Seeking Alpha

LookingConfident's  Instablog

Send Message
Longstanding investor in Looksmart (and a 69 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:
  • Rule Of Law - Equal To All, In The Financial Markets?

    Facebook group member Andrew Knox makes a very good point on a thread, when he says:

    "Many of the concepts in this group cannot be proven, instead they are argued. I'd hope that people do not go to court under-prepared as a result of what they read here."

    My reply came as follows:

    I do agree with you Andrew Knox that members need to be fully aware of and comprehend all of (not just a concept), the solution, as offered. And one that can be proven, at Law. And has been.

    ..No man or, women has any lawful jurisdiction over all living flesh and blood men/women, UNLESS they consent. It's that very area of "FICTIO" or, the FRAUD surrounding the fiction of law, that has now been fully exposed.

    To consent is to remain a slave. Under what is only an assumption.

    < "once the fiction of law is seen for what it is A FICTION and they say it themselves in the maxim----'fiction yields to truth, where the truth is the fiction of law does not exist'" ~ Doone SonOfDoone >

    Google [Page 401]:

    Fictio legis neminem ladit [Lat]. a legal fiction must not injure no one. Fictions are only to be made for necessity, and to avoid mischief.

    Fiction. Fictions are 'those things that have no real essence in their own body but are so accepted in law for a special purpose.'

    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 territory; extrinsic; outside; extraordinary.


    No longer can Policy enforcers and or, those within administrative tribunals coerce or, threaten any HARM to those living men/women who do NOT consent to the dead fiction NAME, that is not them.

    Because as living flesh and blood men/women we are the living beneficiary of the public Trusts constructed around that fiction corporate NAME.

    The Law, says this is so.

    "On September 1, 2013, all the judges, lawyers, police, government officials, and those posing as government officials, and all officers of corporate franchises and entities organized under the auspices of the UNITED STATES and all its STATE franchises become fully, personally, and commercially liable for their actions and omissions against the living beneficiaries of the public trusts"

    A great understanding -

    Rule of Law

    We need to fully comprehend just two areas of "reality" when reading all of the above, and in relation to that September 1st 2013 Law.

    1 - AUSTRALIA and it's "states" (and all corrupt state governments) are now all corporations &"registered" under the UNITED STATES' corporation of, the United Nations. This is part of the planned One World Government that has been 'in the works' for maybe 100 years or, more.

    2 - ALL corporations in our world are "registered" with and are under the Law of the Holy SEE in Rome. The Pope, makes the Law. All living men and women in the western world (and from off our Birth Certificate), are also "registered" with the Holy SEE.

    This makes both corporations (those men and women working within them) and all of us, all become - under that ONE Law. And if the "Rule of Law" is upheld, no living man or, women is, above the Law.

    "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."

    Always, only an opinion.


    ps; The Group -

    Aug 17 12:51 AM | Link | 1 Comment
  • Under The Jurisdiction Of The Roman Curia? I Don't Think So.

    From within an interesting Facebook thread and in commenting on the video below, I made a statement, that: There is what I feel is a 'major' mistake made (in the 1st 4 minutes of the video), and I'm wondering if any member can tell me what I feel that 'mistake' made, is? Facebook Thread:

    Martin Sørensen asks: "I'm getting very curious as to what is the major mistake made in the video."

    Well Martin... This is my 2nd attempt. My 1st on FB simply 'vanished' when my computer shut down mysteriously.

    The video:

    Ok, it is at the 3.00 minute mark, is where it begins.

    4) 'THE CITY OF DETROIT' is a device created by the Trustees and the Administrators, Guardians operating under the jurisdiction of the Roman Curia - who have tricked the people into 'pledging' their property to be used as collateral, which has fraudulently converted the true Creditors into debtors reducing the true Creditors to the status of insolvent paupers having no rights.

    I feel that it's almost as good as disinformation of the kind that has spread so wide and far - and it has been so readily been accepted by all - when passed on from those considered as being "guru's" in the FREEdom activist area. I feel you will read this here, as a world 1st.

    Those words: "operating under the jurisdiction of the Roman Curia"

    Under the jurisdiction of the Roman Curia? I don't think so.

    The group's Admin Team leader Gary and I have discussed this a number of times and I am now more than convinced that this is so wrong and I'll try and explain why this is so.

    FICTIO -

    In a previous post I commented that ....... In regards to "Fictio" (or, the fiction of law), jurisdiction only comes from our own consenting to being the NAME - and that this (in itself), is so 'regular' a happening, these days. There's that need to have us CONsent to the NAME.

    Who is it that we are 'coerced' into consenting to-who do we have a need for them, to have us understand them? (Police, magistrates, men/women contracted to Council, Bank Card operators, men and women telephone operators/payment of accounts for Telcos, Power Company suppliers, etc.) Yes, they all have a need to get us to be 'the NAME'.

    All that operate this 'fiction', do so UNlawfully.

    This fact (in itself), has been hilighted by Anna von Reitz with (besides personage) "barratry" - the crime of knowingly bringing false claims into court.

    All corporations in the world are "registered" within Rome. As such, they all come under the vatican 'corporate' umbrella. The Holy SEE is the "Legal" owner of all the corporations. (Trusts.) All dead entities.

    As such (and, under this corrupt UNlawful 'system' of law that exists in the corporatised world that we are in), a corporation can only 'talk' with another corporation - such is the ('pretend' or, a 'discolouring' of the) law that those men or, women (as mentioned) 'acting' on behalf of the (corporate) Trusts involved, do need we (living flesh and blood men/women), to CONsent to being their (trust) NAME. Or, speak or 'give evidence on behalf of' this dead fiction Trust NAME.

    (See eg; here)

    [Beside a number of other matters] ... The Magistrate was clearly able to advise the 'witness' that he was giving 'evidence' on behalf of the corporation (the very NAME) and this advice went, unrebutted.

    It's clear I feel that whilst non-competent justices/judges (those court officials, administrative clerks, magistrates, etc) operating down in the lowly Statute level of a 'fiction world' jurisdiction that is described at best (and, for expediency), as doing so, all under the 'colour of law'...that can now be so easily be proven as being all UNlawful.

    Here's the 'kicker' - The 'Lawmaker' himself has said so, too. (Bare in mind that this blogpost started off under the premise that Trustees and Administrators of the corporate Trust constructs are "operating under the jurisdiction of the Roman Curia"?)

    And the 2IC (I feel) to Pope Francis in his presentation of the motu proprio (he's the Secretary for Relations with States) Abp. Dominique Mamberti has put it like this:

    .....,"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."

    We live in most interesting times, we certainly do. The 'race' is on, with various 'factions' of the United Nations flexing their muscles.

    For mine, I'd be putting my money on the 1st ever Jesuit Lawmaker, that the world has seen. He (Francis) 'looks the goods', for mine.

    Always, only an opinion.


    Anna Maria Wilhelmina Hanna Sophia: Riezinger-von Reitzenstein von Lettow-Vorbeck
    Thirty years A Lawyer, she [claims she] has served as an International Services Agent and as a private attorney in service to his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and now, Pope Francis.

    Aug 16 6:24 AM | Link | Comment!
  • Carpe Diem - LOSE The NAME - WIN The GAME

    When Dean Hopkins (14 hrs · Perth) stated the pure GREED of Telstra to start a Facebook 'conversation', I joined in myself.

    "THE TELSTRA MONEY GRAB: Wanted to charge me an extra $2 per bill to send it in the post rather than by email....."

    Estie Esteban: "Don't even question, require of them. Let them know these are your wishes, and to respect them, as per the contract."

    My own reply just now:

    Interesting conversation, Dean and Estie ...

    < "Don't even question, require of them." >

    Yes. We must remember that in all of these contracts (including those supposedly with the ATO, local councils, Rego, Licence, Telcos, Power suppliers, even Home Loans, Bank Cards, etc), we are in fact, the 'living beneficiary' of that trust - and that we hold the 'power' if and whenever we ever decide to expose the NAME fraud to them, of the Trust.

    LOSE the NAME - WIN the GAME

    [And] That we are NOT the Trustee (not the NAME), not that ALL or, part CAPS NAME and that it is THEY who will do anything we request and all that we require of them ("I do NOT consent" to being that NAME/person), certainly in regards to any Late payment FEES, hidden charges or, whatever (including cancellation of a contract), and whenever we may wish to do so.

    CORPORATIONS don't "own" anyone. Unless we give them ownership?

    Hi I'm Estie.. I'm ringing re; the accnt # in the NAME of ESTIE ESTEBAN

    As Estie, you are the Living Beneficiary of their Trust.

    We, and by advising them that we are NOT that NAME and that we only maintain the account on behalf of that NAME and as such (and in being a living flesh and blood man/women), we will 'call the shots' on anything we wish to do with that account-certainly over any decision any living flesh and blood man/women who may be working within that 'dead fiction' corporation, who may want to try and tell us something different. As it is simply not their account, for them to do so.

    Carpe Diem

    "Live now":

    Always, only an opinion.


    Jul 04 8:37 PM | Link | 3 Comments
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


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.