Seeking Alpha

LookingConfident's  Instablog

Send Message
Longstanding investor in Looksmart (and a 70 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
View LookingConfident's Instablogs on:
  • New Beginning, "Invitation" - To Premier And Attorney General Of Queensland.

    Google tells us that Australia's Prime Minster opened the revamped Beenleigh Town Square.

    There's still work to be completed to the entry to, the court house.

    So, hopefully it will be completed before my "presenting" myself once again before a very stern yet, clearly a fair Magistrate His Honour Terry Duroux, on December 2nd, 2015.

    My "invitation" is extended to Queensland's Premier (the Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk) and our Attorney General (the Honourable Yvette D'Ath), and to both corporate MP's for them to attend this "event" at the Southern Districts Courthouse in Beenleigh.

    (The invitation extended is to, a carry-over from yesterday.)

    What an eventful day.

    Twice, when I refused to entertain the idea put to me that I was "Ross Bradley" (the person that is NAMED on the application before the court - my application to dismiss, was not before the court), His Honour, Magistrate Terry DUROUX sent us to the "back of the court", in a very loud and strong tone of voice.

    "Go to the back of the court, immediately" ... or, words similar.

    He used that word "un-intelligible" too, and when I queried why and where had he heard that before, he said it was told to me in the Supreme court. (Word, travels?)

    [An Open Letter To The Honourable Justice James S Douglas. Supreme Court Queensland]

    In our 'third go', and when the court was left with just ONE other man or, woman in the gallery (a Council "heavy" - latest model/Black double-cab 'ute'/darkened windows), a man who point blank refused to give me a 'lift home' (after today's proceedings), to witness what had happened. (Hell... and I've been a Rate-payer, for many years.)

    This third time (and after a 15 minute 'piss-break'), the magistrate was both addressing and referring to me as being "Ross-James", the occupier of the premises.

    The Magistrate advised the court that as "the Act is silent" on how any such matter - when contested, should be conducted or, should proceed, he said he'd be taking it into new territory, virtually.

    He suggested that Karl (the applicant) ask for an adjournment and get some Legal representation, more than twice to him. Karl did so.

    I objected to this on the basis that I have had many sleepless nights worrying about today and felt that the matter should proceed. I told the magistrate that (already), remedy will be sought. Substantial.

    And that as Karl (the applicant), had brought the matter on and that he should 'face the music', so to speak. I told him that it would likely go into tomorrow, as there was much that I had to 'run before the court' - as per my application made, to dismiss his application.

    Again, the magistrate said he had no application before him, from me.

    He asked both the applicant and then myself, what "Legal" points were we going to raise.

    What evidence was to be presented today, by both the applicant and myself?

    "Who else gives evidence today", he asked the applicant.

    The living man from the council (the applicant) Karl Meakin then waved some paper at the court (the magistrate) and said he wanted to 'hand these in'. "To support me and my 'Legal' argument". (They were council 'procedure' papers, rules or, whatever.)

    I objected on the grounds that I had not been served with these.

    The magistrate then said to me (in a friendly tone), that .... "these (papers) could be anything, as far as you are concerned, correct?"

    He then asked me, what I had to say to support my "Legal" argument.

    I replied that, as per my own application to dismiss the matter (Karl Meakin's application), that:

    There are a number of "Key" points I will be raising in support of my application.

    They include, "Legal Personality", the Oath and it's importance, International law and the Law of the Land and Civil law or, what I term as being, "corporate law". (For citizens.)

    Jurisdiction itself is also, such an important component of this hearing today. I will touch on that, should it not displease the court. I feel strongly you have jurisdiction. Thank you again, Your Honour.

    (I then thought he winked at me in a reply when he said ...."I have the jurisdiction". Seriously, I half barred up.)

    He then told me again that there wasn't any other application before the court.

    I replied, "WOW" ... I showed him my own Beenleigh "court stamped" 2 page application and he told the Bench Clerk (or Court Clerk) to photocopy it for him.

    She, the Clerk of the court came back in a few minutes with my File (with all my attachments that I was or, will be relying on), and it was explained to me that this was "found" on the table 'in another' magistrate's room. He perused it quickly.

    The magistrate (who "got up me" too, a number of times), ruled that a proper (on Legal points) hearing would be set down for Wednesday 2nd of December and told us both that we need "legal" representation. (I'll take my chances as a living man, I replied under my breath.)

    I began to waffle a little and he jumped up and said loudly ... "the Court is closed" and rushed to the exit saying ... on his way out, he said..."this has been tried a number of times in courts all around Australia, unsuccessfully ..... get legal advice", as he disappeared.

    Yet I wonder if others have had the "info" that I will be putting to the court?

    I strongly doubt that they had.

    I am very excited about December 2nd, 2015. This magistrate really is very tough ... yet he appears so very fair. Time will tell.

    Note: Logan City Council, who have taken all the "glory" associate with "Beenleigh Town Square" also get to provide the "authorised officers" (**cough**), who "police" anyone smoking within the defined boundary lines, of the square.

    They have SIGNS saying so every-where saying so, too! So they MUST have the "power" to "police" or, must feel that they do.

    Do they empower themselves? (To then collect all revenues? Fines.)

    Karl Meakin (another authorised "officer" corporate-ly contracted with Logan City Council, is being challenged by me in court with his application that he made, for him to gain access over the will of, a living man. (Me. I do not consent.)

    I also promise the 'invite-ees' that they may just learn something of the "truth", should they accept my invitation to attend. I had asked this same question of them in a previous Instabog post, in the past.


    I won't ever die wondering. Nope!


    Nov 11 4:40 PM | Link | Comment!
  • Qua (In The Capacity Of; As Being.)


    "It thus would all be utterly irrelevant... even if county clerks were juridical persons qua county clerks."

    Just as it is irrelevant for the living woman Natalie Barber in her role when acting as a juristic person/entity "qua"... The Registrar, SPER.

    Pope Francis made it very clear when he finished off his Decree with the words:

    "This I decide and establish, anything to the contrary notwithstanding."

    Apostolic Letter Issued Motu Proprio On the Jurisdiction of ...

    That initial Judicial Review question again?

    Q? "Is the living woman Natalie Barber - and are they (those acting in the position of juridic entities), all acting lawfully, your honour?"

    "Legal Personality"

    Legal personality as living men and women.

    "Living men and women or, human beings, ipso facto [by that very fact or act] are persons enjoying all the attributes of legal personality. Each human being then is vested with an independent [legal] personality in the law."

    [As living men and women] We are all both under and protected by, the law.

    The fiction theory of corporation is said to be promulgated by Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254).

    This theory is supported by many famous jurists, particularly, Von Savigny, Coke, Blackstone and Salmond.

    From Facebook:

    Gary N Wendy Jackson: "In place and promulgated before Unam Sanctum 1302.. its more than Obvious that the 'fiction' was Known, and subsequently 'played-upon' a developing 'system' for centuries. We have helped to Uncover this distortion, that has 'layer upon layer' of corrupted 'acts and statutes'...The Awakening of the people including the judiciary has begun... No turning back now, Ross, me ol' mate..."

    From Wikipedia:

    (click to enlarge)

    In the Supreme Court of Appeal in Queensland, Australia

    There's never a dull moment.


    Oct 17 9:11 PM | Link | 1 Comment
  • AUSTRALIA's Governor General - Be The Man That You Are

    Dear General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Retd) - you well know that when the going get's tough, the tough get going.

    This job now calls for that 'tough man' that you are, Digger!

    As the Ambassador of the Holy See (the Pope's law-making body), and as Australia's Governor General you must start taking an "active" role in 'waving the whip', is what 'me thinks'.

    ["Afterwards, the Governor-General received from His Excellency Archbishop The Most Reverend Adolfo Tito Yllana, Letters of Credence accrediting him as the Ambassador of The Holy See." - ]

    You and they (all the state governors) simply cannot continue to hide behind the apron (or, the pork-pie that it is) of "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second", forever.

    You may only need to have a good 'chin wag' with them and to have them remind the Justices in the Supreme Courts that the living men and women acting in juridic positions (entities) in the corporate 'states' all must answer to THEM, at law - and that they the justices (separation of powers), don't ever answer to, any corporate entities.

    You can do this, Honourable General.

    It's so interesting to read and realise that International Law always "out-trumps" Domestic Law. (The lawmaker has said so.)

    Wikipedia tells us:

    "Pacta sunt servanda is related to good faith, while 'pacta sunt servanda' does not equate with good faith.

    This entitles [U.N. corporate] states to require that obligations be respected and to rely upon the obligations being respected.... This good faith basis of treaties implies ..... that a party to the treaty cannot invoke provisions of its municipal (domestic) law as justification for a failure to perform."


    This ("pacta sunt servanda") came up in a speech to the United Nations given by the Holy See's PAUL RICHARD GALLAGHER - SECRETARY FOR RELATIONS WITH STATES. [Page 4 IV.2 Responsibility to Observe the Existing International Law.

    That Speech:

    Supposedly (and as recently advised by a Supreme Court Justice - the Honourable Justice Jackson), Queensland's Supreme court doesn't entertain any jurisdiction other than it's own state civil law interpretations?

    Hello? ("Houston, we have a problem"?)

    Yet, some 12 months ago I wrote that the then Attorney General of the UNITED STATES' corporation Eric Holder, was arguing before the Supreme Court (the US' highest court) that the United Nations treaties even out-trump the United States Constitution.

    Don't take Your Guns to Town? -

    Yes ... and if the then Attorney General of the UNITED STATES' corporation had to go to the Supreme court (I never read of any 'result'?) to 'argue' a point - you can only imagine how tough it is for an "ordinary", uneducated pensioner (who lives in the 'burbs of Logan City out of Brisbane), to do similar?

    Always, only an opinion.


    Oct 04 10:41 PM | Link | Comment!
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


More »
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.