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:
  • Shouldn't We Best START Using "The LAW", Folks?

    That corrupt and now "UNLAWFUL", fiction of Law.

    "Any name will be attached to a person. It doesn't matter if it's the right name or not."

    The above line is accredited to Melbourne's Pete Williams' "legal advisor" who verified it within a lengthy blog-post "You Are Not The Legal Name", as posted on October 25, 2014 by David.

    Here - tinyurl.com/ov7458b

    < And they don't care what legal name either. They just want to attach a legal name to a body. In a video, Pete's "legal advisor" verifies this. >

    Give a (dead corporate fiction) Dog a "NAME" and make it "stick"?

    It's such a great "lead in" to an even more disturbing article coming from the US's highest court (the Supreme Court) that has 'ruled' along those same lines (and a number of times it seems), that:

    Cops Can Seize Your Property Even If You're Innocent?

    "Under federal and state laws known as civil forfeiture, police can seize cash or property if they suspect it's tied to an illegal activity even if the property owner isn't charged with a crime."

    Forget any Constitutional argument and the Fifth Amendment's stipulation that you can't .. "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

    HMmm?... Sorry, says the Supreme court.

    That [Supreme] court has issued a number of rulings upholding civil forfeiture, including one in 1996 where the high court pointed to a bizarre line of reasoning it made in its first-ever decision on civil forfeiture handed down back in 1827.

    < That case involved the government's attempt to seize a ship used for piracy. When the owner of the ship claimed it couldn't be forfeited until he'd been convicted of a crime, the Supreme Court had this to say:

    "The thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is attached primarily to the thing."

    [The "Thing"...

    Helloooo?

    It's now an unlawful application of Maritime Law.

    And it (the "fiction of Law") still goes on in our own pretend courts today, and this is in spite of the September 1st 2013 Papal Decree, issued Motu Proprio.]

    While it sounds odd that the government would want to punish "the thing," civil forfeiture cases today still reflect that line of reasoning.

    ..... When the government attempts to seize property these days, it files a civil complaint against the property or cash. This leads to funny-sounding lawsuits, like "US v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins."

    But for people whose property or cash is seized, forfeiture can be seriously disruptive. >

    So ... what's gone wrong here?

    ..... Isn't it not all too 'similar' a case as to both the recent "Vlad Law" appeals (to the High Court of Australia), in that the U.S. Supreme court has been asked to consider - whether the 'seizure of property' issue should surely be considered as being, "unconstitutional"?

    No, was it's reply.

    Simply because the U.S. Constitution and the Fifth Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with the Maritime "jurisdiction" that these cases have been based on, and in spite of them all being, on Land!!

    (Re-enter the now unlawful, "fiction of Law"?)

    After-all, it hasn't (hadn't) been asked that the prosecution should have to 1st prove their case (to the U.S. Supreme court), that the seizure of any property at all, is all "Lawful". (Members can read my own opinion within a comment that will ultimately follow.)

    That sad story: tinyurl.com/mtc6z9q

    Markela and Chris Sourovelis, pictured here, had their home seized after their son was charged with a crime.

    Doesn't it beg the question that if you don't take the 'Law' into court with you and or, ask the court that the prosecution must now prove their case against you (and to the Supreme court), that it is/was all Lawful...what hope have we really got?

    Helloooo again?

    From within the Steve Edmunds "Vlad Law" thread in the group just yesterday, the following was commented:

    [Steve Edmunds
    Yesterday at 12:02pm

    Just wondering, can you shed some light on today's decision.
    Surely Anti-Association Legislation is UNLAWFUL on so many levels?]

    In a report on a previous NSW HC appeal in early October (with the same barrister Wayne Baffsky - who had used a very same/similar constitutional argument, and) the High court back then was found to have said in reply:

    "In dismissing the NSW case, the High Court found there was no right to freedom of association under the constitution."

    That (NSW) story: tinyurl.com/lepheyu

    My own thoughts are (and as they were at the time), on the Vlad so-called "laws" remain the same. That they are highly unlawful.

    These can be found in a comment made (below), and as was posted on October 8th, here in this group.

    "NSW bikie court loss 'won't affect' Qld" (October 8th)

    This, the linked ABC report says: .........."The court also dismissed claims that the laws were at odds with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because that was not in Commonwealth legislation."

    WTF?

    What fecking "Commonwealth legislation" was it that the High Court talking about?

    Australia is now under the "International common law" of, the United Nations!!!

    (Besides, the very Supreme Law, itself!!)

    "Wake the feck up", good people!! http://tinyurl.com/n4v8hjk

    The Murdoch report (from The Australian) says: "The justices also concluded the laws did not breach the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." - tinyurl.com/mrs2a2v

    Two very different interpretations on whatever was said by the Justices.

    The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

    tinyurl.com/lh96aub

    I've made it clear that I feel that the "International common law" of the UN is not being utilised properly (at all) and that I feel it has been proven to be of constant abuse, in global determinations.

    And that to argue or, use 'right to freedom of association' under the constitution is utter madness.

    Presumption of Innocence

    No one is or, can be found guilty of anything, by association.

    Unless they are suspected of being about to commit a crime and have enough evidence on them - that can then be proven as such, in a proper court of law.

    And before then, they must remain innocent (the "presumption of innocence"), until proven guilty of anything and not before.

    Again, the Pope's Supreme Law says so, too:

    < "Significant modifications are introduced also in terms of procedure.

    ......... These include: updates in the discipline of requisition, strengthened by measures regarding the preventative freezing of assets; an explicit statement of the principles of fair trial within a reasonable time limit and with the presumption of innocence;" >

    That law: tinyurl.com/ltny7k5

    Just my opinion, of course....

    LC

    Nov 15 2:45 AM | Link | 1 Comment
  • What Is A "Juridic Person"? - Rule Of Law

    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;

    < ........... A "juridic person" (canon law's version of a corporation) is also the head of the civil corporation. (canon law's version of a corporation) is also the head of the civil corporation. >

    That story; www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?nu...

    ***********
    juridical
    dʒʊˈrɪdɪk(ə)l/
    adjective
    Law
    adjective: juridical

    relating to judicial proceedings and the administration of the law.

    "clear words are a matter of practical rather than juridical significance"
    ***********
    corporation
    kɔːpəˈreɪʃ(ə)n/
    noun
    noun: corporation; plural noun: corporations

    1.
    a large company or group of companies authorized to act as a single entity and recognized as such in law.
    "the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation"
    synonyms: company, firm, business, concern, operation, agency, office, bureau, house, guild, institution, organization, trust, partnership, federation, conglomerate, consortium, syndicate, group, chain, combine, multiple, multinational; "he was chairman of the corporation for three years"

    2.
    British
    a group of people elected to govern a city, town, or borough.
    "the City of London Corporation"
    synonyms: council, town council, municipal authority, civic authority;
    authorities "the corporation refused two planning applications"
    ***********
    And the Governorate of Vatican City State? (And us.)

    [It's] the "strawman" (or, all those corporate inferior entities/trusts), along with the superior and now, only Lawful 'Live Birth' Trust that are kept (not at "the Vatican", but) by the Holy See's Roman Curia, as the Governorate of Vatican City State.

    From my own story: : http://tinyurl.com/k2tc65g

    [So] As Living Beneficiaries of the Global Estate Trust (the Pope being the Trustee) we are mostly all Juridical persons (and we are very much alive or, a natural person), and with a demise of the corrupt Roman cult by this Pope and concurrently a destruction of the very fiction of law - all inferior Trusts would now cease to exist, Lawfully.

    Person - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines 'person' as follows:

    ........"In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers."

    Rule of Law says that we the living men/women all lead "Lawful" lives enjoying and sharing the global estate ........ or, we can simply, selfishly stay on with the existing corrupt, dead, false "fiction" life of slavery...it's such a hard decision.

    (So .....We only have "Law".... as living men/women.)

    Remedy

    Remedy was the question put on the Lee Smith thread. Lee had randomly posted a Kate of Gaia (Lose the NAME and WIN the GAME) audio within a thread.

    The conversation then got around to Lee saying to me:

    "I look forward to your remedy in the dead world."

    My reply was the exact opposite to this as Law itself (being the only remedy) deals with the living (man/women) and not the unlawful "pretend law" that deals ONLY with dead corporate fiction entities or, ZOMBIE persons.

    Are you dead? I'm not.

    You see, we (like many others) can't yet realise that "remedy" is all and only about the Living. (As we are all mostly living beneficiaries of the Global Estate Trust.)

    The Pope is the Trustee.

    He makes the Law that we are mostly all under (and from our "live birth" date, at law), and our remedy is with that Law - supporting us in a 'court of record' (in being living flesh and blood men/women), before a competent judge/justice- who all answer ONLY to the Rule of Law and the Pope, at Law.

    (Separation of the Judiciary and state. Check-out the structure of all the states within the UNITED NATIONS' corporation relating to where their International 'common law' stems from.)

    Hey!! There are TWO Bonds. One "Lawful" and another, a fraud!!

    That story: http://tinyurl.com/pco256w

    Administrative Sanction

    From the September 1st, 2013 Law, it clearly says:

    "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 a Link to an interpretation - tiny.cc/8iznmx

    What is SANCTION?

    In the original sense of the word, a "sanction" is a penalty or punishment provided as a means of enforcing obedience to a law.

    In jurisprudence, a law is said to have a sanction when there is a state which will intervene if it is disobeyed or disregarded.

    Therefore International Law has no legal sanction. Sweet In a more general sense, a "sanction" has been defined as a conditional evil annexed to a law to produce obedience to that law; and, in a still wider sense, a "sanction" means simply an authorization of anything.

    Occasionally, "sanction" Is used (e. g., in Roman law) to denote a statute, the part (peual clause) being used to denote the whole. Brown. The vindicatory part of a law, or that part which ordains or denounces a penalty for its violation. (Black's Law Dictionary)

    < "In jurisprudence, a law is said to have a sanction when there is a state which will intervene if it is disobeyed or disregarded." >

    This clearly explains why the UN's "International common law" cannot possibly and never will, work... all matters (unlawful) relating to living men and women must be heard in "courts of law" - and by competent judges/justices who are answerable only to the Rule of Law & the law itself- and finally, the lawmaker.

    The Law in full....

    Description: www.canonlawcentre.com/wp-content/upload...

    ......................................APOSTOLIC LETTER

    ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF FRANCIS ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OF VATICAN CITY STATE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

    ......."In our times, the common good is increasingly threatened by transnational organized crime, the improper use of the markets and of the economy, as well as by terrorism.

    It is therefore necessary for the international community to adopt adequate legal instruments to prevent and counter criminal activities, by promoting international judicial cooperation on criminal matters.

    In ratifying numerous international conventions in these areas, and acting also on behalf of Vatican City State, the Holy See has constantly maintained that such agreements are effective means to prevent criminal activities that threaten human dignity, the common good and peace.

    With a view to renewing the Apostolic See's commitment to cooperate to these ends, by means of this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio, I establish that:

    1. The competent Judicial Authorities of Vatican City State shall also exercise penal jurisdiction over:

    a) Crimes committed against the security, the fundamental interests or the patrimony of the Holy See;

    b) Crimes referred to:

    - In Vatican City State Law No. VIII, of 11 July 2013, containing Supplementary Norms on Criminal Law Matters;

    - In Vatican City State Law No. IX, of 11 July 2013, containing Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code;

    When such crimes are committed by the persons referred to in paragraph 3 below, in the exercise of their functions;

    c) Any other crime whose prosecution is required by an international agreement ratified by the Holy See, if the perpetrator is physically present in the territory of Vatican City State and has not been extradited.

    2. The crimes referred to in paragraph 1 are to be judged pursuant to the criminal law in force in Vatican City State at the time of their commission, without prejudice to the general principles of the legal system on the temporal application of criminal laws.

    3. For the purposes of Vatican criminal law, the following persons are deemed "public officials":

    a) Members, officials and personnel of the various organs of the Roman Curia and of the Institutions connected to it.

    b) Papal legates and diplomatic personnel of the Holy See.

    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;

    d) Any other person holding an administrative or judicial mandate in the Holy See, permanent or temporary, paid or unpaid, irrespective of that person's seniority.

    4. The jurisdiction referred to in paragraph 1 comprises also the administrative liability of juridical persons arising from crimes, as regulated by Vatican City State laws.

    5. When the same matters are prosecuted in other States, the provisions in force in Vatican City State on concurrent jurisdiction shall apply.

    6. The content of article 23 of Law No. CXIX of 21 November 1987, which approves the Judicial Order of Vatican City State remains in force.

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

    I establish that this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio will be promulgated by its publication in L'Osservatore Romano, entering into force on 1 September 2013.

    Given in Rome, at the Apostolic Palace, on 11 July 2013, the first of my Pontificate."

    FRANCISCUS - tinyurl.com/ltny7k5

    Always, only an opinion

    LC

    Nov 12 7:54 PM | Link | Comment!
  • We (The People) ...... Will "Crash" Both Money And Every Corporation In The World.

    The 'half' question was put:

    "But the system won't dismantle itself... They'll act as though nothing has changed, which it won't unless acted upon no?"

    My reply came:

    We Cole Dunque (the people), will "change" the system. We will "crash" both money and every corporation in the world. ;)

    ****************
    More from Facebook. [Learn why? Join our group? tinyurl.com/pnr2fhd]

    Ha Ha!! [Motu Proprio - that Law.]

    < "Anyone that follows you down your path is as doomed as you." >

    When I was greeted with this above message from Romley Stewart a little earlier today, it made me go much deeper into a few areas that do need to be cleared up. And that's not only for Rom's own mind - but for almost all other activists seeking justice and FREEdom for all.

    Hey..... Best you (at least) learn of the following Romley, my friend!

    The Confusion.

    This comment from elsewhere reminded me so much of that need to separate (in people's minds), just what is the Vatican and what is, the Holy SEE.

    And until people do so, they will continue to fall into the very same "trap" as has Rom himself fallen into, by generalising.

    Whilst the 1st paragraph of this statement is correct, 'convoluting' both separate entities can be so easily done by many - as is clearly exampled here, in a post from elsewhere:

    < "WTF!?!?!

    The Jesuit Pope/Vatican admits in the latest Motu Proprio that there are de facto Vatican representatives who administrate entities called "Juridical Persons" that are listed on a Vatican Registry?

    Hello .... Did we just see a tacit admission of the Birth Registry of the Strawman /Juridical Person Trust at the Vatican?" >

    "the Birth Registry" .... "the Vatican" ???

    It's that second sentence that concerns me. Yes, the "strawman" (or, all those corporate inferior entities/trusts), along with the superior and now, only Lawful 'Live Birth' Trust are kept (not at "the Vatican", but) by the Holy See's Roman Curia - as the Governorate of Vatican City State.

    Yet all Trusts (Romley), are entities that are under the law of or, directly dependent on the Holy See. .. And its those "inferior" Trusts (that have had a very long time involvement with the now dead/finished, "Roman Cult"), that the Pope (Francis), has come down heavily on, within his Decree issued, Motu Proprio.

    [From Google] The Vatican church and the Holy SEE are both within the bounds of Vatican City State. (See area map below.)

    Vatican City State is described as being a walled enclave (within the city of Rome), with an area of approximately 44 hectares. Vatican City (State) is the smallest country in the world and is home to about 800 residents.

    Vatican City (that has the church, St. Peter's Basilica, the Sistine Chapel and the Vatican Museums) is distinct from the Holy See (as a centralized government, called the Roman Curia) and it has "full ownership, exclusive dominion, and sovereign authority and jurisdiction" over the Vatican City State". (See area map above.)

    'Often incorrectly referred to as "the Vatican", the "Holy See" is not the same entity as the "Vatican City State", which only came into existence in 1929. It enters diplomatic relations with states, and has Vatican City as its sovereign territory.' (See dark green countries/UN states that are already now virtually under the Pope's law, below.)

    [The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office speaks of Vatican City as the "capital" of the Holy See, although it compares the legal personality of the Holy See to that of the Crown in Christian monarchies & declares that the Holy See & the state of Vatican City are two international identities.

    (**cough** The Crown? It's gone. http://tinyurl.com/ob7vlvt)

    It also distinguishes between the employees of the Holy See (2,750 working in the Roman Curia with another 333 working in the Holy See's diplomatic missions abroad) and the 1,909 employees of the state.]

    The poster then went on:

    < ...."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">

    MORE SPECIFICALLY

    For the purposes of Vatican criminal law, the following persons are deemed "public officials":

    a) members, officials and personnel of the various organs of the Roman Curia and of the Institutions connected to it.

    b) papal legates and diplomatic personnel of the Holy See.

    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;

    d) any other person holding an administrative or judicial mandate in the Holy See, permanent or temporary, paid or unpaid, irrespective of that person's seniority.

    4. The jurisdiction referred to in paragraph 1 comprises also the administrative liability of juridical persons arising from crimes, as regulated by Vatican City State laws.

    5. When the same matters are prosecuted in other States, the provisions in force in Vatican City State on concurrent jurisdiction shall apply.

    6. The content of article 23 of Law No. CXIX of 21 November 1987, which approves the Judicial Order of Vatican City State remains in force. This I decide and establish, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

    I establish that this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio will be promulgated by its publication in L'Osservatore Romano, entering into force on 1 September 2013"-Pope Francis

    WHAT IS THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A JURIDICAL PERSON?

    "Entity, as a firm, that is not a single natural person, as a human being, authorized by law with duties and rights, recognized as a legal authority having a distinct identity, a legal personality. Also known as artificial person, juridical entity, juristic person, or legal person."

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

    Always, only an opinion.

    LC

    Nov 03 9:23 PM | Link | 1 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.