Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

Shouldn't We Best START Using "The LAW", Folks?

That corrupt and now "UNLAWFUL", fiction of Law.

"Any name will be attached to a person. It doesn't matter if it's the right name or not."

The above line is accredited to Melbourne's Pete Williams' "legal advisor" who verified it within a lengthy blog-post "You Are Not The Legal Name", as posted on October 25, 2014 by David.

Here -

< And they don't care what legal name either. They just want to attach a legal name to a body. In a video, Pete's "legal advisor" verifies this. >

Give a (dead corporate fiction) Dog a "NAME" and make it "stick"?

It's such a great "lead in" to an even more disturbing article coming from the US's highest court (the Supreme Court) that has 'ruled' along those same lines (and a number of times it seems), that:

Cops Can Seize Your Property Even If You're Innocent?

"Under federal and state laws known as civil forfeiture, police can seize cash or property if they suspect it's tied to an illegal activity even if the property owner isn't charged with a crime."

Forget any Constitutional argument and the Fifth Amendment's stipulation that you can't .. "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

HMmm?... Sorry, says the Supreme court.

That [Supreme] court has issued a number of rulings upholding civil forfeiture, including one in 1996 where the high court pointed to a bizarre line of reasoning it made in its first-ever decision on civil forfeiture handed down back in 1827.

< That case involved the government's attempt to seize a ship used for piracy. When the owner of the ship claimed it couldn't be forfeited until he'd been convicted of a crime, the Supreme Court had this to say:

"The thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is attached primarily to the thing."

[The "Thing"...


It's now an unlawful application of Maritime Law.

And it (the "fiction of Law") still goes on in our own pretend courts today, and this is in spite of the September 1st 2013 Papal Decree, issued Motu Proprio.]

While it sounds odd that the government would want to punish "the thing," civil forfeiture cases today still reflect that line of reasoning.

..... When the government attempts to seize property these days, it files a civil complaint against the property or cash. This leads to funny-sounding lawsuits, like "US v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins."

But for people whose property or cash is seized, forfeiture can be seriously disruptive. >

So ... what's gone wrong here?

..... Isn't it not all too 'similar' a case as to both the recent "Vlad Law" appeals (to the High Court of Australia), in that the U.S. Supreme court has been asked to consider - whether the 'seizure of property' issue should surely be considered as being, "unconstitutional"?

No, was it's reply.

Simply because the U.S. Constitution and the Fifth Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with the Maritime "jurisdiction" that these cases have been based on, and in spite of them all being, on Land!!

(Re-enter the now unlawful, "fiction of Law"?)

After-all, it hasn't (hadn't) been asked that the prosecution should have to 1st prove their case (to the U.S. Supreme court), that the seizure of any property at all, is all "Lawful". (Members can read my own opinion within a comment that will ultimately follow.)

That sad story:

Markela and Chris Sourovelis, pictured here, had their home seized after their son was charged with a crime.

Doesn't it beg the question that if you don't take the 'Law' into court with you and or, ask the court that the prosecution must now prove their case against you (and to the Supreme court), that it is/was all Lawful...what hope have we really got?

Helloooo again?

From within the Steve Edmunds "Vlad Law" thread in the group just yesterday, the following was commented:

[Steve Edmunds
Yesterday at 12:02pm

Just wondering, can you shed some light on today's decision.
Surely Anti-Association Legislation is UNLAWFUL on so many levels?]

In a report on a previous NSW HC appeal in early October (with the same barrister Wayne Baffsky - who had used a very same/similar constitutional argument, and) the High court back then was found to have said in reply:

"In dismissing the NSW case, the High Court found there was no right to freedom of association under the constitution."

That (NSW) story:

My own thoughts are (and as they were at the time), on the Vlad so-called "laws" remain the same. That they are highly unlawful.

These can be found in a comment made (below), and as was posted on October 8th, here in this group.

"NSW bikie court loss 'won't affect' Qld" (October 8th)

This, the linked ABC report says: .........."The court also dismissed claims that the laws were at odds with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because that was not in Commonwealth legislation."


What fecking "Commonwealth legislation" was it that the High Court talking about?

Australia is now under the "International common law" of, the United Nations!!!

(Besides, the very Supreme Law, itself!!)

"Wake the feck up", good people!!

The Murdoch report (from The Australian) says: "The justices also concluded the laws did not breach the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." -

Two very different interpretations on whatever was said by the Justices.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

I've made it clear that I feel that the "International common law" of the UN is not being utilised properly (at all) and that I feel it has been proven to be of constant abuse, in global determinations.

And that to argue or, use 'right to freedom of association' under the constitution is utter madness.

Presumption of Innocence

No one is or, can be found guilty of anything, by association.

Unless they are suspected of being about to commit a crime and have enough evidence on them - that can then be proven as such, in a proper court of law.

And before then, they must remain innocent (the "presumption of innocence"), until proven guilty of anything and not before.

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;" >

That law:

Just my opinion, of course....