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:
  • Queensland ... Beautiful One Day ... (Nothing Changes?)

    Back when the current Queensland Governor Paul de Jersey was officially sworn into office in mid July, 2014, he made the following oath:

    "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second as lawful sovereign of Australia .... and to her heirs and successors according to law and I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second," he [as the 26th person to assume the position of Queensland Governor], said.

    Following his swearing in and by the very same man who replaced him in his previous position that he held, as the Chief Justice of Queensland (Tim Carmody), the recently departed State Premier Campbell Newman (who himself had made both the appointments), commented:

    .........."Queenslanders today are not only gaining not just a new governor but a quality family to be the Queen's representative in our great state of Queensland," is what Campbell Newman the now ex premier/state member, said.

    www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-29/queenslan...

    On the Queensland Parliament website we are told that the Queensland Governor .... "is the personal representative of the Sovereign and that the Governor must always remain non-political".

    Even more ..... "One of the most important duties is the opening of the Parliament following a State election and the granting of Royal Assent to Bills passed in the Legislative Assembly. With the assent of the Governor given on behalf of the Sovereign, the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and thus a law of the land."

    tinyurl.com/m7myeaa

    **Cough** ("the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and thus a law of the land.")

    And "powered by" who/what?

    ***********
    Following the recent election, it became even more comical.

    February 09, 2015 - tinyurl.com/lw8xnr7

    "Who Should the Queensland Governor Appoint as Premier?"

    It would very much appear to me that the Governor most certainly becomes a 'team player', and have a clear understanding of his/her role.

    Queensland/AUSTRALIA - The Royals? ... Never ever had it, and never ever was "the crown" - tinyurl.com/mc5g2zb

    The ongoing deception or, is it total ignorance of those within the corporate Queensland government, the governor and any/all lawful roles in relation to lawmaking or, "policy enforcing" and as to who they/we all answer to (at law), should need no further explaining.

    In recent times (Pope Benedict/Pope Francis) the Roman cult that under corrupt Popes and for centuries had controlled the slavery of the people, was 'killed off'.

    It no longer exists .... and the "crown" remains with the sovereign himself, Pope Francis.

    The Vatican is back to being a church and is now separate from the Holy SEE as the law making body, with the Pope being it's head or, the supreme power.

    Link: http://lifeinthemix2.co.uk/the_house_of_windsor.html

    Above, it is pointed out that the Governor says (in his oath), that he refers to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second ...... as being the lawful sovereign of Australia and that he will serve her and her heirs and successors according to law ...

    [according] To law?

    What law? What Law does a Queen who is not the (and never ever was, the) "crown", ever have to [em-] 'power' men and women, as a 'pretend' sovereign?

    [Or,] To install them as a "crown", in their own realm?

    There-in lies a huge part of the LIES that are being perpetuated upon us all.

    (Was the recently departed Premier Campbell Newman and now an ex State member, a "crown" in his own right? We know he wasn't.)

    At law and under the Rule of Law, there can only ever be the one sovereign "crown". (No one is above the law.)

    Always, only an opinion.

    LC

    Feb 22 8:44 PM | Link | Comment!
  • Australians Really Need To Start Paying Attention.

    Australian men and women really need to start paying attention.

    What the Attorney-General [Senator the Hon George Brandis QC] is almost attempting to do is to convince us that we are a "sovereign" state and that as such, we decide our own destiny, meaning law, etc

    This is almost along the lines of other U.N. (corporate) thinking, too.

    Here: *** https://www.facebook.com/groups/211871612287035/permalink/529671433840383/

    Ross BradleyHow to get out of paying fines, rego, fees and tolls

    The LAW?? (**cough**)

    New Australian law reform inquiry to focus on freedoms - 11 Dec. 2013

    "I have asked the Commission to identify where traditional rights, freedoms and privileges are unnecessarily compromised within the legal structure of the Commonwealth. .... Where encroachments exist, the Commission will determine whether they are justified.

    "For too long we have seen freedoms of the individual diminish and become devalued. The Coalition Government will strive to protect and restore them."

    "Freedoms are some of the most fundamental of all human rights. They underpin the principles of democracy and we cannot take them for granted.

    "The Commission will focus in particular upon commercial and corporate regulation; ........ environmental regulation; and workplace relations."

    The Attorney-General [Senator the Hon George Brandis QC] has asked the Commission to provide its report by 1 December 2014.

    The proposed terms of reference are attached.
    ******************
    Traditional rights, freedoms and privileges

    1.1 The Australian Law Reform Commission has been asked to identify and critically examine Commonwealth laws that encroach upon 'traditional' or 'common law' rights, freedoms and privileges

    http://www.alrc.gov.au/…/traditional-rights-freedoms-and-pr…

    Freedoms Inquiry Wiki - Catalogue of Australian Commonwealth laws that limit or encroach upon traditional rights, freedoms/privileges - Published on 15 September 2014.

    The ALRC has been asked to consider corporate and commercial law, environmental law and workplace relations law, but the Inquiry is not limited to these areas.

    We need two things:

    1- In the first column of the relevant table, identify the law that limits or encroaches on the particular right, freedom or privilege-the name of the statute and, if possible, the section number;

    2- The second column of the table, briefly explains how the law encroaches on the right, freedom or privilege.

    What are Traditional Rights - http://tinyurl.com/nb8kqm8

    Traditional rights, freedoms and privileges | ALRC

    1.1 The Australian Law Reform Commission has been asked to identify and critically examine Commonwealth laws that encroach upon 'traditional' or 'common law' rights,...

    alrc.gov.au

    Like · · Share

    • Ross Bradley ..
      George Brandis (and the ALRC) need to soon realise that we, as a U.N. corporate state are NOT "sovereign" and that if the very "originals" (in both Australia and the America's/Canada) must answer to papal law (the bulls), then that law equally applies, to us all.

      < "The Papal Bulls that sanctioned the invasion and exploitation of Indigenous peoples lands all around the world are still valid." >

      < "However, the legacy of Terra Nullius remains with the Crown retaining the underlying sovereignty of all land in Australia." >

      Fact! http://bit.ly/1wB9Zx7

      In the U.N. and in relation to the "Doctrine of Discovery", well, the more things change the more they stay the same? (It simply ain't 'gunna' happen.)

      [The U.N. corporation answers to who?]

      < The eleventh session of the Permanent Forum described the Doctrine of Discovery as a "nefarious doctrine" that "became the basis for the assertion of authority and control [by states] over the lives of Indigenous Peoples and their lands, territories and resources." >

      At its 13th session, the Forum recommended that the full "Study on the impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery on indigenous peoples.."

      < In fact, the high-level meeting did nothing. [The high-level plenary meeting / World Conference on Indigenous Peoples.]

      It neither discussed nor repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery. It left the doctrine in place, without critique, as an ongoing basis for states to claim Native lands.>

      < "Popular desires" exist for Indigenous Peoples to have standing in the United Nations. A rational examination of the evidence shows this has not happened.

      The evidence from the high-level outcome document shows the UN does not even pay attention to its own Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. >

      http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/.../un-ignoring...

      The Doctrine of Discovery

      Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia. One of the largest community based Aboriginal and Torres Strait...

      als.org.au

      Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 4 hrs · Edited

    • Ross Bradley .
      Clearly the corporation that is Australia (the Government of Australia) answers to the crown (the Holy SEE/Pope Francis) and it does so through the Governor General, [Sir] Peter Cosgrove. (As a corporation sole.)

      Like · Reply · 1 · 4 hrs · Edited

    • Ross Bradley .
      Rule of Law ... Natural law. ...Common law

      - http://tinyurl.com/a3tet3f

      < Speaking at a UN conference on international law, the Vatican's Secretary for Relations with States [Archbishop Dominique Mamberti] said that the rule of law must ultimately be based on a common understanding of natural law. >

      How could the 'enforcement' of any state corporation's Statute, Act, Legislation or, Road Rule ever be considered as being valid, in terms of a living man and women (being the "policy enforcer") having any such 'validity of enforcement' at law, over another's man or, women's protection through, Natural law?

      (Natural law - Common law - Do no Harm.)

      Page 10/17 - http://tinyurl.com/n4btr5y

      Ross Bradley

      Like · Reply · 1 · 12 mins · Edited

    Always, only an opinion.

    LC

    ps; *** (Should the link to the Facebook Group early in the post, not open.)

    "Sovereign" - "Sovereignty" (Re-visited.)

    Often misused words, this pic below from Canada's 'corporate rule book' begs that we should have a further look into both these very words.

    In a search of content in the group, there are many mentions in discussions of that word "sovereign" and or, "sovereignty". - http://tinyurl.com/ovoe4mf

    The "Crown"

    We make the claim in this group that the Pope (Francis) is the only Living 'sovereign' (and of a sovereign state - the Vatican City State), and of all 193 corporate states of, the UNITED NATIONS' corporation.

    This leads us to the realisation that under the initial Supreme (and what is the only Lawful) Global Estate Trust, all the land within those 193 corporate states is "crown" land and is controlled under that same Trust. We are the living Beneficiaries of that Land.

    Are Homes 'over-priced'? You bet they are. Are Rates on land an unlawful impost? Yes indeed they are.

    Are corporate state governments that either sell crown land or, permit the sale of farm land to foreign corporations acting deceitfully? You bet they are. Are they not, only selling a "right" to manage and or, farm that land? (China is known to be buying lots of farm-land. A 'right' to grow food.)

    Was the consortium that paid out $7 billion for 'Queensland Motorways' to QIC Ltd not 'sold a pup'? I thing they were.

    http://tinyurl.com/mxhoojs

    I guess the list could get much longer. The "land" itself is never "owned", as you can't own land. It belongs to the people. (It's part of the Global Estate Trust.)

    "Sovereignty"

    Whilst there is only the ONE living sovereign lawmaker it just may be the case, that all the corporate entities or, states within the UNITED NATIONS corporation (including even, down to our 'local' councils) are considered as legally being individually, independent 'sovereign' states - and do have a certain power for them to do everything in a state, without accountability. (As long as it is lawful.)

    Both the pic below and the following words point to this as being a possibility.

    This would mean that ethically & lawfully (deceit?), corporate governments and corporate local councils can "buy" land yet they can't sell it.

    Why? (Read above. Is it an ethical sale? Full disclosure?)

    Councils (it's pretty clear when you read this) are all considered as being, "other political subdivisions".

    When a former Comptroller General of the United States (yes, of Congress, and as the 'bean counter' for the very UNITED STATES corporation itself and under the UNITED NATIONS' corporation - and that includes all of the 193 corporate states that are all ultimately, under the law of the Pope), gets to refer to the governing of that corporation, and mentions other (so called) 'sovereign nations' - and 'other political subdivisions' ... all, virtually being (autonomous) "Sovereign Governments", it may well be worth taking notice of?

    (And I know that's quite a "mouth full" - that may well need your re-reading, at least a number of times. - Full story in pps;)

    Comptroller General - http://tinyurl.com/klq7h47

    Story: www.ifac.org/global-knowledge-gateway/vi...

    Like ·
    **************************

    pps; It's Time for Sovereign Governments to Practice What They Preach

    by Hon. David M. Walker, Former US Comptroller General | May 20, 2014

    1

    Political leaders and regulatory agencies in various countries and supra-national entities spend a lot of time focusing on the need for quality financial reporting by public companies. At the same time, current financial reporting by sovereign nations and other political subdivisions (e.g., states/provinces, municipalities) leaves a lot to be desired.

    As a CPA and a former Comptroller General of the United States, I know that the financial condition of most government entities is much worse than advertised. For example, in the US, the balance sheet does not include several trillion dollars of actual government debt related to current social insurance programs. In addition, the unfunded obligations related to certain social insurance programs (i.e., Social Security and Medicare), which are not on the balance sheet, are multiple times greater than the debt and other liabilities that are on the balance sheet.

    I have also seen how many government entities try to distort the facts in an attempt to deceive people about their budget status and financial condition. Some egregious examples include:

    • Considering the proceeds from a debt offering as revenue in cash based budget reporting.
    • Deferring pension plan contributions and calling it a spending cut when, in fact, it is a deferred spending increase.
    • Delaying payment of current obligations or accelerating revenue attributable to future periods.
    • Using one-time revenues (e.g., grants) as a basis to make multi-year commitments.

    Accrual-based financial statements, a budget reconciliation statement, and an appropriate stewardship statement can help to reduce "expectation gaps" resulting from the above type practices. Clearly the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable.

    The time has come to modernize government financial reporting in a manner that doesn't just focus on today but also tomorrow. Some examples of needed high-level financial reporting improvements in government that are applicable on a global basis include:

    • Requiring adoption of generally accepted international accounting and reporting standards that could be supplemented by additional domestic disclosures, as and if applicable domestic standard setters and regulators deem it necessary.
    • Requiring full accrual-based financial reporting.
    • Requiring a financial statement that reconciles any alternative basis of accounting used for budget purposes (e.g., modified cash) with the full accrual-based financial statements.
    • Requiring a stewardship financial statement that projects the likely financial and inter-generational implications of current government policies, programs, and fiscal policy.

    The truth is many governments have grown too big, promised too much, and are in need of fundamental restructuring. This is especially true in connection with many social insurance and public retirement programs given current demographic trends. As has been in the case the private sector, improving current financial reporting will likely serve to accelerate needed transformational changes to existing social insurance programs, other spending practices, and tax policies.

    While additional financial reporting improvements are needed, government annual reports should also be expanded to include more performance reporting. For example, taxpayers deserve to know what type of outcomes are being achieved by the government's combined spending tax and regulatory actions as compared to related goals and other comparator entities (e.g., countries, states/provinces, municipalities).

    It's time for governments to move from laggards to leaders in connection with financial reporting. This change is necessary to provide more useful information for both investors (e.g., bondholders) and taxpayers. It is also necessary to help avoid unexpected crises today and help prepare for a better tomorrow.

    ***********************


    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroscepticism

    Feb 21 5:01 AM | Link | Comment!
  • Queensland/AUSTRALIA - The Royals ... Never Had, Never Was The Crown

    Ross Bradley shared his post.

    1 hr · Edited

    Constitutions lack any power, at law. As the "royals" have never ever had that sovereign power.

    (And the sovereign 'crown' has always been with, the Popes of Rome.)

    No longer does the fraudulent "fiction of law" exist. (No crown support.)
    *******************

    This (the above), comes from within my "Jurisdiction" post, linked below.

    Yet, it hardly raised any interest, at all. And I wonder why?

    We have governors being appointed by state premiers (as was the case with Paul de Jersey up here in Queensland - Campbell Newman), yet no one appears to be concerned about the "TRUE" situation of it all, at law?

    (Why?)

    JurisdictionLearning fundamentals of what we advocate in the group can be well worth the effort to do so. Without that "crown" backing or, an authority given to a man or, women there is no "power" to punish - other than in cases relating to law. And only by Justices, in proper courts of law.Constitutions lack any power, at law. As the "royals" have never ever had that sovereign power. (And the sovereign

    Ross BradleyHow to get out of paying fines, rego, fees and tolls

    Jurisdiction

    Learning fundamentals of what we advocate in the group can be well worth the effort to do so. Without that "crown" backing or, an authority given to a man or, woman there is no "power" to punish - other than in cases relating to law. And only by Justices, in a proper court of law. (Supreme Court.)

    Constitutions lack any power, at law. As the "royals" have never ever had that sovereign power.

    (And the sovereign 'crown' has always been with, the Popes of Rome.)

    No longer does the fraudulent "fiction of law" exist. (No crown support.)

    ***** How to get out of paying fines, rego, fees and tolls *****

    Jurisdiction is a BIG thing, it seems. No lawful "power" to punish?

    At Law, any/all administrative tribunals and or, the initial corporate policy enforcer (those that issue a punishment NOTICE for whatever) are clearly acting unlawfully. (No authority or, lawful "power" to punish.)

    They clearly no longer have any Jurisdictional authority to sanction (punish) men/women. There's no "crown" to "power" any of their so called 'Laws'.

    No man or, woman can lawfully punish another man or, woman outside of a competent Justice and in a proper court of law. (No lawful authority.)

    They have no power ... nor can now - any other men/women (without themselves having such power), grant them that power. And all corporate governments simply haven't that power now.

    The Law says this is so:

    ............."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 [fines or, other punishment] may be imposed only in cases defined by law."

    The Law: http://tinyurl.com/ltny7k5

    Jurisdictional error

    Jurisdictional error is a concept in administrative law, particularly in the UK and Australia.[1]

    Jurisdiction is the "authority to decide", and a jurisdictional error occurs when the extent of that authority is misconceived. Decisions affected by jurisdictional error can be quashed by judicial review.

    Examples of jurisdictional errors include asking the wrong question, ignoring relevant material, relying on irrelevant material, and breaching natural justice. [Where there's no power, at law.]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdictional_error

    Like ·

    • Don I. Rockefeller, Bryan Parker, Cathy Zovadelli and 2 others like this.
    • Ross Bradley .
      < The Premier said he had "thought about it [who to recommend for the role - of governor] a lot", deliberating with his "closest staff".

      He said the choice was made before relations between the judiciary and the government cooled late last year, following a raft of legislation which some in the legal community considered a blurring of boundaries.

      "I made a decision a long time ago that the next Governor which should be recommended to the Queen should be the Chief Justice and that was many months ago," Mr Newman said.

      "It certainly predates any of the things the government had to do late last year and indeed the formal approach to the palace, to Her Majesty occurred well and truly before Christmas last year">

      http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/.../former-chief-justice...

      Former Chief Justice Paul de Jersey appointed Queensland Governor

      From a school teacher's son to Chief Justice and soon...

      brisbanetimes.com.au

      1 hr · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

    • Dylan Thomas A lot to consider

      1 hr · Like

    • Ross Bradley Most definitely, Dylan ....

      1 hr · Like

    • Dan McColl How do the Popes of Rome have the power. I certainly didn't give them my consent to rule me.

      1 hr · Unlike · 1

    • Ross Bradley .
      My argument is based on the reality of the fact that the "Doctrine of Discovery" should be pretty clear to us all - in that following the invasion (of the land), the sovereign lawmaker's own Law does (apply) and has always applied.

      And that the royals (the Queen - Elizabeth II) have had nothing whatsoever to do with anything (lawfully), in the history of our country, since the invasion.

      Its been one big "CON".

      Because....the law of the land is clear. Or, should be. And that this has been declared in the courts:

      < "The Papal Bulls that sanctioned the invasion and exploitation of Indigenous peoples lands all around the world are still valid." >

      < "However, the legacy of Terra Nullius remains with the Crown retaining the underlying sovereignty of all land in Australia." >

      http://bit.ly/1wB9Zx7

      The Doctrine of Discovery

      Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia. One of the largest community based Aboriginal and Torres Strait...

      als.org.au

      1 hr · Edited · Like · Remove Preview

    • Ross Bradley .
      Dan McColl ...you (we) were born into the law, at law. (Live birth record.)

      Consent doesn't enter that equation.

      1 hr · Edited · Like

    • Ross Bradley .
      When born into the law, there's little anyone can do about it.

      And it IS (or, happens to be), the law of the western world.

      It is the law of the land, here in Australia and the law of the 193 corporate states of, the United Nations. It is the law that we are under.

      Again. It's the law we are born into (at law), so we best be understanding it all and using it, where possible.

      1 hr · Edited · Like · 1

    • Ross Bradley .
      Instead of disputing the "sovereignty" (Law) of the Popes ... shouldn't we best be disputing the clearly unlawfulness of the Campbell Newmans in our world?

      1 hr · Like · 1

    • Ross Bradley The Rule of Law says, that no one is above that law.

      1 hr · Like · 1

    • Dan McColl Absolutely we should. I'm trying to get my head around it all. I don't understand a lot of it, though.

      If we have a birth certificate aren't we then 'born' into the fiction with little we can do about it??

      Maybe I'm a little slow in picking up how it all works, and trying to figure out how to be rid of the fiction without being assaulted by policy enforcer thugs at every turn.

      1 hr · Like

    • Ross Bradley .
      The reason/s why we are, where we are at (in today's world), is as a result of the total contempt of the law, by those that "think" they rule over us. (As, the would be "rulers".)

      1 hr · Edited · Like · 1

    • Ross Bradley .
      < "If we have a birth certificate aren't we then 'born' into the fiction with little we can do about it?" >

      Dan McColl ... it may be best explained, in this blog-post?

      http://seekingalpha.com/.../3202105-there-are-two-bonds...

      There Are TWO Bonds. - One "Lawful" And Another, A Fraud. !! -...

      Back in the Facebook group and away from the Market...

      seekingalpha.com

      59 mins · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

    • Ross Bradley .
      Yesterday, I chatted with a midwife of some 30 years, on a flight to Townsville.

      She explained to me, that the "live birth" record of an infant involved "heaps of paper-work". (Her words.) She also agreed, we are all given a number.

      She did not know where this "record" (registration), was sent to or, who it was kept by. (My suggestion that it was to Rome/the Holy SEE, fell on deaf ears.)

      Google: http://tinyurl.com/q5q5pbk

      24 mins · Edited · Like · 1

    • Ross Bradley http://chfs.ky.gov/.../registrarguidelinesrevised...

      32 mins · Like

    • Ross Bradley .
      Sad to say it, that "the royals" were all and only ever about...the FRAUD.

      [They have been] All to do with, the dead corporate person/s (the "fiction of law"), that has now been "killed off", by the Pope and his predecessor.

      The Roman cult now, no longer exists. (The "corrupt" power from the Vatican, that once "powered" the fiction.)

      http://seekingalpha.com/.../3674356-vatileaks-archbishop...

      "VatiLeaks" - Archbishop And Butler Did It.... (Signalling End Of Roman Cult) -...

      seekingalpha.com

      17 mins · Edited · Like · Remove Preview

      *****************

      Always, only an opinion.

      LC

    Feb 12 6:45 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.