Seeking Alpha

LookingConfident

LookingConfident
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View LookingConfident's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • 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
  • Attorney General Yvette D'Ath - To Use An Own 'Crown' Law Against The Crown? [View instapost]
    .
    It would be nice to hear "their" response to my queries?

    Their lack of an answer is pretty damning, to say the least.

    Oh, it's no big deal.

    Other than that they appear to feel it's ok for the State's own Crown Law (all paid for, by the people), to defend one of "theirs" in a criminal matter, against the people?

    Us and them?

    LC
    Jul 6, 2015. 11:51 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Attorney General Yvette D'Ath - To Use An Own 'Crown' Law Against The Crown? [View instapost]
    .
    A total of 10 E Mails have been sent by myself and have been noted as being received by the Queensland Attorney General Yvette D'Ath-yet I've not even been given a reply to any one of them?

    Do those elected to "govern" Queensland only reply to "corporate" entities (persons) of the state of Queensland, I wonder? (As a living man myself, I don't vote.)

    In telephone contacts to the AG's office, I have been told that ..."they are looking into your matter."

    In other telephone contacts to both the Registrar (of the Supreme court of Queensland) and the Crown Law office, I have been told that the Attorney General Yvette D'Ath or, her "office" have contacted Crown Law in regards to my concerns.

    As the matter (the allegation made) centers around a "living women" who is ultimately contracted with the QTC (Queensland Treasury Corporation), it would seem that a bias is clearly the case - with the Attorney General's own Crown Law (paid for by Queensland Taxpayers), being appointed to defend the respondent, in the matter.

    There's no "conflict of interest" in that?

    Crown Law can defend a contracted person?

    LC
    Jul 6, 2015. 10:33 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Banjo Paterson's `Clancy of The Overflow'. [View instapost]
    .
    Mike Crockford
    32 mins ·

    Clancy@theoverflow <mailto:Clancy@theo...

    I had written him a text
    Which I'd sent, hoping the next
    Time he came in mobile coverage
    He'd have time to say hello.
    But I'd heard he'd lost his iPhone,
    So I emailed him from my smart phone,
    Just addressed, on spec, as follows:
    clancy@theoverflow <mailto:clancy@theo...
    And the answer redirected
    Wasn't quite what I'd expected
    And it wasn't from the shearing mate
    Who'd answered once before.
    His ISP provider wrote it
    And verbatim I will quote it:
    'This account has been suspended:
    You won't hear from him any more.'
    In my wild erratic fancy
    Visions come to me of Clancy:
    Out of reach of mobile coverage
    Where the Western rivers flow.
    Instead of tapping on the small screen,
    He'd be camping by the tall green
    River gums, a pleasure
    That the town folk never know.
    Well, the bush has friends to meet him
    But the rest of us can't greet him:
    Out there, even Telstra's network
    Doesn't give you any bars.
    He can't blog the vision splendid
    Of the sunlit plains extended
    Or tweet the wondrous glory
    Of the everlasting stars.
    I am sitting at the keyboard,
    I'm too stressed out to be bored
    As I answer all the emails
    By the deadlines they contain.
    While my screen fills with promotions
    For 'Viagra' and strange potions
    And announcements of the million-dollar
    Prizes I can claim.
    But the looming deadlines haunt me
    And their harassing senders taunt me
    That they need response this evening
    For tomorrow is too late!
    But their texts, too quickly ended,
    Often can't be comprehended
    For their writers have no time to think
    They have no time to wait.
    And I sometimes rather fancy
    That I'd like to trade with Clancy:
    Just set up an email bouncer
    Saying 'Sorry, had to go.'
    While he faced an inbox jamming
    Up with deadlines and with spamming
    As he signed off every message:
    clancy@theoverflow.

    with apologies to A.B. ("Banjo") Paterson

    LC
    Jul 5, 2015. 08:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cactus Fuctus - The Queensland Election [View instapost]
    .
    And yes, that final member of "the three musketeers" of this great state of Queensland has finally taken that "coat-tug" and removed himself. As 'predicted', if I may say so. ;)

    http://bit.ly/1KtrUMf

    LC
    Jul 1, 2015. 10:08 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Australians Really Need To Start Paying Attention. [View instapost]
    .
    Update:

    [At law] In Canada, the Governor General is a corporation sole.

    Google: http://tinyurl.com/pqr...

    [At law] In Australia, the Governor General swears his oath to a corporation sole, it would appear. ("Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second". Being a Juristic entity.)

    < .... Some lawyers consider The Crown in right of each Commonwealth realm to be a corporation sole, which may possess property as the monarch distinct from property he or she possesses personally, and may do acts as monarch distinguished from her or his personal acts.
    Elizabeth II has several corporations sole: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Australia are all distinct corporations sole.

    Because Australia and Canada have federal systems of [corporate] government, Elizabeth also has a distinct corporation sole for each of the Australian states and Canadian provinces. For example, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Queensland. >

    http://bit.ly/1KZ4IUN

    < Internationally, for the purposes of protocol, the United Nations list of heads of state has for Australia "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II", in brackets, above the name and title of the governor-general; > (Wikipedia)

    Because Elizabeth (a living woman) is a distinct corporation sole for Australia "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" and for each of the Australian states and the Canadian provinces - she answers to/is directly under the law of, the Pontiff.

    The GG of Australia himself and all state governors (who are all, also 'tied to' this corporation sole - an entity having the rights and duties of a living man and or, woman), would all answer to/be under "the Law", accordingly.

    Yes. The Queen (it's so often stated) is only symbolic in today's world.

    LC
    May 12, 2015. 04:14 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Queensland ... Beautiful One Day ... (Nothing Changes?) [View instapost]
    .
    BREAKING!!!!

    On top of the recent Tasmanian 30 years oath fiasco and further to the Queensland "circus" surrounding the "wrong" or, even no oath - it now gets even more sadder. :(

    Tassie: http://tinyurl.com/nqn...

    It would now seem that the current Queensland Governor Paul de Jersey who was officially sworn into office in mid July, 2014 had made a "Claytons'" Oath - the oath that wasn't the oath (p 11/15), until today's announcement? (And thus incorporating that Juristic entity, "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second.")

    Certainly, according to this (Report No. 71) September 2009.

    < Oath or affirmation of allegiance and of office—Governor and Acting Governor I, ..(name).., do sincerely promise and swear (or, for an affirmation—do sincerely promise and affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her (or His) Majesty..(name of Sovereign).. as lawful Sovereign of Australia and to Her (or His) heirs and successors, according to law; and I will well and truly serve Her (or His) Majesty..(name of Sovereign).. in the office of Governor of Queensland (or, for an Acting Governor —in the office of Acting Governor of Queensland) in the Commonwealth of Australia, and will duly perform the functions and exercise the powers of the office according to the best of my ability, skill and knowledge; and I will, in all things associated with the office, duly and impartially administer justice in Queensland.

    So help me God! (or omitted for an affirmation). >

    HMmm...? ----> "administer justice in Queensland"

    His Oath: "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second as lawful sovereign of Australia and to her heirs and successors according to law ... and I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second,"

    Circus details: http://bit.ly/1Jt5clg

    LC

    ps; Two very important and significant points ...the old ....."administer justice in Queensland" and, ...... with the inclusion of the Juristic entity, "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second." (As for Magistrates, too.)

    http://ab.co/1Jt5ecJ

    The Rule of Law does not apply to Magistrates in Queensland?
    The MAGISTRATES COURT BILL 2003 for WA, should be the same as Queensland's own 2003 BILL, one can only imagine?
    ("The states of Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales also have legislation setting up unified summary courts.")
    Listed on page 5/18 ....Clause 15 ... "Contempts of the Court" is the following:

    *Refusing to take an oath or affirmation

    http://bit.ly/1Jt5cBw

    Queensland Consolidated Regulations

    MAGISTRATES REGULATION 2013 - SECT 2

    2 Form of oath or affirmation for magistrates—Act, s 9

    (1) For section 9(1) of the Act, the oath is as follows—

    'I, ..(name).., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second ...... as lawful Sovereign of Australia and to Her heirs and successors, according to law; and

    In the office of magistrate, I will at all times and in all things do equal justice to all persons and discharge the duties and responsibilities of the office according to law to the best of my knowledge and ability without fear favour or affection. So help me God!'.

    (2) For section 9(1) of the Act, the affirmation is as follows—

    'I, ..(name).., do sincerely promise and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second as lawful Sovereign of Australia and to Her heirs and successors, according to law; and

    In the office of magistrate, I will at all times and in all things do equal justice to all persons and discharge the duties and responsibilities of the office according to law to the best of my knowledge and ability without fear favour or affection.'

    http://bit.ly/1Jt5cBy

    It's "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second", again...

    They are now (also) making "their" oath to.... a juristic entity.

    LC
    May 7, 2015. 06:43 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Australia - About "The Crown" [View instapost]
    .
    Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Second Is A Corporate Person - Only A Juristic Entity

    http://seekingalpha.co...

    LC
    Apr 20, 2015. 02:15 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
924 Comments
7 Likes