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:
  • Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk - Re; Supreme Court Queensland BS4846/15

    The Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk MP. 39th Premier of Queensland, and head of government in the state of Queensland, Australia.

    Dear Honourable Premier of Queensland,

    We have a problem.

    ... Crown Law of Queensland (and the Crown Solicitor - Greg Cooper) proudly advise all that ......... 'Crown Law has been the principal provider of legal services to the Queensland Government since 1859 and has operated as a completely self-funded business unit of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General, since 1997.

    [P 80 - Department of Justice and Attorney-General Annual Report 2010-11]

    The Crown Solicitor- Greg Cooper, we are told .... "acts as the Solicitor for the State and provides independent legal advice to the Premier, Attorney-General, Ministers, Director General, and Departmental Officers."

    In the following matter before the Supreme Court ( BS4846/15):

    Bradley v Barber- Application for a Judicial Review No BS4846/15

    It has been advised that Crown Law have already spoken with the 'office' of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General on the above matter that's before the court.

    In two 'blog-posts' now (published here on SA), I have posted my dismay at the Crown Solicitor's decision to recommend that Crown Law act on behalf of (and as has also been advised to me, being the plaintiff in the matter) the defendant, a living woman Natalie Barber - who acts as a Juridic person in her position as Registrar, SPER (OSR/QTC), both here and here.

    The Registrar of the Supreme court and in a phone contact with Crown law have both advised that I should go before the Justice of the Supreme Court and to ask him re, the matter. (The Honourable Justice James Douglas.)

    And for me to argue my reasons before him- rather than Crown Law (et al) seeing the obviously clear 'conflict of interest' (besides, the unlawfulness) of, Crown Law (clearly as a Juristic entity/person in wanting to act for a living women) when, and as a Juridic/Juristic person Crown Law is normally performing for another Juristic entity or, person, being the Department of Justice and Attorney-General.

    Corporate persons or, corporations can only ever 'connect' (do business) with other corporate persons (corporations), at law.

    And, Crown Law (especially the Crown Solicitor- Greg Cooper) ought to know this. Do they Crown Law - really want to 'challenge' who they answer to (being the sovereign) at law, in law?


    And as previously posted, any such (Pontius Pilate-like?) decision should not be left in the hands of an independent Justice in Law (The Honourable James Douglas) for him to have to make - as I feel it would be an almighty insult to his honourable standing in law - in that he must always answer to, the law.

    Thank you.

    Always, only an opinion.


    Jul 12 12:13 AM | Link | 2 Comments
  • Queensland Attorney General - Corporate "Vicar" Of The Flock? (Ann Street)
      • From Facebook just now:

        < (As a living man myself, I don't vote.) >

        It would seem that "corporate persons" (the people) also elect the same.

        Other Corporate entities. (Gary N Wendy Jackson)

        The Ballot paper.

        Ross Bradley
      • Gary N Wendy Jackson we wont/don't vote anymore either...
      • Ross Bradley .

        So (members), the Queensland Attorney General Yvette D'Ath (et al) are all dead, corporate persons ... or, Juridic entities, presenting a Juristic entity. (At law.)


      • Ross Bradley .
        Gary N Wendy ... and Crown Law would all be juridic entities too, as they are 'technically' under the AG (at law), herself a juridic entity.

        [So] .... How can they then (at law) ever get to "present" for a living women (Natalie Barber), in front of Justice Douglas? They can't represent her.

      • Gary N Wendy Jackson To 'them', Ross, that's a technicality that they have 'not noticed' before....
      • Ross Bradley Exactly!! It is all coming apart.
      • Ross Bradley I doubt she can use any member of the BAR?
      • Gary N Wendy Jackson I doubt if Anyone has Ever 'come at them' with LAW, and then questioned Who they Really are?

      Ross Bradley They will find out soon enough.

      Gary N Wendy Jackson this is a warning to those who Don't Know and probably have Never considered it, including What LAW is...The excellent 'pay' is Not Given because they are 'Highly Educated', nor because they are 'Entitled', or even 'Lucky'... these men and women in Positions where the Trust of the People is paramount, Are Personally Responsible and LIABLE for any actions that Cause Harm..... hope they Ponder That, and it Sinks in....


    The "Vicar" of 50 Ann Street?

    Always, only an opinion.


    Jul 07 6:58 AM | Link | Comment!
  • Attorney General Yvette D'Ath - To Use An Own 'Crown' Law Against The Crown?

    Queensland's Minister for Justice and Attorney General Yvette D'Ath, the Principal Lawyer at Crown Law Brisbane area (Lauren M Reibelt) and the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland (here in Brisbane) all, surely.... must know better.

    [They should all] Know...

    That you cannot 'defend' a living woman contracted within or, under your own corporate umbrella by using the corporation's legal team, when you are up against 'the boss' (at law) the living sovereign.

    And who, and when as a corporation you (along with the defendant in the matter), all answer to. (Yes, at law.)

    Is there any higher form of law?

    ........................The Honourable Justice James S Douglas

    The matter before the court (in a Judicial Review application to the Supreme Court of Queensland) asks the court (The Honourable Justice James Douglas) if the defendant Natalie Barber, as a living women) is acting lawfully .. in her juridical role of handing out administrative sanctions (pecuniary punishment) against living men and women who (naturally), do not consent to her coercive and forceful manner in demanding payment of her determinations.

    The defendant cannot use any lawyer from Crown Law, in fact or, anyone from any law-firm that is in anyway connected with this government of Queensland or, from a law-firm that may have done any recent work for or, is 'on the books' as having done work for the government.

    A serious CRIME here in Queensland is alleged to have been committed (and is allegedly, continued to be committed), and the Attorney General's (Hon Yvette D'Ath's) OWN "Crown Law", will defend the accused?

    Its not on.

    Its called a serious "conflict of interest". And a huge one at that. (Is there any bigger example, that there can be?)

    For the Attorney General of Queensland to pit anyone against the law of, 'he who you are under and answer to, at law' (yes, the living sovereign) would be a grave mistake to make.

    My recent advice has been that our Attorney General has been in discussion with Crown Law (and I wonder what has been told or, not been told to the Attorney General, by the Crown Solicitor), and surely I'm not out of line in my asking in my own E Mail to Yvette D'Ath:

    [Can] "I assume that you will be advising me ultimately of what was discussed, in this regard?" (See E mail, below.)


    Don't know how this came to be listed as a Civil situation when my application clearly relates to criminal law allegations made.

    (The very highest form of criminal law, if I may add.)

    This matter should not (eve r) be one to be left in the hands of an independent Justice in Law (The Honourable James Douglas) to have to make - as I feel it would be an insult to his standing, in law.

    That's beside the trivial issue raised in relation to how the matter has been 'listed' in the court and as so, will be heard.

    Criminal allegations (and re; the highest form of law) should not need any explanation, to competent Registrars.



    All is not well in our highest level of the judiciary, here in the top state of Queensland. Today's news article and a comment below it, tell part of that story: Senior judge saved from reforms by Newman

    From Facebook, brave 'fighter' (a champion) Dr David Pascoe BVSc PhD OVH Repro who tells it (the above story), as he understands it.

    3 hrs ·



    "There is a story in the Sunday Mail today that has implications far more serious than even the editors and journalists behind it most likely realise.

    There is obviously an incomplete understanding of the separation of powers and what flows from it - and the penalties from breaching it.

    The implications of this story are far greater than anything really to do with Justice Margaret McMurdo and any beneficial window dressing reform it was to be sold as.

    .......These implications go right to the heart of what Campbell Newman- and Jeff Seeney - were really up to in setting up their very own Fascist State. These implications are very oppressive: it meant that no one could effectively appeal a legal decision under their plans, if Carmody - their minion - would not approve it.

    Furthermore, Carmody would effectively control all trial matters coming before the courts by having to first agree for those matters be heard. Carmody was their instrument and directly under their control and not independent. This is, by default, a breach of the separation of powers.

    The proof Carmody's lack of independence or non-partisan behaviour is seen in his actions and words subsequent to both appointments as Chief Magistrate and later as the Chief Justice.

    ....Carmody had run "show trials" in the Magistrates courts and tried to silence Magistrates if they spoke against the government's philosophy - if there ever was one. Therefore he was not impartial by evidence.

    Since Jarrod Bleijie - the former Attorney General - was set to implement these changes, he was in effect, Newman's proxy from the executive arm of Government.

    This would suggest that both Carmody and Newman now have a criminal case to answer. Even after the event of Newman's removal as Premier and the LNP losing the election, if this is supported by evidence, they must then be held accountable as this is a very serious offence.

    Certainly the LNP went ahead against all advice and placed Carmody as Chief Justice as they drafted and implemented some of these plans.

    Therefore this suggests that much more than a technical breach of the separation of powers was enabled.

    The evidence suggests that they should now both be charged.

    Charging these conspirators will prevent another political party attempting to do the same thing - and possibly getting away with it.

    (Our thanks to The Crocodile and a whole pond of Platypus)"

    A previous, with Dr David Pascoe BVSc PhD OVH Repro


    We sure do live in interesting times. Always, only an opinion.


    Jul 04 11:17 PM | Link | 4 Comments
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.