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:
  • This Land Is Your Land/My Land - Let "The Financiers" Know This, Too!

    In a recent post (This land is your Land/my Land), I made the claim that there's not one piece of "crown" land here in Australia that we (as Living Beneficiaries of the Global Estate Trust) cannot lawfully go and live on and to grow our crops, peacefully and to farm/work the land and freely access the, any available water, etc.

    Yes, it is a big claim. Understanding why it's lawful, simplifies it.

    In another post pre Xmas I passed on the Dr David Pascoe story of the sorry plight of 87 yr old Australian farmer, Charlie Phillott 'from on the ruggedly beautiful Carisbrooke Station at Winton. He has owned his station since 1960.' Charlie was being 'driven off the land by the greed of banking executives'.

    There are many Australian Farmers in a similar situation. Including this Facebook group - the men/women of the Mount Morris Station Charleville Queensland.

    From in her "Diary entry 14th of March 2015" the writer "Cate" makes an interesting point and asks the question:

    < "Why are people inspecting properties when the financiers are told, as allegedly in this reported case rippling across this great land, when they [the purchaser] can be taken to court instead of the financier who is foreclosing - why would anyone purchase if this was the case?"

    Cate goes on:

    < "A very important question must be asked .. WHY would any financier feel the "need" to have this in any contract of sale? Are they hiding or trying to cover something up?" >

    A Supreme Court Judicial Review should be called for. Asking if the original 'loans' taken out were ever and or are they still, lawful and do they have any crown backing at law, to be enforced?

    It will be news for some that at law, a dead corporate fiction NAME or, a corporate "XYZ Greedy Bank" is a juristic person - and at law is "registered" with and UNDER, and controlled by the law of the Holy SEE. (Located within the VATICAN CITY STATE in Rome, in Italy.)

    Now as living men and or, women (the Farmers) who are and from off their Live Birth Record the Living Beneficiaries of the Global Estate Trust and (as juridic entities, all 'living on the land') and as such - are all under and are all protected by, that same law.

    At law, the corporation "XYZ Greedy Bank", is a juristic person.

    At law, the financiers (or, CEO of the bank) as a living man/woman and in being head of that corporation "XYZ Greedy Bank", is a juridic person.

    A "juridic person" (canon law's version of a corporation) is also the head of the civil corporation. (The corporation also being, a juristic person.)

    That story; www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?nu...

    (Note again: All Farmers as living men/women are, Juridic entities who are all directly dependent on the Holy See-live birth record and are all under and protected by, the law.)

    What is a "juridic person"?

    From the Pope's Decree (as issued Motu Proprio and commencing on Sept. 1st, 2013) we find that his Law applies to the following:

    c) ......those persons who serve as representatives, managers or directors, as well as persons who even de facto manage or exercise control over the entities directly dependent on the Holy See and listed in the registry of canonical juridical persons kept by the Governorate of Vatican City State;

    Here's a Link to an interpretation - lucas2012infos.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/.../

    It's very important to now note that not one of those living men or, women "the financiers" (the Bank managers) loaned any Living man/women Farmer, any money whatsoever.

    As living men/women, they ("the financiers") can no longer coerce or, harm any other living man/woman. At law.

    At Law, a corporation can only do business with another corporation.

    Loans were only ever given from the corporation (being "XYZ Greedy Bank") that were always enacted by a dead corporate juridic person and onto a dead corporate 'fiction' NAME on a Legal 'construct' or, what is only a "registered" corporate NAME, of the Farmer/s.

    The Living Farmer was deceived (non disclosure upfront of this, fact) and had "signed" a contract on behalf of that NAME, unknowing.

    Can (in a proper court of law), any of those living men or, women "the financiers" say under oath before a competent justice in Law that they loaned the living man/woman (the farmer/s), any money?

    So since the corrupt "fiction of law" (that once had "powered" all those inferior Trust/contracts, at law), is now dead, all Bank loans now become void. - tinyurl.com/k4qw5o7

    Yes, it is difficult to comprehend. No doubt.

    Always, only an opinion.

    LC

    ps;

    Mar 15 5:24 AM | Link | Comment!
  • "Fictions Arise From The Law, And Not Law From Fictions."

    The "fiction of law", is now dead. seekingalpha.com/user/36191/instablog/se...

    "Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions."

    (Well, they once did so.)

    The clearly 'lawful' fact is and remains - as a living women, Lorraine Martin was arrested.

    (Put on your 'thinking caps'. Fascinating story, this one.)

    Ignorance of the law (from the Hearst newspapers), is also no excuse.

    She lost her case (I feel) only because her representation in court (with her, as a living women Lorraine Martin, being the "Plaintiff-Appellant" in this case) has not yet realised that the "fiction of law" now - no longer exists. In that it now lacks any "power" or, backing from the crown. The Pontiff.

    (They then had a need to have been in or, should now go on to the Supreme court, of law. And as a living women Lorraine Martin.)

    The ongoing Fraud of the "fiction"....

    The matter before the court, surrounds: "Plaintiff-Appellant Lorraine Martin brought an action alleging libel and other publication-related claims against media outlets that published accounts of her 2010 arrest.

    She alleged that although the accounts were factually true when published, they became false and defamatory when the charges against her were nolled because, under Connecticut's Criminal Records Erasure Statute, when charges against an individual are nolled or dismissed, that individual's criminal records are erased and he [she] is‚ deemed to have never been arrested."

    The [Lorraine] Martin "Team" misunderstands the effect of the Erasure Statute. That it is her as the defendant (her "fiction" NAME, as LORRAINE MARTIN) that is no longer considered to have been arrested.

    [Page 11/15] - "In short, the Erasure Statute requires the state to erase certain official records of an arrest and [then] grants the defendant the legal status of one who has not been arrested.

    But the Erasure Statute's effects end there.

    The statute creates legal fictions, but it does not and cannot undo historical facts or convert once-true facts into falsehoods."

    That case: tinyurl.com/oe7rlpx

    Always, only an opinion.

    LC

    Mar 12 8:03 PM | Link | Comment!
  • Was Obama Answering To The Rule Of Law? ("Do No Harm")

    Rule of Law ("Do no Harm")

    The world as we know it, is changing......

    What if Obama was applying the "Rule of Law" in the strictest of sense?

    That the world of the 193 states of the UNITED NATIONS' corporation (and, at law) now has, no boundaries? And that he (Obama) was under extreme pressure for him to rule this way?

    < "On twenty-two different occasions, President Obama told the American people ..... that he lacked the legal authority to bypass Congress and grant amnesty through Executive Order.

    ....... However, in November he reversed course and issued an Executive Order to grant amnesty to millions of individuals living in the United States illegally." >

    Brian Babin (the representative for the 36th Congressional District of Texas) mentions a lot about, the Rule of Law.

    He thinks it is all and only about, constitutional law. How sad.

    Story: BABIN: Restoring the Rule of Law

    We have a world that's shouting out for that need to adhere to the "Rule of Law", yet it would seem to me that most men/women who are within the corporate governments (certainly those within the 193 states of the UN corporation), are only wanting their own "law", and for them to be 'sovereign' rulers, within their own realm.

    [And] That "they" (themselves), don't answer to law.

    Rule of Law (News) http://tinyurl.com/kssusmq

    Instablog (Rule of Law) seekingalpha.com/user/36191/instablog/se...

    Always, only an opinion.

    LC

    Mar 09 9:32 PM | Link | 2 Comments
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.