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

The QPS (Queensland Police Service) Is A "Government Organisation"? Really?

If the QPS (or, the Queensland Police Service) ever get to know their true "legal status", will they then start to "enforce" the law, more correctly?

I'm not so sure. As it will take some time, if ever.

On Facebook, QPS say they are a "Government Organisation".

Is this so or, not so? I think not so.

Question?

When will Queensland's Police Commissioner Mr Ian Stewart get to realise that QPS are under the "state" and that he heads up an "organisation" that ultimately answers to the parliament, of the state?

(The 'state'? .... The STATE-OF-QUEENSLAND-AUSTRALIA.)

The Commissioner needs to realise that QPS are not a "Government Organization" - as they are part of the body politic and that QPS is "powered by" or, from off the Legal Personality bestowed on 'the state'.

He must also get to know, that:

The Parliament pass (so called) "Laws" for citizens of the state and that then become "empowered", by the Governor. (Governor in council.)

The Governor represents the sovereign. Yes.. Parliament passes law.

Yet in a recent article on Labor's possible quashing of the VLAD laws, he says:

"The Government has said the laws will stay in place while we implement what I believe can be stronger laws for Queensland but that will come down to the Government passing those laws," he said.

Story: www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/crime-...

That question again?

If Police ever get to know their true "legal status", then they are sure to then, "enforce" the law, correctly?

As "corporative persons" or, of the 'state' the Police (at law), are all Juridic entities or, persons.

And ALL Juridic persons, answer to law.

About the law?

< 25. A general analogy between juridic persons in the civil law tradition and corporations in the common law legal tradition may be useful.

A "juridic person" is a "fictitious" rather than a "natural" person and is similar to a "corporation" that is created for some particular purpose, as may be defined in the founding documents and further elaborated in its "by-laws" describing the corporate structure and function. Like the common law corporation, the juridic person is a legal mechanism through which organizations maintain a separate identity, structure, purpose, and legal independence.

26.Juridic persons are also classified as either "public" or "private."

27. In the canon law, a public juridic person is an entity that comes into existence either ipso iure [by the law itself] or is created by the specific grant of the competent authority. In either case, the entity's legal purpose must include a mandate to pursue canonically appropriate public good.

Public juridic persons are subject to the scrutiny [the law] of the creating authority, but act autonomously within the sphere of their competence, as defined by the juridic person's own statutes and the grant of authority.

28. The separate status of juridic persons is maintained through the creation of autonomous governing boards and regulations. This rule is uniform, but applied through different parts of the canon law, depending upon the nature of the institution. >

[Page 77 of 82 - Professor Settimio Carmignani Caridi.]

www.scribd.com/doc/112084700/Vatican-EU-...

Where is this all heading?

Well, it may need a Judicial Review hearing on the question?

And only before a Justice/Justices who have sworn an Oath of Allegiance to the lawful sovereign of Australia (same sovereign that the QPS members swear an Oath to), and be faithful, according to law.

That Q? Are Queensland's Police (QPS) acting lawfully? (Enforcing statutes on men and women, who simply Do Not Consent?)

The law that the state, all members of QPS and all Juristic/Juridic persons, answer to?

www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_s...

LC

ps; The system of law that corporate states and legal persons (that includes all other corporations with Legal Personality), are under and must all answer to ... can hardly ever be considered as being another system of law operating along side the Australian legal system.

In Walker v NSW (1994) 126 ALR 321

< "It was claimed that general laws failed to extinguish Indigenous laws in that way. A single judge of the High Court, Chief Justice Mason, rejected the notion that a system of law could operate along side the Australian legal system." >

Click on, to read