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:
  • If It's Not Lawful It Isn't Legal - Rule Of Law

    Yes, it's a big statement yet it's time the subject was addressed and rationally reasoned through.

    According to Black's law Dictionary (yes, it's a law dictionary, not a Legal dictionary), the following tells us what the word Legal means:

    What is LEGAL?

    1. Conforming to the law; according to law; required or permitted by law; not forbidden or discountenanced by law; good and effectual in law.

    2. Proper or sufficient to be recognized by the law ; cognizable in the courts; competent or adequate to fulfill the requirements of the law.

    3. Cognizable in courts of law, as distinguished from courts of equity; construed or governed by the rules and principles of law, in contradistinction to rules of equity.

    4. Posited by the courts as the inference or imputation of the law, as a matter of construction, rather than established by actual proof; e. g., legal malice.

    See LAWFUL. As to legal "Age," "Assets," "Consideration," "Cruelty," "Damages," "Day," "Debts," "Demand." "Defense," "Disability," "Discretion," "Duty," "Estate," "Evidence," "Fraud," $ LEGATES "Heirs," "Holiday," "Incapacity," "Interest," "Irregularity," "Malice," "Memory," "Mortgage," "Negligence," "Notice," "Proceedings," "Process," "Relevancy," "Remedy," "Representative," "Reversion," "Subrogation," and "Tender," see those titles.

    Law Dictionary: thelawdictionary.org/legal
    ******************************

    Under the Rule of Law, no one is above the law. And from off our live birth record (and at law), we are both under and protected by the law, as living entities directly dependent on the Holy See and listed in the registry of canonical juridical persons kept by the Governorate of Vatican City State; tinyurl.com/k2tc65g

    And the living sovereign and crown (the lawmaker) Pope Francis is the "boss" or, the CEO of the Holy See. (The lawmaking body.)

    All corporate governments - are "registered" with and are under the law of the Holy See. (At law.)

    All "juridical persons" (men and women) within the system of law that we have - are "registered" with and are under the law of the Holy See. (At law.)

    It's simple. Men and women in corporate governments don't make law. Their role is or, should only be to 'manage' both the resources of the land and the infrastructure of the living people (on the land) and to support a proper functioning of, the law of the land.

    All people living on the land are under that one law, of the land.

    Let's be clear that under the Rule of Law, we're all under the law

    People don't need to be "governed" as we are, in today's world.

    If we are doing no harm to others or, the property of others, we are living lawfully. The most important role of any government is only to ensure both an efficient administration and the proper enforcement of the law in relation to lawbreakers. A separation of powers should at all times be paramount.

    The "pretend" law of corporate governments? Is it lawful? No.

    Being 'under' law, people can't possibly make law, themselves. They now have no "power" to do so. (No crown backing.)

    In regards to what is clearly the unlawful 'over-reach' of corporate governments, wonderful "Truther" Larken Rose poses five questions that really need some serious consideration, certainly by those who may hold a different view.

    A user

    Larken says that If anyone believes that government in it's existing role is a necessity, then they need to answer these 5 questions.

    1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

    2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

    3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

    4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

    5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong, in order to "obey the law"?

    If it's not Lawful it isn't Legal? (1. Conforming to the law;)

    Back on topic- with the "fiction of law" now dead (that once had 'powered' all those inferior Trust/contracts, at law), where does it leave anything construed or governed by the rules and principles of law?

    All state 'managed' corporate courts are dead in the water. As they have no crown backing, at law.

    The "fiction of law" (Dead) tinyurl.com/lowv8ek

    What once was "Legal" suddenly becomes, un-lawful.

    Always, only an opinion.

    LC

    Apr 08 5:43 PM | Link | 1 Comment
  • Corporate Governments Have Cornered The "Pittsburgh Pennsylvania" Market?

    Maybe he did see or, foretold the reality of the Guy Mitchell's song?

    For mine, his (William Penn's) work is a revelation, I feel. Certainly this unfinished piece as contained within the link below.

    ...... Bear in mind that the CQV Act itself was enacted in 1666 when Penn was just 22 years of age.. the linked story (AN ESSAY TOWARDS THE PRESENT AND FUTURE PEACE OF EUROPE - 1st published 1693-94), tells us .... almost exactly, I feel - what had been destined within Penn's mind, from over 500 years ago.

    As a foe of the Vatican, he would never have taken into account that the Popes (being fully involved in the corruption), would themselves find a solution, at law. ("Motu Proprio")

    "I say .... Justice is the means of Peace" - William Penn

    It appears finally, someone has been listening to his thoughts:

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25750949.pdf?acceptTC=true

    What a thinker - William Penn (14 October 1644 - 30 July 1718)

    Wikipedia tells us:

    As one of the earlier supporters of colonial unification, Penn wrote and urged for a union of all the English colonies in what was to become the United States of America.

    ........... The democratic principles that he [Penn] set forth in the Pennsylvania Frame of Government served as an inspiration for the United States Constitution.

    As a pacifist Quaker, Penn considered the problems of war and peace deeply.

    He developed a forward-looking project for a United States of Europe through the creation of a European Assembly made of deputies that could discuss and adjudicate controversies peacefully.

    He is therefore considered the very first thinker to suggest the creation of a European Parliament.

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

    In a nutshell?

    Penn is talking of a/the (one, democratic) European Parliament above- with a ONE "Law".

    And we all must get to know now (just as William Penn would surely have back then), where that law comes from. (And it's fact, that he branded the Catholic Church, as "the Whore of Babylon".)

    Yet, Penn was more about a ONE European Parliament law. And now, there is.

    "Powered by"?

    A one law .. where Peace Officers at the 'coal-face' of society uphold the law - and in a ONE system of law, for all. (Do no Harm.)


    Yes. The unlawful "game" of deceitfully gaining societal "consent" is now over, at law.

    Always, only an opinion.

    LC

    Apr 04 10:27 PM | Link | Comment!
  • Constitution, Not Bible, Is Supreme Law Of The Land - Is It?

    ....... "The Bible is the exclusive textual foundation for Christians only-- not so for Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics or atheists." (Or, down-under here - for Australia's own Originals.)

    Forget the "issue" within the story ... the question is only about the headline of the story. And it almost equally applies to us, here in Australia.

    The Supreme Law of the Land?

    Story (Montgomery Advertiser) tinyurl.com/l43ve67

    EDFAITHS.tif

    It's simple...

    We cannot have a law for one and a law for another... (Rule of Law.)

    The highest court in America and our court here in Australia just cannot "rule" (at law), that the Pope's "law" only applies to the indigenous of our lands, and ..... that it [the law] does not apply to all other people, living on those same lands.

    "The Doctrine of Discovery" - http://bit.ly/1wB9Zx7

    Always, only an opinion.

    LC

    Apr 01 9:37 PM | Link | 1 Comment
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

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.