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:
  • Australia - About "The Crown"

    About "The Crown"

    From within the document:

    The Crown

    84. The first use of the expression "the Crown" was to identify the body politic.

    ........ Writing in 1903, Professor Pitt Cobbett identified this as involving a "defective conception" which was "the outcome of an attempt on the part of English law to dispense with the recognition of the State as a juristic person, and to make the Crown do service in its stead".

    Yes .... "of an attempt on the part of English law to dispense with the recognition of the State as a juristic person"

    Q? A "juristic person" is registered with who/what and is under what law?

    Queen of Australia

    An extract from Volume 1 of the Constitutional Commission 1988 Report dealing with Queen Elizabeth in her capacity as the Queen of Australia and other documents confirming that role including the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 and the 1999 High Court decision on the Sue v (Heather) Hill Case. -

    Professor Pitt Cobbett (1853-1919) -

    [Juridical personality- jurisdic person] What's a "Juridic Person"?

    Link to that story:

    Do we need further evidence? Click on this link?

    Truth About the Magna Carta (

    It's clear or, should be clear that all Juristic/juridical persons are "registered" with and are under to law of, The Holy SEE with the Pontiff himself (Pope Francis) being the sovereign "crown".

    Always, only an opinion.



    The poster within the link (mysterynomore, on 12/04/2012), refers to it, as being "Juristic law".

    Yet it's the very "Law" that's mentioned so often, here on this blog.

    (Forget about anything "archon-ish", as it's ---> The Supreme law.)

    And whilst this "law" no longer "powers" the state (either juristic-ly or, as [a] juridic person/s of the state) both are still, "registered" with and are UNDER (besides, as living men and women, being "protected" by), that law.

    We, in our remaining as a "juridic person" (registered with the Holy SEE from off our Live birth bond) do so as the Living (as men and women) Beneficiaries of, the Global Estate Trust. (The Pontiff/Pope being, the lawmaker and Trustee.)

    And as 'juridical persons', all of the policy enforcers are now acting, unlawfully.

    As men/women, they are "acting" against the law of the Living Beneficiaries or, against the law of the land. (Do no Harm.)

    Feb 28 8:47 PM | Link | 3 Comments
  • Challenge To The Editor - Queensland's Courier Mail


    Ross Bradley

    30 mins · Edited

    --------> The people V's the Corporate 'state' of QUEENSLAND?

    From a current thread. My question remains....

    We do have a "system" of law and a "Rule of Law" (as strange as it may seem), and within that same global "system", Justices of the Supreme court answer not to the corporate state (government/s), they answer to - the law.

    Would Queensland's CJ himself (Tim Carmody) care to 'chance his arm' on a matter of determining law (I wonder), in his own Supreme court, of law?

    Is that not the kind of "challenge" that we need to generate an interest in?

    Below pic - Queensland's Chief Justice, Tim Carmody.

    Like ·

    Always, only an opinion.


    Feb 25 10:32 PM | Link | 1 Comment
  • 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.

    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."

    **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 -

    "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" -

    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.


    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.


    Feb 22 8:44 PM | Link | 1 Comment
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


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.