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:
  • Canonical Principle - Home, Car Repossessed Unlawfully?

    Canonical Rights To Temporal Goods - Had a home/car, confiscated unlawfully?

    The word is described as follows:

    adjective: temporal

    relating to worldly as opposed to spiritual affairs; secular.

    This was found, in my 'hunting around' and is worth featuring in view of our getting to acquire a better understanding of the law.

    When we realise that not one "dead" corporate person (man or, woman acting as a Juridic entity - policy enforcers), can cause "harm" to a living man or, woman, we will then learn why they simply cannot do so (take our possessions), outside of a Law court - and a Justice in law, ordering any such confiscation.

    They may well 'take your vehicle' yet, are they then setting themselves up for an even bigger hiding, down the line?

    The case I found was against the 'so called' Vatican Bank (Istituto per le Opere di Religione or, "IOR" - Institute for religious works) that is in itself a public juristic person, brings forward some very important information in regards to the Law. (Begins page 71/92.)

    The plaintiff in the matter was claiming that the IOR (the Vatican Bank) was the personal property of the Pope. Which is proven as being incorrect.

    Since the corrupt Roman cult surrounding the fiction of law has been destroyed (it was "killed off" by the current two living Popes), and as living beneficiaries/global estate trust/juridic persons, any/all property lawfully acquired (house, car, etc) cannot be deprived of us (at law), by another living man or, woman acting as a juridic person for a juristic person. (eg; Bank, Council, SPER, Equities, etc.)

    Not even as living sovereign/crown - can the Pope himself, steal it from us.

    Best those 'heads of civil corporations' and other living men and women 'acting' in that Juridic role and only as 'policy enforcers' (police), better take note. As your day in a proper Law court is yet to come.

    There is no statute of limitations on unlawfulness. (Nuremberg.)

    Link to File:

    Click on, to enlarge


      • Ross Bradley .
        Yes...("No one can be deprived of a right - absent fault), and stands for the principle that no person - even the Pope - can lawfully deprive another of temporal goods legitimately acquired"
      • Ross Bradley .
        Bank home loans, new Car loans, etc .... you are on very, very "shaky grounds" with those that get to learn of the law and exactly how to apply it.
      • Ross Bradley .
        My heart bleeds for the many Farmers (property owners) having their life long "dream" being stolen from them (repossessed), by greedy Bankers. People need to learn.

      Ross Bradley What Law have Farmers broken?


      Perhaps Looksmart's CEO Michael Onghai would like to reply to my E Mail/s sent to him in relation to my shares in the soon to be taken "private" company, please?

      Always, only an opinion


    Jul 30 12:38 AM | Link | Comment!
  • An Open Letter To The Honourable Justice James S Douglas. Supreme Court Queensland

    Bradley v Barber- Application for a Judicial Review No BS4846/15

    It is with regret that I pen this open letter to you, for all to read.

    I was wanting to avoid this embarrassing situation yet some reasonable 10 E Mails containing 'appealing like' content in hope that common sense, and that the letter of the law would prevail - and that were send to the top law person in this glorious state of Queensland, have all remain unanswered.

    .........................The Honourable Justice James S Douglas


    I've even "Tweeted" a message to the Honourable Premier herself.

    No one is listening. Sadly.

    To them it may well all be, unintelligible. Or, told to them that this is so?

    The Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk MP. 39th Premier of Queensland, and head of government in the state of Queensland, Australia, and sitting alongside her (nearest us) is the Queensland Attorney General, the Honourable Yvette D'Ath MP.

    Your Honour...

    The two objections that now need to go before the court, are that:

    We [I] feel that:

    (1) any Lawyer from Crown Law should not be playing any part in the matter, before the court. (It will be shown to be, unlawful.)


    That this also includes any Law firm that has or, has had any kind of contact working either for or, on behalf of either the Department of Justice and Attorney-General and or, has contracted juridically or, juristically .... for any/all other departments of, the Queensland Government.

    The other dispute that must also to go before you your Honour is:

    or, concerns the very minor 'kafuffle' surrounding the listing of the matter. That it was inadvertently listed as a civil matter- instead of being listed, of a criminal nature.

    Herod Atipas

    You now get to become the King Herod, in your own court. And I had reminded all parties concerned that a kind of repeat of history over 2000 years ago should not again be, the case. ... And that as a good independent Justice, at law, you can only serve one master.



    Let's hope we can avoid that situation? That sanity can prevail?


    Ross Bradley - Plaintiff

    Jul 15 11:09 PM | Link | 2 Comments
  • Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk - Re; Supreme Court Queensland BS4846/15

    The Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk MP. 39th Premier of Queensland, and head of government in the state of Queensland, Australia.

    Dear Honourable Premier of Queensland,

    We have a problem.

    ... Crown Law of Queensland (and the Crown Solicitor - Greg Cooper) proudly advise all 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.

    [P 80 - Department of Justice and Attorney-General Annual Report 2010-11]

    The Crown Solicitor- Greg Cooper, we are told .... "acts as the Solicitor for the State and provides independent legal advice to the Premier, Attorney-General, Ministers, Director General, and Departmental Officers."

    In the following matter before the Supreme Court ( BS4846/15):

    Bradley v Barber- Application for a Judicial Review No BS4846/15

    It has been advised that Crown Law have already spoken with the 'office' of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General on the above matter that's before the court.

    In two 'blog-posts' now (published here on SA), I have posted my dismay at the Crown Solicitor's decision to recommend that Crown Law act on behalf of (and as has also been advised to me, being the plaintiff in the matter) the defendant, a living woman Natalie Barber - who acts as a Juridic person in her position as Registrar, SPER (OSR/QTC), both here and here.

    The Registrar of the Supreme court and in a phone contact with Crown law have both advised that I should go before the Justice of the Supreme Court and to ask him re, the matter. (The Honourable Justice James Douglas.)

    And for me to argue my reasons before him- rather than Crown Law (et al) seeing the obviously clear 'conflict of interest' (besides, the unlawfulness) of, Crown Law (clearly as a Juristic entity/person in wanting to act for a living women) when, and as a Juridic/Juristic person Crown Law is normally performing for another Juristic entity or, person, being the Department of Justice and Attorney-General.

    Corporate persons or, corporations can only ever 'connect' (do business) with other corporate persons (corporations), at law.

    And, Crown Law (especially the Crown Solicitor- Greg Cooper) ought to know this. Do they Crown Law - really want to 'challenge' who they answer to (being the sovereign) at law, in law?


    And as previously posted, any such (Pontius Pilate-like?) decision should not be left in the hands of an independent Justice in Law (The Honourable James Douglas) for him to have to make - as I feel it would be an almighty insult to his honourable standing in law - in that he must always answer to, the law.

    Thank you.

    Always, only an opinion.


    Jul 12 12:13 AM | Link | 2 Comments
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.