the terms once favoured by the Turnbull Report on abolition of the monarchy. It is a corollary of that continuing unity, that it is simply wrong to speak of the Queen as in any sense the Queen of Victoria or the Queen of South Australia. Such a title is not merely superfluous or infra dig., it is legally inept. Common sense alone tells us the States are not separate kingdoms.

    Like the jettisoning of spent stages in a rocket, the division of the Imperial aspects of the Crown did not disturb the unity of its remaining aspects, Commonwealth and State. So, just as the doctrine once gave legal expression to the political unity that was the Empire, it continues today as the only legal expression of the federal union and of Australian sovereignty. As such, it may rightly be said to represent, in a legal sense, the essence of nationhood in this country.

    This point bears careful analysis. It has been suggested by some commentators, and by the Turnbull Report, that the separation of Crowns is occasioned and can be identified by a change in the channel of advice to the Queen. Thus, it is said that when the Australian Prime Minister became entitled in 1926 to tender advice directly to the Monarch as to the appointment of the Governor-General (rather than through, and with the approval of, the Dominion Secretary), the British and Australian Crowns became distinct. As a corollary of this, it is suggested that when a similar development occurred in relation to the appointment of State Governors, by virtue of s. 7 of the Australia Acts 1986, the State and Commonwealth Crowns became, perforce, distinct and must now be regarded in terms of a heptarchy.***

    This analysis is imprecise and uncompelling as a matter of law, quite apart from the fact that it blithely ignores the political reality that, in 1926, no-one would have dreamt of regarding the Australian and British Crowns as distinct. The Engineers' Case itself, which is the High Court's most prominent enunciation of the unity of the Crown, was decided only six years before.

    In my view, the most principled basis on which to posit the separation of two Crowns can only be the termination of all legislative, executive and judicial competence of one over the subjects of the other. The Crown of the United Kingdom no longer has any such competence over any of the people of Australia. The people of Australia, however (Territorians aside), continue to be subject to both Commonwealth and State legislative, executive and judicial competence, so the Crown, of which those two competencies, so to speak, are an emanation, remains one. In short, if one is subject to one Crown authority but not to another, the Crowns are separate; if one is subject to the authority of both, the Crowns are one.

    We may speak loosely of the Commonwealth Crown and the State Crown but we mean, in law, the one Crown acting through a particular agency, Commonwealth or State. It is well established of course that the Crown may deal with or even sue itself in different capacities, with the relevant dealings and suits conducted by the appropriate agent. Indeed, agreements entered into, or litigation instituted, between the Commonwealth and the States is so commonplace that we are inclined to forget that the Crown is really agreeing with itself or sueing itself, and the unity of the Crown becomes somewhat obscure. So, for most purposes, the unity of the Crown does not impress upon the day-to-day operations of government.

    I say for most purposes; but for some purposes---among which is the sovereignty of the Crown and the attempt to remove the Crown from a Constitution, be it State or federal---the unity of the Crown has, in my opinion, profound implications. In particular, the republican argument that the Crown can be removed from the Commonwealth by the referendum process provided by s. 128 of the federal Constitution, and done, what is more, without affecting the States, is founded on a misconceived view of the nature of sovereignty in Australia. In this context, the distinction has great importance. Following the eclipse of the paramountcy of the Westminster Parliament, there has been a tendency, after the American fashion, to regard the federal Constitution as the paramount law of Australia; and, as a consequence, to regard the people as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, and the Crown as merely an emanation or component feature of that Constitution---almost as if the Empire had never existed but that, instead, in 1900 the people of the colonies, by their vote, had created a vacant Australian throne and freely summoned Queen Victoria to ascend it.

    Such sentimental anachronism, representing as it does the yearnings of some for a different past, makes good copy but bad law. So let us take a leaf from Engineers' and turn an unsentimental eye to the text of the Constitution." >

    http://bit.ly/1CnekT9

    ***What is HEPTARCHY?
    A government exercised by seven persons, or a nation divided intoseven governments. In the year 500, seven different monarchies had been formed inEngland by the German tribes, namely, that of Kent by the Jutes; those of Sussex, Wessex, and Essex by the Saxons; and those of East Anglia, Bernicia, and Deira by the Angles.To these were added, about the year 580, an eighth, called the "Kingdom of Mereia,"also founded by the Angles, and comprehending nearly the whole of the heart ofthe kingdom.
    These states formed what has been designated the "Anglo-SaxonOctarchy," or more commonly, though not so correctly, the "Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy,"from the custom of speaking of Deira and Bernicia under the single appellation of the"Kingdom of Northumberland." Wharton.

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

    LC
    Feb 13, 2015. 12:42 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Under The Jurisdiction Of The Roman Curia? I Don't Think So. [View instapost]
    .
    Page 14/73 - http://bit.ly/1DzDQsG

    LC
    Feb 10, 2015. 01:57 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 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
COMMENTS STATS
908 Comments
7 Likes