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:
  • GOLD - "If The Corporation Sole Had Never Trespassed Beyond....."

    From Facebook ... (Just saying...)

    [At Law]

    The current Premier of the corporate government of Queensland (being, Annastacia Palaszczuk) is not the Queen of Queensland. Nor, was the previous Premier, Campbell Newman, ever the King of Queensland.

    It's simple. If living men and women choose to be citizens of the corporate state of Queensland (we do have freedom of choice), then we are subject to the "rule" of, the corporation. If we don't...

    Ross Bradley

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

    The screen-shot above, says it all.

    (From "The Crown as Corporation", by Frederic Maitland..1901. Frederic William Maitland FBA [28 May 1850 - 19 December 1906] was an English historian and lawyer. He is generally regarded as the modern father of English legal history.)

    Other snippets read so far, include:

    < The greatest of artificial persons, politically speaking, is the State.

    But it depends on the legal institutions and forms of every commonwealth whether and how far the State or its titular head is officially treated as an artificial person. In England we now say that the Crown is a corporation: >

    < [And] If the corporation sole had never trespassed beyond the ecclesiastical province in which it was native, it would nowadays be very unimportant. Clearly it would have no future before it, and the honour of writing its epitaph would hardly be worth the trouble. >

    The "King" became the head of a corporation aggregate. And as such, was answering to who, at law?

    < Whether the State should be personified, or whether the State, being really and naturally a person, can be personified, these may be very interesting questions. >

    He (Frederic William Maitland FBA) was referring to THE KING as being UNDER, the Pope. As head of a corporation aggregate. Full stop.

    Always, only an opinion.


    Sep 04 6:53 PM | Link | 2 Comments
  • Supreme Court Of Appeal - Queensland ("Not Only Must Justice Be Done"?)

    The Justices of the "Supreme Court of Appeal" here in beautiful Queensland may need to do a little 'weeding of their own garden', and in the interest of restoring "Justice" here, in the Sunshine state?

    (click to enlarge)
    The Chief Justice "race", here in sunny Queensland.

    An appeal application to the Supreme Court of Appeal will now likely be lodged on Monday 31st of August with the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland. (Similar to below.)

    "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."

    Reason for the application

    *That the "evidence" will show (and as will be presented) that the decision handed down on 28th of August by the Honourable Justice Jackson (to dismiss the matter entirely - and to award costs to the defendant, in the initial matter before the court) was unsafe in that a fair hearing (at law), was not afforded to me, as the Plaintiff.

    *That both rostered Justices for the matter before the court on the 28th of August, 2015 (The Honourable Justices Applegarth and Jackson), were in (what appeared to me to be, an almost Judas-like) denial of the law at a highest of levels, and for whatever their reason or, reasons.

    Grounds for this application: Briefly

    On Friday 21st of August I filed a Document with the Supreme Court Registrar to ask the court for a ruling on two concerns I had with the (a Judicial Review) matter, before the court.

    A date was chosen for these two queries to be heard. (Friday, 28th of August, 2015.)

    On the Monday 24th of August,2015 I then served Crown law (who had initially nominated themselves, for the defendant in the matter), with an advice to attend on Friday, 28th of August, 2015.

    Crown Law then filed a Document on 25th of August, to have the matter dismissed, on - and for it to also be heard on Friday, 28th of August.

    In a hearing, Crown Law gave the Justice (Justice Jackson) a list signed and handed to the court by a Mr Gerard Sammon - Barrister at Law) containing listed statements, to support their own dismissal document - lodged on the 25th of August, 2015), in court today.

    Crown Laws' (pictured above) Mr Gerard Sammon's dismissal application itself (filed on the 25th and 4 days AFTER my own document, being my own application - with it being that, had originated the 28th of August hearing date), was heard before the court.

    My own document (filed on 21st), is not listed as can be seen, so it was not heard on the day. Why so?

    I initiated the hearing, yet I was not heard?

    Where is (or, what happened to) MY document to have initiated the hearing with, as was Filed on 21st of August?

    Ross Bradley

    (click to enlarge)

    Yes. Never a dull moment in the "life of" LC, that I can assure all.


    ps; From Facebook...

    (click to enlarge)

    Aug 28 9:42 PM | Link | 2 Comments
  • QUEENSLAND'S Supreme Court Registrars Need To Know...

    [That] This is NOT a "Civil" matter. It is Criminal.

    ....We are not going to proceed until this matter is moved into the criminal Jurisdiction- being that, under the Pope Francis Decree "Motu Proprio" and as has well and truly been outlined .... in both my document and an initial Asseveration of Truth application that are now both "on file", in the court.

    The document is 17 pages of compelling evidence. ("Unintelligible".)

    It's part of my reason for my E Mail sent yesterday, to Julie Steel.

    (Julie is the Executive Director Supreme, District and Land courts and Industrial Relations Commission Service.)

    It appears that we will now need to file 'leave of the court' and to virtually have the Honourable Justice Douglas tell these "corporate clowns" (yes, the Supreme court "Registrars"), to do their job in a more proper manner.

    Justice Douglas, myself .... and the Defendant in the matter Natalie Barber, are living men and women. At Law.

    And that's the other very important matter (of course), being the eligibility of a corporate Crown Law (itself), to act as the defense team for, a living woman.

    Time (I'm sure), will answer both questions if needed to be put before the court.

    (click to enlarge)

    Always, only an opinion.


    Aug 08 11:10 PM | Link | 1 Comment
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.