LookingConfident

LookingConfident
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
  • Qua (In The Capacity Of; As Being.)  [View instapost]
    .
    It is the "system" of "law" that we are tied to and under.

    (Virtually, Do no Harm.)

    This system allows for or, provides a structured (required) accountability for us all, to operate from within.

    If we do no harm to others or, the property of others, we have nothing to fear.

    The 'structure' and the "powering" of it (the system), is all about our individual accountability to each other.

    If we break the law, the Peace Officers within, required to have "legal personality" from the system, can have us brought before a proper law court, that then (and only then), determines our guilt or, not. (Presumption of innocence.)

    LC
    Oct 17, 2015. 10:53 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Archbishop To Use Papal Law To Get On Top Of Nuns In Court Matter - Kate Perry In The Middle  [View instapost]
    .
    When living men and women act UNLAWFULLY in corporate governments, the "Law" is there to punish them. The Justices in the Supreme courts, must then rule this way.

    LC
    Sep 23, 2015. 07:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Archbishop To Use Papal Law To Get On Top Of Nuns In Court Matter - Kate Perry In The Middle  [View instapost]
    .
    The Archbishop will finish on top, no doubt. (Corporation sole.)

    LC
    Sep 23, 2015. 07:14 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Jimmy Wululu - Australia (Aboriginal), Artist   [View instapost]
    Thank you so much GypsySnail. So few get to notice much about an amazing culture, that's yet to be anywhere near being understood.

    LC
    Sep 19, 2015. 05:50 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Twitter - @SenBrandis @YvetteDAth @SteveAustinABC  [View instapost]
    .
    The comment was made:

    <"You're either under their jurisdiction- in which case I doubt you'll get past the front gate, or challenge the whole jurisdiction.">

    Challenge? Their jurisdiction? The Queensland corporate government have taken us back to the Roman days...when you were not permitted to "challenge" the court's jurisdiction.

    Challenge it? With who? Where?

    FICTIO. In Roman law. A fiction; an assumption or, supposition of the law.

    ....."Fictio" in the old Roman law was properly a term of pleading, and signified a false averment on the part of the plaintiff ........ which the defendant was not allowed to traverse; as that the plaintiff was a Roman citizen, when in truth he was a foreigner. The object of the fiction was to give the court jurisdiction.

    Averment: (Aver; to declare or, assert. To set out distinctly and formally; To allege.)

    Traverse: [Page 1055] The denial of some matter of fact alleged in a pleading, whether in an action or, in a criminal prosecutions.

    FOREIGN. [Page 510] Belonging to another nation or, country; belonging or attached to another jurisdiction; made, done, or rendered in another state or jurisdiction; subject to another jurisdiction; operating or solvable in another territoty; extrinsic; outside; extraordinary.

    Google [Page 401]: tinyurl.com/mcx47n8

    LC
    Sep 9, 2015. 07:30 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Twitter - @SenBrandis @YvetteDAth @SteveAustinABC  [View instapost]
    .
    Jurisdiction ... the justices in Queensland Supreme court (being under the parliament of the corporate Queensland government), simply haven't the jurisdictional "power" (and since 1999, it does appear), to hear Law.

    As corporate persons, they can only hear public law or, the 'law' of, the corporate state. They are just another a state court, now.

    There is no justice for living men and women. All of Queensland's courts are corporate courts. For corporate citizens, only.

    LC
    Sep 8, 2015. 11:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • GOLD - "If The Corporation Sole Had Never Trespassed Beyond....."  [View instapost]
    .
    From Black's law.

    What is TRESPASS?

    Any misfeasance or act of one man whereby another is injuriously treated or damnified. 3 Bl. Comm. 208. An injury or misfeasance to the person, property, or rights of another person, done with force and violence, either actual or implied in law. See Grunson v. State, 89 Ind. 530, 46 Am. Rep. 178; Southern Ity. Co. v. Harden, 101 Ga. 203, 28 S. E. 847; Blood v. Kemp, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 173; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. McLaughlin, 03 111. 391; Agnew v. Jones, 74 Miss. 347, 23 South. 25; Hill v. Kimball. 70 Tex. 210, 13 S. W. 59, 7 L. R. A. 618. In the strictest sense, an entry on another’s ground, without a lawful authority, and doing some damage, however inconsiderable, to his real property. 3 Bl. Comm. 209. Trespass, in its most comprehensive sense, signifies any transgression or offense against the law of nature, of society, or of the country in which we live; and this, whether it relates to a man’s person or to his property. In its more limited and ordinary sense, it signifies an injury committed with violence, and this violence may be either actual or implied; and the law will imply violence though none is actually used, when the injury is of a direct and immediate kind, and committed on the person or tangible and corporeal property of the plaintiff. Of actual violence, an assault and battery is an instance; of implied, a peaceable but wrongful entry upon a person’s land. Brown. In practice. A form of action, at the common law, which lies for redress in the shape of money damages for any unlawful injury done to the plaintiff, in respect either to his person, property, or rights, by the immediate force and violence of the defendant.

    Ref: http://bit.ly/1Oj2v8d

    LC
    Sep 4, 2015. 07:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Here In AUSTRALIA......The Straw That Broke The Camel's Back. I Do Declare!  [View instapost]
    .
    Good luck, Charlie...

    http://tinyurl.com/pve...

    http://tinyurl.com/noz...

    It’s been a long, hard fight. Charlie Phillott is the 81-year-old farmer from outback Queensland who took on the might of the ANZ Bank… and won. The bank forced his family off Carisbrooke Station, their property of 50 years. But the ANZ didn’t bargain on Charlie’s dignified determination. He certainly won’t be bullied. And,on 60 Minutes, the ANZ made the most extraordinary back-down. ANZ Chief Executive Mike Smith flew 2,000 kilometres from the bank’s Melbourne headquarters to personally apologise to Charlie. And that’s not all that happened during this extraordinary encounter. It’s the most dramatic development yet in the story that 60 Minutes has been following for much of 2015: the desperate plight of farmers across Australia forced off their farms by the ANZ. Charlie’s win is a breakthrough. But there are lots of questions for the ANZ boss about how this all happened, and what now for the many other distressed farmers just like Charlie.

    ANZ provided further comment:

    • ANZ categorically rejects any suggestion that it was motivated in any way to foreclose on loans or to act in an aggressive manner with former Landmark customers by the presence of a clawback clause in the Landmark purchase agreement.

    • Since the acquisition, there have been a number of factors that have adversely affected agribusinesses throughout Australia (not just Landmark or ANZ customers) including drought, the live export ban, Queensland floods, overall decline in land prices and softening of commodity prices in particular beef cattle. This affects all banks.

    • As Mike Smith indicated, we do acknowledge ANZ has an issue with legalistic, process-driven actions against customers in difficulty. We are working hard to change those practices including having made senior management changes to bring a more personal, relationship focussed approach to these issues. We need to do better than we have done.

    • This does not mean there won’t be difficult decision made in the future but in the very small number of cases where foreclosures occur we want to have taken into account a longer-term view of viability, the customer relationship and the personal circumstances of the farming family into account.

    • We plan to announce on Monday - and first via your program - that this will be extended for another year to all drought declared areas in Australia. Of course this applies in particular to northern New South Wales and to Queensland.

    LC
    Aug 31, 2015. 07:10 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Supreme Court Of Appeal - Queensland ("Not Only Must Justice Be Done"?)  [View instapost]
    From Facebook:

    Ross Bradley .
    The big question is: How does or, how is it possible for a dead entity (that's Mr Gerard Sammon-who's a contracted corporate, juridic person), get to be heard in or, to be permitted to submit an application (being his own action to dismiss a matter), and in a jurisdiction of law for, living men and women?

    Gary N Wendy Jackson: "They are not admitting to the duty of having a court for the 'living' because of their 'corporate-masters', which is in complete denial of the Pope's Decree, Motu-Proprio.

    They are in 'perilous waters' but think they can 'Bluff'.

    Ross Bradley . They have my originating application, on record. The case number is based on it. This becomes very interesting.

    Ross Bradley .
    The Supreme court Justices (as you point out), have failed the sovereign's law.

    Ross Bradley .
    Is there anyone among the Justices in the Supreme Court who supports the Law for living men and women, I wonder?

    LC
    Aug 30, 2015. 07:03 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Supreme Court Of Appeal - Queensland ("Not Only Must Justice Be Done"?)  [View instapost]
    .
    Comments, from Facebook.

    Gary N Wendy Jackson: "I knew last night it was 'underhanded' to deny access to the justice we seek, and seemingly done through a 'wilful omission' of the Facts, and Now I feel quite angry that the deception continues in what is supposed to be a 'plenary' court of Law..."
    Unlike · Reply · 1 · 58 mins

    Ross Bradley .
    Spot on, Gary N Wendy... the "evidence" should be clear to see, already.

    LC
    Aug 28, 2015. 11:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk - Re; Supreme Court Queensland BS4846/15  [View instapost]
    .
    And.... This business of THEM (living men and women) thinking they can bestow and or take away so called "privileges" on/from other living men and women and outside of law, must stop. We all answer to the law. (Equally.)

    LC
    Jul 23, 2015. 12:01 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • An Open Letter To The Honourable Justice James S Douglas. Supreme Court Queensland  [View instapost]
    .
    The thing is Folks...

    How can "the state", a corporation who feel that they make "law" (Crown Law), and (both) juristic entities, at law - dare want to go before a "living" Justice, in law? (The Honourable Justice James S Douglas in a matter that concerns the "living"? Ross Bradley V's Natalie Barber.)

    This is a 'slap in the face' of the Sovereign's Supreme Law itself. Contempt!

    LC
    Jul 20, 2015. 02:53 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk - Re; Supreme Court Queensland BS4846/15  [View instapost]
    .
    From Wikipedia [Constitutional monarchy] ... Political scientist Vernon Bogdanor, paraphrasing Thomas Macaulay, has defined a constitutional monarch as .... "a sovereign who reigns but does not rule."

    In my blog-post I advise we are told that ... 'Crown Law has been the principal provider of legal services to the Queensland Government since 1859 and has operated as a completely self-funded business unit of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General, since 1997.

    Interesting is this statement that ..."The Crown can also be a plaintiff or defendant in civil actions to which the government of the Commonwealth realm in question is a party."

    ("to which the government of the Commonwealth realm in question is a party.")

    Wikipedia http://bit.ly/1SgFBip

    'Crown Law' (and the Crown Solicitor - Greg Cooper), acts for the State.

    How about criminal matters?

    In the allegation we have before the court, it is the living women (Natalie Barber) who is being questioned, in our Judicial Review application. And NOT the Queensland (corporate) Government, the honourable Attorney General, nor the Department of Justice and Attorney-General.

    We sure live in interesting times.

    LC
    Jul 12, 2015. 06:34 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Attorney General Yvette D'Ath - To Use An Own 'Crown' Law Against The Crown?  [View instapost]
    .
    Greg Cooper (Queensland's Crown Solicitor) acts in the name of "Her Majesty", a juristic entity...answering to the Holy See ... and now want's to defend against an allegation made under, his Boss's (own) Law?

    Pope Francis (Greg Cooper's boss) says that:

    ......... "One of the cornerstones of the system introduced by this law is constituted by the so-called rule of law, as a result of which administrative sanctions may be imposed only in cases defined by law."

    Here's that law, issued Motu Proprio - tiny.cc/8iznmx

    LC
    Jul 7, 2015. 10:59 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Attorney General Yvette D'Ath - To Use An Own 'Crown' Law Against The Crown?  [View instapost]
    .
    Assistant Crown Solicitor Paula Freeleagus (Crown Law and the Department of Justice and Attorney-General - Published: 1 May 2015), explains how a Crown prosecutor has immunity under an Act, that was recently updated. [As amended by all amendments that commenced on or before 15 August 2014]

    It can fairly be assumed that this Act was created by and then amended on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. (Greg Cooper.)

    Put to the "Test"?

    < The immunity of a Crown prosecutor under s. 25 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1984 (DPP Act) was considered for the first time in Queensland. >

    In the "Court’s decision" (the District Court in Richardson v State of Queensland [2015] QDC), it's interesting to then read that:

    < The court also considered the decision of Hamcor which held that the State was a ‘person’ within the meaning of a similar immunity provision in the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 and found that in any case, s. 25 of the DPP Act was wide enough to provide immunity from liability to the State. >

    (The living woman Natalie Barber [who is contracted under the State as Registrar, SPER] is the defendant in this criminal matter before the Supreme Court and regardless or, not of ...the State being a ‘person’ - Natalie Barber should NOT ...... and as a living woman, be defended by the very Crown Law and the Department of Justice and Attorney-General, that would normally prosecute criminal matters - in the State of Queensland.)

    http://bit.ly/1CZtr6B

    An opinion, of course.

    LC
    Jul 7, 2015. 09:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
930 Comments
7 Likes