A fundamental legal error?
Do today's Honourable Judges too easily, make assumptions? (His Honour 'sees no merit' in what I submitted. Is what he has said.)
An OFFICER of the Crown
He (the Honourable Judge H. Fraser, the senior Judge who has at times "acted" as the Chief Justice of the Supreme court and as "His Excellency", the Governor of the State of Queensland) told me in court that he had read them. He had read my brief 'legal argument', submission notes. (And found no legal merit.)
He read them (my 13 pages that I had submitted), while I was doing my best, in front of him. Yet, my time that I had required to 'deliver' my legal argument (I had told him), would be just 30 minutes, in all.
Yet once again at a court, I was again denied my doing so.
I mean, after 4 years, 7 days a week and 16 or, more hours a day (on some days) in my researching, he is able to tell all, that because he read and couldn't see anything significant, that there mustn't be?
In His Honours own words? Read on.
"It is apparent however, that the appellant strongly believes in the truth of his submissions and that they do have legal merit.
[sic] ... 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." - Honourable H. Fraser JA
JUDGMENT here: seekingalpha.com/instablog/36191-looking...
And well over 100 years ago, Frederic William Maitland, FBA (28 May 1850 - 19 December 1906) who is described as being...'[a]n English historian and lawyer generally regarded as the modern father of English legal history', felt almost the same as His Honour, Judge H. Fraser.
Screenshot is from .... "The Collected Papers of Frederic William Maitland, Volume 1" - By Frederic William Maitland
Here: books.google.com.au/books?id=xb31AAAAQBA... (Pages 2/3)
Maitland (much-like His Honour H. Fraser may) also "struggled" with the "legal name". Mine being ross-james, from off my "live-birth" record. My "given name". My own corporation, created at law.
All corporations having legal personality are created at and are answerable to, the law of the creator. (And can sue or, be sued.)
'John Chaplain of the Chantry of BV. Mary of Dale' (A legal person.)
Book (Pages 11 and 12) Link: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Pnmw-YFgi_sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Andrew+Horn+Chamberlain+of+the+City+of+London+%22corporation+sole%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjh-vrG0tjSAhUHOrwKHfxSCmsQ6AEIMzAF#v=onepage&q&f=false
Maitland tells us plenty in his writings with his own much questioning of, corporations sole.
As a man, John DALE goes to courts as ...'John Chaplain of the Chantry of BV. Mary of Dale' (I go as, ross-james) and or, through what is, his legal person, created at law. (And it is what can so reasonably be assumed, from Maitland's above statement.)
There is a "John Dale, chaplain" listed on page 88, here:
CORPORATION (Legal person, at law - is a Creation.)
"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. .. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence." - Chief Justice Marshall of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Isn't it time now, for a competent Justice in the common law of England jurisdiction (and under the crown of St Edward), to at least listen to that or, what could be "a fundamental legal error which, before now, has never been identified"?