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:
  • "All The World's A Stage, And All The Men And Women Merely Players ~ WS

    "All the world's a stage,
    And all the men and women merely players;
    They have their exits and their entrances..."

    Lux Veritatis makes an interesting discussion point from within a Facebook group reply: []

    Lux says:

    "Gregory is actually correct. It IS your duty as a "CITIZEN" to pay registration and taxes. Keyword there is CITIZEN. As a 'citizen' of a foreign occupied ship, you do as your captain says. ...... Now, a 'MAN' under God, on the land has no such obligations. And I do NOT mean that in a religious sense."

    < "It IS your duty as a "CITIZEN" to pay registration and taxes. Keyword there is CITIZEN." >

    The group here has taken that a further step now in our knowing that any "CITIZEN" (all sheep/slaves who vote, who all CONform with everything to do with the dead corporate fiction entity or, NAME/person) is (are all) doing so - purely under what is now UNlawful, corporate governance.

    No government here in Australia has any "power" to govern. (They have no crown.)

    ..... In fact, there is not one corporation of the said to be 193 states within the UNITED NATIONS' corporation .... that has any "power" whatsoever to govern, Lawfully. (Again - they have no crown.)

    It should be clear that they have no "head of power" and only exist within or, as a part of the dead corporate fiction entity or, NAME/person UNITED NATIONS' corporation.

    These dead fiction entities were all once "powered by" the Roman cult that (with corrupt, bishops and Kings/Queens/Banks/Bankers and under the lawful crown of corrupt Popes), prospered under the NAME "game" fraud.

    Pope Francis has now destroyed the Roman cult. It's now dead. Finished.

    There's not one living man or, woman within any/all of those (193 odd) corporate entities who has any such "power" to govern over and make "law" for all other living men and women.

    They can only "govern" those dead persons or, ZOMBIE "CITIZENS" albeit all (now), unlawfully. .... Because no longer can they get to "act" as or, to 'play' under that "personage", get to don 'masks' and to continue with their now unlawful presumption/assumption based, theatre.

    There is "a ray of hope" though.

    All corporations (including the UNITED NATIONS' corporation and all of it's 193 states) are "registered with" and are under the law of the Pope. (Francis.)

    Most all living flesh and blood men and women within the 193 [UNITED] states of the UNITED NATIONS' corporation (and who are mostly "registered" at Law- and through what is a/the Live birth bond/Holy SEE), are all Living Beneficiaries of the Global Estate Trust.

    As such, all are (both) under and are protected by the Law of the Trustee, being Pope Francis. This Law relates only to, the Living man/woman.

    The Judiciary (Judges/Justices) answer to that Law. To the Pope himself. (And not to the corporations' own now power-less, corporate "law".)

    When corporate policy enforcers break that 'law of the Living' (cause harm to or, deceive any living flesh and blood men/women), they must now be brought to justice before competent judges/justices (at law), and be held accountable to the law - for their actions.

    As always, only an opinion.


    Dec 04 5:57 PM | Link | 1 Comment
  • Constable Benjamin Arndt/Natalie Barber - An Application For A Judicial Review

    We (most all the people of the western world and in all 193 member states of the UNITED NATIONS' corporation) either have Law & a Rule of Law or we don't.

    In a changing world and when one has been reduced to 'walking' as a result of an 'Administrative sanction' (after some, over 50 years of 'safe' driving), so I'm now wondering about the Lawfulness of this man and woman who I feel, have both taken the Law into their own hands?

    This application has been brought to the attention of the following:

    His Holiness Pope Francis @Pontifex - (Twitter)

    Archbishop Dominique Mamberti - Former Secretary for Relations with States of the Holy See and now, leads the Apostolic Signatura


    Cardinal George Pell - @CardinalPell - (Twitter)

    Australia's Cardinal Pell was appointed prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy. - SMH Story:

    British Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, until now the Apostolic Nuncio to Australia, who has been appointed in place of Archbishop Mamberti as Secretary for Relations with States.

    Australian Ambassador to the Holy SEE John McCarthy (KCSG) QC -

    Court registrar - Susie Faulkner
    Supreme Court of Queensland

    Hi Susie ...... I trust that you, a living flesh and blood woman will pass on this my application to a competent Judge/Justice according to my wish as, a living flesh and blood man.

    Please advise me within your E Mail reply and within 7 days, that you have done so, accordingly. Thanks. Ross.

    [This is my] Online application for a Judicial Review

    The matter for judicial consideration as being Lawful or, not and under the process of a Judicial Review centers around a living flesh and blood man and a living flesh and blood woman:

    Constable Benjamin Arndt/Natalie Barber - for Judicial Review

    Under the Rule of Law all living men and women are equal to the Law. All living men and women have also, equal access to the law.

    In these days of the web and (the internet) as a form of totally transparent communication, social media is not only a 'real time' interaction - it is the most modern form of reaching one another in what is the ultimate, compact manner.

    The very Pontiff himself has a Twitter account.


    The Law Handbook (Fitzroy Legal service) says:

    < Nature of judicial review

    Judicial review enables a person aggrieved by an administrative decision (or refusal to make a decision, or action, or inaction) to seek review by a court of the lawfulness of that decision. >

    < Judicial review must normally be sought in a superior court, such as a/the Victorian Supreme Court the Federal Court of Australia or even the High Court.>

    What this means is that I am asking a competent Judge/Justice to decide if "administrative decisions" are correct, based on Law.

    "I just want to file, a Judicial Review". (Every picture tells a story?)

    The Rule of Law, is in support of this my digital application.

    In taking a line through a Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, at the ADDU College of Law all disputed matters should and can best be adjudicated on prior to the ICC assumes jurisdiction only if a state fails in its duty.

    Page 3/6....

    < .."In the case of the International Criminal Court, its criminal jurisdiction to decide cases involving crimes against humanity applies to individuals, whether or not these individuals are nationals of states that are parties to the convention.

    The ICC assumes jurisdiction only if a state fails in its duty to prosecute those who commit crimes against humanity." >

    < "Thus, at the international level, customary international law prevails over the constitutions and laws of states.

    Customary international law is the Rule of Law among nations.

    ...This Rule of Law is what separates today civilized nations from rogue nations, which are the modern day equivalent of the ancient barbarians.">

    My application

    This my application (and as submitted via E Mail to the Supreme Court of Queensland), is coming from and or, is submitted by the living flesh and blood man, Ross James of the Bradley family, and is as taken from off a copy of my live birth record, and as I am a Living Beneficiary of the Global Estate Trust (at Law) I am under the law of the Trustee himself, the Pontiff, Pope Francis.

    From an article (Civilians take on cops in court), posted on Facebook.

    <"The Brisbane District Court found Constable Benjamin Arndt guilty of assault">

    Facebook comment: Whilst that, the above is totally unrelated (Yes Benjamin, 'luck is a fortune', so they say?), please read on as follows:

    Below is an Infringement NOTICE issued by guess who?

    Here is that account (sic) and as was posted on January 4th, 2014.

    < The Notice of a parking FINE says just $44.00.

    Peter Connor and I had both received an 'invitation' to pay that sum.

    (Other cars 'booked' by the BCC/Brisbane Council had $150.00 Fines.)

    Ours were issued by a corporate 'fiction' person, a B. ARNDT (being a QPol corporate construct name in itself), who does happen to have as a 'living flesh and blood' E Mail contact as follows:

    We have 28 days to respond. And we will do so.

    And did.

    ...We won't be paying these (as 'the living flesh and blood man who issued the Notices under his corporate "person" B.ARNDT - will be advised), because the OWNER of the vehicles is not us.

    Constable Benjamin Arndt disregarded both my contacts to him.

    We (Peter and I) only pay the registration of the vehicle/s.

    We don't own them. They (Legal Title) are 'owned' by a corporate fiction. A Trust. We are the living beneficiaries of that Trust.

    These Infringement Notices may (in the future) need to be made out to the 'man/women' who pays the registration of the vehicle', to attend to them.

    On the reverse side:

    "If an Infringement Notice is served on the person who is the owner of the vehicle at the time of the offence, the owner is taken to have committed the [what is only an alleged?] offence even though the actual offender may have been someone else."

    The "person" who is the owner of the vehicle is the QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT CORPORATION or, it's Department of Transport and Main Roads who likely create these corporate 'fiction' persons to enable their deceitful game of Fraud.

    Benjamin M Arndt (as the living flesh and blood man who issued the Notice under the corporate "person" B.ARNDT) will be advised in no uncertain terms that he will be held fully accountable for any further action/s or, notifications that he may cause (other than an immediate advice from him - that the Infringement Penalty of $44.00 has been dropped) and, he will be reminded that he is under the new Pope's Law.

    He was reminded. Twice.

    Further pointing out the UNlawfulness of exactly how these corrupt corporate enforcers do operate and or, exist - and only as money making machines. (An opinion.)>

    Added - Brisbane Times:

    < But the legislation does include a clause which allows the government to recoup costs from state employees who "have engaged in conduct other than in good faith, and with gross negligence". >

    [Public liability of Queensland police officers

    The unequivocal language should provide certainty and peace of mind to police officers who are lawfully carrying out their duties, despite the fact that sometimes that means interfering with people's property or liberties.

    However, the State does have recourse.

    The new provisions allow the State of Queensland to recover contributions from officers, staff members and recruits if the State was found liable for the actions of the relevant person. However, in order to recover against the relevant person though, the State must prove that the conduct engaged in was other than in good faith and exhibited gross negligence. ]

    The question being asked in this Judicial Review application is, was Benjamin M Arndt (as the living flesh and blood man who issued the Notice under a dead corporate fiction entity/person B.ARNDT), doing so, lawfully?

    More comment on Facebook relating to this matter then followed:

    Ross Bradley .
    [I'm suggesting that it's]..."Through Constable Benjamin Arndt's unlawfulness, that I was then punished and by a living flesh and blood woman (Natalie Barber) who I feel is fully responsible as being the Registrar of SPER and is working within and or, via an administrative tribunal's own unlawful forcefulness, Your Honour."

    Natalie Barber as the Registrar of SPER (on or, about May 7th 2014 handed down an administrative sanction decision/punishment (and it was un-be-known to me), that I'm wondering if was Lawful.

    Natalie Barber as the Registrar of SPER simply ought to have known better. (Nuremberg trials.)

    Natalie Barber -

    • Ross Bradley .
    • There are no statutes of limitation for crime.- Unlawfulness.

    Be Atrue Sp-irit They want to stop that people can put claims/charges onto policy enforcers, especially when police brutality is willingly executed? We are so doomed. Even "revoking" a citizenship; I feel very uneasy about this. It's happening so fast.......

    November 23 at 7:04am · Edited · Like

    Ross Bradley .
    What "they" want to do and what they can do "Lawfully" are two different 'kettles of fish'. Under the Rule of Law, we/they are all 'equally' exposed to Law just as any/all other living flesh and blood men/women are. No one is above the Law.

    They don't make Law. And yet they continue to operate in a system that is so easily proven to now be, so unlawful. And it would seem that some of them know, that this is so.

    We live in interesting times, indeed.

    Ross Bradley .
    < .... "One can only try to get rid of any CONtracts and keep bombarding all of those companies with their fraudulent actions.">

    ALL contracts, Acts of 'law', all Legislation, By-laws, etc ... anything dealing with "persons" or, the "fiction of law" are now, unlawful.

    Full stop!


    Because they now have no "power". (In law.)

    They once did (albeit debatable - with no full disclosure given, upfront), when the vatican with corrupt Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, the vatican bank, et al, were in full control of the "Roman cult" and whereby these now unlawful legal 'constructs' that were once being given mafia-like protection - - have now all been destroyed by this "Francis" guy, the new Pope. He has made it all unlawful.

    Learn why this is so?

    And that the Roman Cult that once "powered" them, is dead.

    1 -


    The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. (The Tribunal)

    Any inquisitorial panel must be conducted fairly though, and observe the rules of natural justice, lest the general public lose confidence in any decisions to impose sanctions upon anyone, and not upon others.

    [Natural Justice?]

    An adverse finding by the Panel in circumstances where an allegation of bias was advanced provides grounds for Judicial Review;

    With SPER - that is acting like it's own cross between a Panel and an Administrative Tribunal- 'Judge/Justice/Jury' (or, to elect to be heard within any magistrate hearing-is again, the going into a virtual Tribunal), and for what is only an alleged offence there is no such presumption of innocence and as both the Police and SPER are under the same corporate 'crown' (as the Queensland Treasury) the clear bias, then becomes obvious.

    Letter To The New Under Treasurer Of Queensland (Mr Mark Gray)

    Where is there any "natural justice" in that? This (alone) should provide sufficient grounds for a Judicial Review;

    If you haven't "power".. nor jurisdiction it then becomes unlawful.


    Power (to punish) can never be given to any living flesh and blood man/women outside of a court of Law & with or, only by competent judges/justices answering (only) to, the Law.

    In his advice on the Pope's September 1st, 2013 Law, the Secretary for Relations with States Abp. Dominique Mamberti makes mention of this and the "rule of law", within the following;

    ............ "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 may be imposed only in cases defined by law." [Itself]


    More of Facebook:

    Todays 'deleted' thread (by the SHILL poster) resulted in the realisation that Police have been given a so called 'power' to break 'so called' law.

    Police 'act' coercively

    Living flesh and blood men and women CONtracted within the state (Police) say that breaking road rules is breaking the Law. And that to break a Law is a crime.

    Yet these same living flesh and blood men and women CONtracted within the state can't see that they're 'empowering' their own policy enforcers to break, a law? (Giving an unlicenced driver a permit to drive the kids home from Mum's place, in the car. Just a 3 hour drive.)

    Whose law? (The corporation's law.)

    And who does it apply to? All those who choose to be under those corporate laws.

    (Now that's what you call.. The 'half pregnant' law. A "Claytons")

    The very reason why we have Law and, a Rule of Law.

    Judicial Review crisis looming in the UK ... (Separation of power.)

    "Judicial review is shaping up as a battle ground between the government and the judiciary", says Kerry Underwood.

    < The current debate is set against a background of judges suggesting that Parliament has only a limited role in deciding the jurisdiction of the courts as compared with its untrammelled ability to decide the law to be applied in those courts. >

    < Speaking in Melbourne, Australia on 8 August 2014 (Judicial review: a battle won but who will win), Lord Neuberger, said:

    ....."I pass over the interesting point whether the judiciary could override an outrageous statute, such as one which abolished the right of judicial review." >


    ʌnˈtram(ə)ld/adjective adjective: untrammelled; adjective: untrammeled

    not deprived of freedom of action or expression; not restricted or hampered.


    (More of those incremental steps by corporate government.)

    • Danny Maksacheff I didn't think any judge in australia had any jurisdiction without a writ?
    • 2 hrs · Like
    • Ross Bradley .
      I think what is happening is that the Judges are reminding those in government that it is "they" (the judges) who decide on what is the law and or, what is lawful and that the government should not be seen to be limiting the peoples' access to the courts, by interfering with any means of such access being granted.

      As this "Tweet" (Twitter) says:

      David Ross @DavidRoss BE 2h 2 hours ago

      "Tomorrow the Government proposes changes to Judicial Review that concern me."

      Further details here

      • Ross Bradley .
        "Judicial review is a legal process by which individuals can challenge decisions made by public authorities on the basis that they are unlawful, ....... irrational, unfair or disproportionate.

        It is a directly accessible check on abuse of power, a means of holding the executive to account-increasing transparency, and of providing redress when public agencies and central Government act unlawfully."

        Ross Bradley .
        < The Proposal:

        The court must refuse judicial review if the court concludes that it is highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.

        The Current Position:

        Where a public body has acted unlawfully, the court may, as an exercise of its discretion, refuse to act in a judicial review if it is certain that the outcome would be the same were the decision to be re-taken lawfully.

        Effect of the proposal:

        In practice, it will enable public bodies to escape responsibility for unlawful decisions. In the long run it will change the role of judges on judicial review, as they are invited to second-guess how decisions might have been taken.


        This would create a scenario in which the executive would can act improperly, even dishonestly, without redress.>

        < ..... The House of Commons vote, which Conservative ministers hope will reverse government defeat in the Lords is scheduled for Monday in a so-called ping-pong session where legislation bounces back & forth between parliament's two chambers until agreement is reached.

        Judicial review challenges are used to subject government decisions to scrutiny in the courts but the prime minister, David Cameron, has blamed the procedure for "time-wasting" & the justice secretary Chris Grayling has accused charities of exploiting cases for publicity purposes.

        Lawyers warn that the bill, if enacted in its un-amended form, will impose financial liabilities making it more difficult to challenge unlawful government decisions and subject public bodies to effective scrutiny. >

        And its getting near that time when the "LAWfulness" of ALL such 'corporate' Administrative Tribunals operating here in Australia is asked of the question (or, 'tested') through that "Judicial review" process, we may start to thing?

        (They're unlawful.)

        With what we strongly maintain here in this group - that there's no 'crown' now that's powering the 'fiction of law' and it would surely seem a case of 'you can put down your glasses' ... with a ruling at Law then providing, what would become such a major result, globally. Just my opinion.

        July 9 · Edited ·

        About VCAT - Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

        < ...... "Court Services Victoria, as an independent body, will provide independent support staff to magistrates and judges ......rather than relying on staff supplied by the Department of Justice.

        ...........The change will not affect the day-to-day operation of the courts, but the new body will answer to the Victorian Parliament rather than the Justice Department and the minister." >

        Ross Bradley .
        (And a/the further "muddy-ing" of the waters? ^^^^^)

        10 mins · Edited · Like

        Ross Bradley .
        "Court Services Victoria, as an independent body ..yet is answering to the (corporate) Victorian Parliament?"

        ...Oh yeah...

        Ross Bradley .
        There is no "presumption of innocence" (in what are only an allegation-as being determined), under all Administrative Tribunal decisions that are being made.

        This is clearly unlawful.

        Again, the Pope's Supreme Law says so, too:

        < "Significant modifications are introduced also in terms of procedure.......... These include: updates in the discipline of requisition, strengthened by measures ........ regarding the preventative freezing of assets; an explicit statement of the principles of fair trial within a reasonable time limit and with the presumption of innocence;" >

        Administrative Tribunal decisions/sanctions? (UNLAWful.)

        ......"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 may be imposed only in cases defined by law."

        Here's a Link to an interpretation -

    Finding of Fact

    Ross Bradley

    November 16 at 5:32pm · Edited

    Get this!!! Something very positive... the Truth!

    Gary N Wendy Jackson - from .... How to get out of paying fines, rego, fees and tolls -
    28 mins ·

    "I'm just going to give our group members a few points of knowledge, that Ross and I feel are necessary to comprehend.

    1~ Lawful and 'Legal' are 2 completely different meanings.

    2~Corporations (companies) can make rules and policy, Yet those policies can Never be classed as 'Law'

    3~ The so-called 'Governments' both Federal and State are 'corporations', they are Foreign-Registered-for-profit-companies.

    4~ That a document called the 'Clearfield Doctrine' clearly states that once a 'Government' becomes a 'corporation' AND uses 'fiat-currency' they then 'Lose All Authority' and revert to a 'mere' company. - Google:

    5~ the Legal-system is created out of Deception and Fraud.

    Everything is based on 'legal-fiction/s', i.e. "something which is Not Real but for 'legal-purposes' will be called 'real'.

    6~ If your Name, or anyone else's Name appears in ALL-CAPS, that description, is a 'legal-fiction', it is a 'strawman',that it is a 'trust' name, a 'corporate-entity' and if you 'claim' it, you bind or attach your 'living-self' to the 'crown-claimed-and-copyrighted-fiction' where you will be made the 'trustee' to pay all costs 'charged' to that NAME.

    7~As far as the 'fraud-use-of-language' goes, No [so called] Lawful document should ever contain ALL-CAPS Names, nor ANY sentences, paragraphs, clauses containing words written in ALL CAPITALS, it Voids the document as it is 'SIGN-LANGUAGE' aka "GLOSSA" and it is Not 'Proper-English'.

    8~The Introduction and intent of his law Motu-Proprio, issued and effective 01/09/2013 can NOT be underestimated in its meaning.

    Neither Ross, nor I have a 'religious' background and we have NO 'church-like' axe to grind.

    Members must realize the difference between the role played by the 'current' Pope as the 'lawmaker' issuing the 'law' from the Holy See, as distinct from the 'religious' side of the Catholic Church.

    Centuries have passed, with many corrupt Popes issuing fraud/ corrupt 'laws' that were influenced by corrupt Khazarian-Jew- Bankers, and have punished and enslaved mankind.

    9~ The true intent of the Motu-Proprio, this Highest Letter of Law, that could EVER be written, with more Authority that could ever come from any corporation or BAR GUILD is to return the power and freedom to the "Living-man-and woman" .. and to remove all 'authority' from 'legal-fiction-corporate-corrupt-entities"

    10~ When it finally 'dawns' on us ALL, that the 'legal-system' is Entirely Corrupt, that Everything was based on Fraud and Deceit, and Everything is NULL and VOID Ab initio - from the beginning, that No amount of 'recognition' of 'acts/statutes/codes/policies/ of the fraudulent Foreign-Registered-Corporate-governments-and their Unlawful-Courts, will ever give us a 'remedy'... is when the system will 'self-destruct' - as all corrupt regimes must."

    More of Facebook

    Their "crown" no longer exists, Your Honour.

    The 'Crown'? -

    [Realise] [Realise] [Realise] [Realise] [Realise] [Realise] [Realise]

    When are we all going to realise that ALL police are "acting" unlawfully?

    [Realise] That they have no "crown" or, 'head of power' that they 'act' under?

    [Realise] That the "fiction of law" no longer exists, at Law.

    [Realise] That Australian POLICE are ALL "acting" unlawfully!!

    Point is members, that the "Legal fiction" is dead.

    The CROWN?

    Because it has been "killed off" by this Pope Francis when he both disbanded (and as the Pontiff) the "crown", and that he no longer "powers" the corrupt Roman cult. (Thus, the fiction.)

    Roman cult:

    So it should be very clear that all corporate government involvement with the "fiction of law" (the "Legal" fiction) is now unlawful. That includes how the police are operating the very "NAME game", daily.


    Because it no longer has any "head of power" nor, that "crown" that it once had under the Roman cult to 'power' (or, to drive), it.

    Pope Francis "killed off" the Roman cult.

    [The Supreme Law - as from September 1st, 2013, says that no living man or, women can now get to punish another living man or, women unless they break supreme law. To Apply any administrative sanction.

    That September 1st, 2013 Law, makes it very clear:

    Pope Francis says:

    ........... "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 may be imposed ... only in cases defined by law".

    Here's that law, as issued Motu Proprio -

    Back to the initial question - were both Constable Benjamin Arndt and Natalie Barber acting LAWfully?

    Thank you, Your Honour.

    Applicant: Known as... Ross James Bradley ... a Living man.

    Dec 01 6:54 AM | Link | 6 Comments
  • "Truth...the Pill That Everyone Wants And No One Can Swallow". ~ John Symons

    With "their" (the UN's) planned ONE World Government ahead of us, do you 'wanna' learn something? You'll be so glad that you do so. ;)

    The question was asked in our Facebook group, what Law are we under here in Australia?

    For mine, I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind, in that we are now under the UN's "International common law" that all states of the U.N. are under.

    And about that "control" over 'International Common Law'? - look no further than within the Sept. 1st, 2013 Pope's 'Motu Proprio':

    .......... "A separate section is dedicated to crimes against humanity, including genocide .... and other crimes defined by international common law, along the lines of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."

    [Again] That Law, "Motu Proprio" -

    And, it doesn't become much clearer...

    ... On page 8/41 the writer (F. Giba-Matthews - in 1996) and in a paper called "Customary International Law Acts As Federal Common Law in U.S. Courts" he/she discusses how international common law should act as federal common law in U.S. courts.

    Another great piece, a speech by a UK Judge Lord Toulson - at the London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association talks about "International Influence on the Common Law", and stemming from Brussels.

    [In fact, it's written in this link here that 80 per cent of Britain's laws are now made in Brussels.]

    Back to Lord Toulson and a last paragraph and specifically this last line of his speech (I feel) is almost a statement in more ways than none, I feel.

    "The common law is our habitat. It is like the water in which we swim. We are not always as conscious as we should be of what is to be found in it. It has served us very well and continues to do so. Its methodology enables it to be shaped and developed ... to meet the needs of justice in a changing world, politically, economically technologically or socially.

    In adapting it, the court's horizons should never be narrow. As Pope Gregory advised St Augustine, our attachment to places should not inhibit our search for good things."

    [Join us?] Facebook;

    Always, only an opinion.


    Nov 27 6:38 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.