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

His Honour "Judge" Hugh Fraser And A FUNDAMENTAL "Legal" Error? (A Freudian Slip?)

His Honour (Tuesday's Judge Fraser) in the penultimate paragraph of his JUDGEMENT that was made 'ex tempore' (just 2 pages, see below), made the short statement as shown in the screen-shot.

Was this not what's called a "classic", Freudian slip?

What if it has been identified that there is a fundamental legal error (the Roman Curia "legal system" is yet to be discovered? Really?) and that there are many who simply don't want to face the facts, that can result in a new beginning?

If it isn't the case (that there's not some fundamental legal error), why is it that "they" continue to "shut down the conversation" in all of my appearances in courts, as a man? (Through my legal person.)

It is not as if no one has realised things are wrong. At law. Back in 1903 a well respected law Professor (Pitt Cobbett), said so himself.

He rightly described it as involving a "defective conception".

Professor Pitt Cobbett (1853-1919) - tinyurl.com/ltkmul7

Read on.

The Crown

84. The first use of the expression "the Crown" was to identify the body politic.

An extract from Volume 1 of the Constitutional Commission 1988 Report dealing with Queen Elizabeth in her capacity as the Queen of Australia and other documents confirming that role including the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 and the 1999 High Court decision on the Sue v (Heather) Hill Case.
Here: www.statusquo.org/aru_html/html/queenofa...
In the more recent "QR" (Queensland Rail) matter - GAGELER J. had this to say about "legal persons". [Summing up - @ 53] (See here.)

HCA - https://jade.io/article/388016

Yet in Queensland's Court of Appeal (with a single Judge, not a Justice on the day), any kind of such words (or, "a fundamentally mistaken view"), must never be spoken.

The JUDGEMENT (ex tempore - made in the court.)

< [2017] QCA 66

COURT OF APPEAL

FRASER JA

Appeal No 2015 of 2017
Appeal No 12753 of 2016

RE: ROSS JAMES BRADLEY Appellant

BRISBANE

TUESDAY, 18 APRIL 2017

JUDGMENT

FRASER JA: The appellant sued one Matthew James McDermott in the trial division. A Judge of the trial division struck out that proceeding as revealing no cause of action. On the 27th of February 2017, Justice McMurdo struck out the appellant's notice of appeal in CA12753 of 2016 and dismissed the appeal against the order striking out the appellant's proceedings in the trial division.

Justice McMurdo found that the appeal had no prospects of success because neither the notice of appeal nor what was said by the appellant identified any basis upon which the order could be set aside.

On the 28th of February 2017, the appellant filed a document in the Court of Appeal registry. The document was given a new file number, but it is described as "Re; CA#12753/16". The document asserts an error was made by Justice McMurdo. It is for that reason and that reason only that I have referred to the current litigant as the appellant.

In fact, perhaps more accurately, it is to be described as an application seeking review of Justice McMurdo's decision. The suggested error is that Justice McMurdo referred to the appeal as being between Ross Bradley James as the appellant and Matthew James McDermott as the respondent. The document asserts that the matter originally filed was, in fact, between the appellant as, I quote "ross-james -V- matthew-james, both legal persons created, at law."

The appellant also argues that errors were made by Justice McMurdo in failing to make the distinction between those differently expressed names and in failing to comply with canonical law or the law of the Roman Curia. But at no point in the appellant's submissions, that is to say, in his oral submissions or in the lengthy notes he handed up which I have read, did he identify any arguable error made by Justice McMurdo.

The appellant's submissions make no legal sense at all. They could not possibly justify review of the decision made by Justice McMurdo. The proposed review or appeal, if that is what it is, has no prospects of success.

It is apparent, however, that the appellant strongly believes in the truth of his submissions and that they do have legal merit. He is very likely, it seems to me, to continue filing documents upon the same fundamentally mistaken view that he has identified some fundamental legal error which, before now, has never been identified. In the circumstances, I make the following orders.

Strike out the notice of appeal filed on the 28th of February 2017; order that the appellant not be permitted to file any document at the Court of Appeal registry relating to CA12753 of 2016 without the leave of the Court or a Judge of appeal. Adjourn the Court. >

[The screen-shot below shows what the Registrar had told me, that Tuesday was to be all about.]

I was stopped (told to "sit down" - and I didn't) and his Honour "Judge Fraser" then made his decision and or, his JUDGEMENT after less than 2 full pages of my Legal argument (of 13 pages), was told to the court. .... Justice?

We all make mistakes. Even Judges. (Among many.)

And a Judge will "hang us" with a mistake (a self presenter), even on an assumption that he/she and for expediency, makes?

Yet...

Who is ROSS JAMES BRADLEY or, Ross James Bradley or, Ross Bradley James in any of my matters, as filed? (As a man.)

And "Judge McMurdo" even becomes, Justice McMurdo.

Sic:

< ...The suggested error is that Justice McMurdo referred to the appeal as being between Ross Bradley James as the appellant and Matthew James McDermott as the respondent.

The document asserts that the matter originally filed was, in fact, between the appellant as, I quote "ross-james -V- matthew-james, both legal persons created, at law." >

We need to realise that a "Judge" can never have any "authority" over a man. Over me, as ross-james.

A state's inferior jurisdiction (a creation of any state) is what becomes it's own "legal system" and can only deal with a person or, what is a state "legal status" (eg; ROSS JAMES BRADLEY) and NOT with "legal persons", created at law.

A Judge doing so (as in this JUDGEMENT), can 'do no harm' to a man.

How easily they can "change" it all... ross-james (Filing party - through my legal person) suddenly can become a 'person', a ROSS JAMES BRADLEY? (And it's a legal status in the jurisdiction of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA?) Not me, here in Queensland. In the Commonwealth jurisdiction, yes.

And since when has Queensland courts had any jurisdiction over a COMMONWEALTH legal status? These are huge mistakes.

Who is ROSS JAMES BRADLEY? If not a COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA legal status? (I am a pensioner.) And, there was no Matthew James McDermott in my matters, as filed.

There is a matthew-james a man, and though his own legal person, created at law.

Yet, yesterday (Wednesday), I was ROSS-JAMES

Bottom line is?

Well ........ there should be no doubt whatsoever that the STATE OF QUEENSLAND is a "legal person", created at law. (It cannot "create", itself.) Only a legal person (created at law) can get to sue or, be sued.

(The "created" can never become, the "creator".)

The STATE OF QUEENSLAND as a "legal person" can sue ross-james (as also, a legal person) or, vice -versa.

"Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second" is a legal person. As a Juristic entity. (A corporation sole. Created, at law.)

Question? What "legal system" have we all been created, under?

Is it any wonder I sent an ELECTRONIC FILED DOCUMENT, yesterday?

seekingalpha.com/instablog/36191-looking...

LC