Seeking Alpha

LookingConfident's  Instablog

LookingConfident
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:
  • Christians, Muslims, Athiests And The Rule Of Law

    Within a 'perfect world' (society), the "Rule of Law" exists and as such, there's transparency and all people are all fully accountable to, the Law and the Rule Of Law.

    It's a world where, no one is above the Law.

    In the world as we know it (or, better still - let's just say, as I know it), there appears to be a 'push' for either Sharia Law or, the law of the Christian world, being the law that comes from the Holy SEE, in Rome.

    Of the Christians, Muslims and the Atheists (in the world as it exists), it would seem to me that it's the Christians who don't yet know (or, it certainly appears, don't seem to even want to know), exactly where they stand, in Law. (Closely followed by, the Atheists.)

    The bottom line is, that both Christians and Muslims likely follow the same God or, creator. Only the atheists caught in the middle (be they either ex Christians or, ex Muslims), have no God.

    I find this really extraordinary in a sense, as (to me), it can be safely said that of the Christians (and purely based on their lack of knowledge), they are the more easily led and are, well, just like sheep.

    Christians are being led, Muslims are more, driven.

    This is why (and I truly feel), they the Christians have for so long been, so easily, 'divided and conquered'. And for whatever the reason/s, that's not my point.

    The fact should be clear (or, it's clear to me), that Christians simply do not know what is Law. Yet Muslims throughout the world would all know (there's no doubt in my mind), exactly what Sharia Law is all about.

    In a 'perfect world' (society), where the "Rule of Law" exists, is it to be, Christian Law? Sharia Law? Sharia Law? Christian Law?

    Christians are mostly all 'born into' (and at Law), the law they are both under and are protected by. Like-wise, are Muslims.

    It important to know that Christian Law, is not religion.

    The following from the article linked below, caught my eye. And (in reading it, I've learned) it does have a huge, ever lasting impact on both Christians and atheists and in no matter what Law that the latter can be found, to be within.

    < "Sharia law, which covers only Muslims unless incorporated into national law, assumes people are born into their parents' religion.

    Thus ex-Muslim atheists are guilty of apostasy - a hudud crime against God, like adultery and drinking alcohol. Potential sanctions can be severe: eight states, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania and Sudan have the death penalty on their statute books for such offences.

    In reality such punishments are rarely meted out.

    Most atheists are prosecuted for blasphemy or for inciting hatred. (Atheists born to non-Muslim families are not considered apostates, but they can still be prosecuted for other crimes against religion.)

    Even in places where laws are lenient, religious authorities and social attitudes can be harsh, with vigilantes inflicting beatings or a beheading." >

    www.economist.com/news/international/215...

    I can't verify the accuracy of this linked article.

    Always, just an opinion.

    LC

    Dec 23 8:03 PM | Link | 1 Comment
  • The "Fiction Of Law", Is Dead. They Have No Power.

    The question came in our Facebook group:

    "I was just thinking if I pay rates or a fine (as they call it) would that make me a share holder of that company, and if so can I look at the books?"

    ... Rather than entertain the 'thought' of you recognizing the (their) unlawfulness of it all, a better question for councils and all (so called) 'authority' would be to ask them - can they explain to you on paper and fully - just where do they feel they get their "authority" from (at Law), for them to demand/coerce any payments, whatsoever?

    They will have a very difficult time providing an answer for you.

    WHY?

    Because times have changed. And that "change" (itself) has come at the end of February beginning of March, in 2013.

    This was when the out-going Pope (Benedict) in what is said to have been an extraordinary decision (he had a "gun at his head", is what I'd suggest to readers) actually closed down/destroyed the 'Roman cult' that (and, for many centuries), had "powered" the "fiction of Law". (All corporations are a fiction.)

    It means that all of the corrupt Popes including Benedict himself (and as the Lawmaker/s - and throughout this period since the "CQV Act" of 1666), were/was the very "crown" that "powered" the (fiction of) Law that involved all the many billions of inferior Public Trusts. The power that is said to have made them "lawful".

    It no longer exists. No power.

    This means that all government corporations now have no 'power' at law (they have no "crown") to either make or, to enforce any new or, existing (so called), laws.

    Again. The "fiction of Law", is dead. It no longer exists. (It has no power.)

    Living men and women have no power (at law) to make law for other living men and women. If they did or, were able to do so, then they'd be acting as slave-masters.

    [And] Slavery is unlawful.

    In his Decree that 'officially' started on 1st September 2013, the lawmaker Pope Francis has made this all very clear.

    Sooner or, later we (the people who are allowing ourselves to be at the mercy of or the brutal hands of slave-masters, all driven by FEAR and coercively at the end of a policy enforcer's gun), will begin to "wake up" and say..."Enough is enough".

    We need to learn what it all means and start to access the proper courts of Law and demand from the qualified Justices (who all answer to the Law/the Pope), that the Law must be upheld.

    This form of "slavery" must be stopped. That justice should not be something just 'talked about' in groups on Facebook and that justice itself must at all times be handed down by (these same justices who virtually hold a "balance of power" in their own hands and so it must be handed down by) them "lawfully", at all times.

    The Law of the corporate states? http://tinyurl.com/kzlpmp3

    Always, only an opinion.

    LC

    Ps; Join our group? www.facebook.com/groups/211871612287035/

    Dec 20 9:00 PM | Link | Comment!
  • Calling Queensland's Chief Justice Tim Carmody To The Rescue?

    It's hard to communicate with the Registrar of the Queensland Supreme Court, when they won't even reply to my reasonable E Mail requests concerning an Application for a Judicial Review.

    Here's hoping to God that they don't develop "gate-keeper" fever, as life sure is difficult enough at the moment.

    Let's go back now to that September Tim Carmody "Queensland corporate government" Chief Justice appointment - and the kerfuffle that it caused.

    Separation of powers

    Supreme court Justices must at all times remain or, be totally independent from the state. (Please make a comment if you may feel that this is not necessary, if you feel this is so.)

    < "The prominent human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC says that Queensland, like many jurisdictions within the international community, needed to adopt a model to appoint judges similar to that used in the UK."

    "It leads to judges being more representative, it leads to judges who are not necessarily in the pocket of the government or conservative," he said. >

    Yet... Opinions, differ.

    < University of Queensland law Professor James Allan has warned that the UK system is "appalling" and "incredibly incestuous", arguing it essentially allows judges to pick their own successors. >


    Geoffrey Robertson [a brilliant] QC says Queensland needed to adopt a model to appoint judges similar to that used in the UK.

    He's a worry?

    Yes. This University of Queensland law Professor "James Allan" becomes a concern for me, and he is a very outspoken man on many matters, it does appear.

    James Allan - www.spectator.co.uk/author/james-allan/

    Professor James Allan of the University of Queensland, and a regular commentator on legal matters in "The Australian", in a recent opinion piece concerning the controversy surrounding the appointment of Chief Justice Carmody, is quoted as saying:

    "If, like me, you want your judges committed to interpreting the legal texts in the way they were intended by the democratically elected legislature, and in line with their plain meaning, then uber-smart judges are simply those with the resources to avoid such constraints"

    (click to enlarge)

    The author- Patrick Anthony Keane, a Justice of the High Court of Australia comments: "Just think about that: a really smart person ... is more likely to make an awful judge. Perhaps Professor Allan should try to get out and meet more judges."

    (Bottom of page 3, top of page 4):

    www.jca.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/1...

    I loved this piece by the High Court Justice when he says (Bottom page 19):

    "the Reformation, [http://tinyurl.com/o6hp2za] which fixed the character of the common law and its processes as something quite different from the civil law system rooted in the academic treatment of Roman law and canon law."

    What is he actually saying?

    I feel that this High Court Justice is saying that ... "the civil law system [is/was] rooted in the academic treatment of Roman law and canon law."

    And if it can be easily proven to people that the Roman cult (that powered the "fiction of law", prior to February/March of 2013) is now dead - where then, does the Australian "civil law system" now get it's power from, for it to be lawful?

    Gee...Pope Francis has clearly "killed" the fiction of law. It no longer exists. His Sept. 1st 2013 Decree (made Motu Proprio) was the "icing on the cake", in that department - it can also be reasonably argued.

    More evidence - (Pages 19/20.)

    Furthermore (High Court Justice P-A-Keane adds):

    "Sometimes, in our enthusiasm to maintain our independence, including our independence from each other, we lose sight of these institutional connections without which we could not even begin to face the challenges of doing justice to our rights-conscious and self-confident fellow citizens."

    What "institutional connections" is he referring to?

    We live in very interesting times, we do.

    Always, only an opinion.

    LC

    Dec 20 1:12 AM | Link | Comment!
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


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.