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:
  • Pay No Bank Loans, Credit Cards, All Finance, Council Rates... Etc

    We have fun in our Facebook Group. We discuss both the Law and how we can use it to avoid the "Fraud" that the corporations of the world are involving us all in.

    Yes, it's slavery.

    What we have learned through research and from many others, is that (historically) and within the western world, Law (itself), must at all times - be supported by, a "crown".

    And that since at least 1302, (with Unam sanctam) the crown has been a single living sovereign man called, the Pope.

    We also feel that this current Pope (Francis) would like to see a world under him, get back to the basic fundamentals of Law:

    *Do no Harm

    *Do not Deceive

    We've also learned that "breaking the law" has no statute of limitations. Breaking Law is ad infinitum. (Nuremburg). There could never be any limitations on a matter that can be proven wasn't lawful to begin with. (ab initio. Adam and Eve.)

    It's the "power", of Law.

    The following query came from a member of the group:

    Sascha Planert writes:

    January 7 at 7:51pm

    "One of my friends is considering breaking out of their mobile phone contract as they cannot afford it. ... They however do not wish to pay the early termination charges associated with Cancelling the plan.

    ....... I work for her phone company and the only cases I am aware of when a customer's etc's have been waved are when said phone company has provided unsatisfactory service to a customer.

    Is there any way she could avoid paying the termination fees?"

    My immediate reply came:

    • She tells them that (at Law) this corporate 'fiction' CONtract no longer has and never did have any perceived "power" (that it has no crown backing, at Law), and that she (and we) will hold this man or, women personally and commercially LIABLE ... should she not be advised within 7 days, that the CONtract is now over. (And should she ever be hearing of any further to do with it, in times ahead.)

      It's that simple.

      Learn why it's unlawful? http://tinyurl.com/mtfsaux

      That they had no 'power' in law... and it's because, and as the video tells us (in real terms), that the "crown" the "royals" had, was always only 'on loan' from corrupt Popes [to commit fraud], throughout the centuries.

      And for a considerable financial arrangement in return, and as such it (all the "royals" were involved in), was all unlawful in what they did, Ab Initio. (As, they only had "pretend" power or, what was - a non existent sovereignty.)

      ****************

      Bank Loans, Credit cards, all Finance, council Rates..etc

    • Ross Bradley .
      So all Bank (home) loans are all 'in the same boat' ... yet the current bank manager may not have been the initial man/women who committed the fraud knowingly or, unknowingly - and on behalf of the bank (being the corporation the loan was facilitated with or, on behalf of at the time), so he/she is not who that unlawful CONtract was made out, with.

      You tell him/her your existing manager of the fraudulent loan and (yes, surprise, surprise), that you now wish to close this fraudulent contract down.

      (As you are the living beneficiary of their Fraud Trust.)

      And that as the original loan was not from him/her (that it was a loan from the corporate bank), the bank (as my good Mate Gary points out within another thread), that as it was 'they' (the originator of that loan facility) who was party to or, actually invented the Fraud (and on behalf of the bank), that 'they' (the originator of that loan facility and the "bank"), can now get to all deal with the Lawful consequences in whatever way they may decide, among themselves.

      Why?

      Because this fraudulent (deceptive) loan is no longer a problem of yours, is what you are firmly telling them. Full stop!

      So ...

      Please advise me in 7 days and in writing/with your wet ink signature that the loan no longer exists or, you yourself will become personally both commercially and fully liable for this fraud - and as has been pointed out to you. Thank you. (And you then hand them the "legal" advise, advising him/her, of all that - all that has been mentioned to him/her, in this meeting.)

      If he/she doesn't, you already have a "Commercial Lien" to use against them prepared (their law), ready to "serve" (and activate) on day # 8.

      **************

      Look!!

      • If I loan another my or, my brother's car for the purpose, so it can be used as part of committing a crime (they even pay me $$'s for it), and lets just say, as the "get-away" car in a hold-up robbery - I'm just as guilty as the actual robbers, as I've made a profit from the proceeds of crime.

        Disregarding the forfeit 'rules' (in my case), my brother is always and remains, the "owner" of that car. (As he knew nothing of the crime.)

        The "crown" power at law, in itself (and, from centuries of corrupt Popes/the Holy See, the Vatican), was only ever, always, on "loan" to the "royals".

        They were always only 'renting' the "crown car" to commit the fraud with. The crown is returned to the owner - and the Holy See, that then rids itself of the corrupt Pope (Benedict) and it remains just that, the "crown". (At law.)

    Always, only an opinion.

    LC

    ps; Those that get in the "queue" first ... will be those who will 'wisely' obtain the resources needed - for going forward.

    Jan 18 9:47 PM | Link | 1 Comment
  • Cactus Fuctus - The Queensland Election

    There are two real reasons only as to why any corporate government would want to be calling an early **cough** election.

    With the corporation being a "government" it only presents a change of the CEO and a number of high profile "yes/men/women", at best.

    (The election was due on or, before 24th of March following a three year term. This is the first time in over a century that an Australian general election is held in January.)

    The two reasons

    1- That they so dearly want to continue on for another term, feel they are going good and with Campbell Newman thinking people would be wanting 'more of the same' for another 3 years, when re-elected.

    Or,

    2 - They want to lose the election. That they no longer want to have the right to be in (so called) power.

    If it was for reason No 1 and under the corrupt "system" that the Queensland corporate government are within and a part of, there'd be no need to go to the Polls. In a system of fraud, because they would win any next election and carry on regardless. And continue on giving people, more of the same.

    Yet, with reason No 2, it may well be that "the pennies have dropped" that all they have done and all they have already 'planned' for in the immediate future, has been unlawful?

    The realisation that they have acted without any real "crown" over them? Certainly since the end of February, early March of 2013.

    And in realising that, the "Fiction Of Law" no longer exists. That it (the Newman corporate government), no longer has any crown backing, at law. That (and, at best - at Law), they have reverted back to being ordinary men and women - all under the Law Of The other 193 Corporate States Of The UNITED NATIONS' corporation.

    The Queen? The Queensland constitution?

    We can forget about and all we have been told about, the Queen, about any CONstitution that you may want to mention- as QE2 "the Queen" (and in going back to the 1900's and "Queen Victoria" and well before-hand), had no such "crown" authority, in Law.

    You Tube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9U4GhoTBXI

    (click to enlarge)
    And it's because, and as the video tells us (in real terms), that the "crown" the "royals" had was always only "on loan" from corrupt Popes, throughout the centuries.

    And for a considerable financial arrangement in return, and as such it (anything the "royals" were involved in), was all unlawful in what they did, Ab Initio. (They but had, "pretend" power or, sovereignty.)

    Readers need to realise and assure themselves that all the corrupt Popes were never ever going to 'give away' that 'sovereign power' they had/have (and at least since 1302 and UNAM SANCTUM), and for any amount of money/gold/jewelry etc.. not even for 'all the tea in China'!

    So, the time arrives where even the Queen (@ 82 odd) had to board a plane her 1st in over 2 years and graciously 'informally' hand back the "crown" to the sovereign himself.

    Pope Francis and since the closing down of the Roman cult (in Feb/March 2013) would have invited her to visit. No one turns down an invitation from the sovereign himself. (Including Russia's Putin and Obama, who both did so, likewise.)

    Then came the news that the "crown" was no longer in the UK and that the Parliament itself, was heading over to the control of the EU.


    Story: mariamuir.com/british-parliament-crown-c.../

    Back to "The Queensland Election" and those two reasons for an early election called here in the 'sunshine state' and as to just what is Campbell Newman's real reason for calling that early poll?

    It would be crazy of such an insignificant man like Newman to think that he, his Attorney General in Jarrod Bleijie and newly appointed Chief Justice Tim Camody could possibly be entrusted any longer to be champions of "justice" and true upholders of the law, always with separation of powers, Rule of Law, et al....

    It would be even more crazier to have even considered that these three musketeers could stand up much longer to the 'lawmaker' and virtually be saying that "we'll do it our way" without a strong 'coat tug' (a "tap on the shoulder") telling him it was time to arrange his own 'dismissal' ... and that a visit to Rome was not necessary.

    Always, only an opinion.

    LC

    ps; That term "Cactus fuctis" (in the Title) is best explained here:

    CACTUS:"In my snippet about the Australian expression last time, I had noted that there were no native cacti in that country.

    John Weiss pointed out that the prickly pear had been imported from the US in the early 1800s as stock fodder but had become a serious invasive pest in New South Wales and Queensland by the latter part of the nineteenth century.

    It was so well known he feels the expression was most certainly native.

    Many Australians wrote to make the same point Rob Coates did:

    "Sometimes the single word 'cactus' is used ... but it's generally recognised to be a shortening of 'cactus fuctus'.

    This is said as a pseudo-Latin phrase to bring a touch of wry humour to an otherwise unfortunate situation. For example, a mechanic, after inspecting the starter motor in your car might announce 'No wonder it won't start, mate - this is cactus fuctus!'"

    Jan 17 4:30 AM | Link | 1 Comment
  • The "Fiction Of Law" Is Dead. - It Now Has No "Crown", Backing It.

    Attention all "Policy enforcers" - Please be advised...

    That since September 1, 2013, all the Magistrates/Judges answering to the state, all involved lawyers, police, government officials, and those posing as government officials, any and all officers of corporate franchises including all local councils - all men and women who are involved with or, who are clearly all coercing "Juridical Persons" (that's us - as living beneficiaries of the superior & lawful, 'Live Birth' Trust), are all committing a crime.

    Because what you are all doing, is now unlawful.

    In a previous blog-post I mentioned another Facebook reaction:

    The Jesuit Pope/Vatican admits in the latest Motu Proprio that there are de facto Vatican representatives who administrate entities called "Juridical Persons" that are listed on a Vatican Registry?

    Hello.. Did we just see a tacit admission of the Birth Registry of the Strawman /Juridical Person Trust at the Vatican?" >

    "the Birth Registry" .... "the Vatican"??

    A qualified interpretation of this Law (for all concerned) is as follows:

    [That] "From September 1, 2013, all the judges, lawyers, police, government officials, and those posing as government officials, and all officers of all the corporate franchises and entities organized under the auspices of the UNITED STATES [corporation] and all its state franchises become fully, personally and commercially liable for their any actions and omissions against the living beneficiaries of the public trusts"

    From Facebook:

    Yikhai Wong asked a great question, in our Facebook group...

    "Before learning about lawful rights, I've current arranged payment plans with the Fines unit in SA: $2100 worth of fines Civic compliance Victoria : $900 worth of fines.

    Any way to void these contracts? It's due $100 every month to these two unlawful corporations on 15th monthly and it's overdue now."

    My reply came, as follows:

    Why not stay in honour and approach them, yourself?

    Firstly, write a 'soft' initial letter asking for a senior man or, women in both organisations to contact you back (in a reply from them), telling them that the purpose for your contact being - that you are wishing to establish a 'person to person' dialogue, relating to the matter.

    Add a note, that you are basically wanting to clear the matter up completely.

    When you get that NAME, then write and ask them the question?

    Tell them that in recent times you have become aware of information that now has you (Harry/Harriet Smith - name him/her) holding full commercial liability for what can clearly be proven to be, an unlawful arrangement.

    And that you feel strongly that it lacks any "power" whatsoever, at Law.

    Then add this question?

    Hi Harry/Harriet,

    In a reply back to me over the next 7 days, could you Harry/Harriet please advise me (and in full, precise, details, as to just where you get any "power" at law (meaning, what "crown backing" at law do you or, any man/woman from your corporation - and as living men or, women ultimately have) for any of you to now continue to enforce what amounts to an unlawful punishment on me (being the existing payment plan), as a living man?

    Please be sure to reply to me within the 7 days with a satisfactory answer and that through this query sent registered to you, I now require it, to be answered fully, by you.

    Your failure to do so Harry/Harriet (and within the 7 days) with a satisfactory answer and that through this query sent registered to you, it will then mean my stopping any further payments being made by me to your corporation, as per the existing plan I am on.

    Sincerely,

    Yikhai Wong

    Jodie Rogut then commented: "You've already entered into a guilty contract with them by accepting their payment plans."

    I then replied, that ....... the question being asked basically is, just where does any man or, women get any "power" at all from, at law (meaning, what "crown" is backing them, at law), for them to continue to enforce what clearly now amounts to being an unlawful punishment on another living man or, one that you yourself refer to as being, "a guilty contract"?

    Why is it considered to be a "guilty" contract by you when it has only ever been, always one that was made under deception or, coercion (besides any previous corrupt crown involvement), ab initio?

    There is NOTHING to enforce any such [guilty] "CONtract", at law.

    How is this "guilty contract", a lawful one?

    Your answer is what I am looking forward to. [No reply, as yet.]

    ***********

    So, why is all this so? It's because...

    The "Fiction of Law" is dead. It now has no "crown" backing it.

    Since the CQV Act (1666) a few centuries of corrupt Popes (the crown) and many from the Vatican (bishops/cardinals) along with the Vatican bank, that all supported the criminal fraud at law - that is, the NAME "game" (the Legal fiction or, colour of law) and they clearly did so, for a 'cut' of the action.

    On his way out the door (he was the 1st Pope to stand down in many centuries), Ratzinger/Benedict announced the closing down (the "killing off") of the corrupt Roman cult. (Gun at his head?)

    The new Pope (Francis) then made a further decree, that put the final nail in the coffin. (September 1st, 2013.)
    *************
    Gold Shield Alliance (among others/Frank O'Collins), says below:

    ........... "The age of the Roman Cult, as first formed in the 11th Century and that hijacked the Catholic Church first formed by the Carolingians in the 8th Century, then the Holly Christian Empire or Byzantine Church by the 13th Century and the world at large by the 16th Century ceased to exist around March 14th 2013 upon the election of Pope Francis."

    gold-shield-alliance.com/papal_decree
    *************
    Testimony to the closure?

    Vatican Bank Nett profit fell by 97% in the 1st year, following the closure.

    www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-08/pope-f...

    If you ask me, I'd suggest that there are many "policy enforcers" who are already strong candidates to receive a similar "please explain" from many victims, of their unlawfulness.

    To break a law is to commit a crime. No one is above the Law.

    And Australia, like the United Kingdom and Canada, has no statute of limitations in criminal matters.

    Always only an opinion.

    LC

    Jan 16 4:51 AM | Link | Comment!
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.