Mobil Oil Decision

High Court of Australia

Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Victoria [2002] HCA 27

(26 June 2002)

This judgement shows that the politicians and judiciary are well aware of the dire situation our nation has been placed in as a result of TREASON perpetuated by the political parties and their lackeys. Their callous, criminal, treasonous behaviour is a disgrace!

The High Court Judges here are telling us that these Australian Courts have NO JURISDICTION over us.

People should be able to work this out as at present all Australian Courts are under Australian Law = NO Crown Authority.

The Judiciary also tell you that they sit as a Coram. In the presents of, NO more authority than you or I.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ, GAUDRON, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND

CALLINAN JJ GLEESON CJ

statement of Viscount Haldane that “The root principle of the English law about jurisdiction is that the judges stand in the place of the Sovereign in whose name they administer justice, and that therefore whoever is served with the King’s writ, and can be compelled consequently to submit to the decree made, is a person over whom the Courts have jurisdiction”.

——————————————————–

Ben Chifley, Labour Prime Minister of Australia wrote

“To us the throne in no way usurps the rights of the people. It is a symbol of the liberty of the people. With us, the prerogatives of the Crown have become the privileges of the people.

——————————————————–

The High Court of Australia.

Decision-Re Wakin [1999] HCA 27; 198 CLR 511; 163 ALR270; 73 ALJR 839(17

June 1999)

Kirby JJ stated

A legislature cannot, by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitutional power where none exists. [239]

——————————————————–

Blackstone

Should a judge in the most subordinate jurisdiction be deficient in the knowledge of the law, it would reflect infinite contempt upon himself, and disgrace upon those who employ him. And yet the consequence of his ignorance is comparatively very trifling and small: his judgment may be examined, and his errors rectified, by other courts. But how much more serious and affecting is the case of a superior judge, *[*12if without any skill in the laws he will boldly venture to decide a question upon which the welfare and subsistence of whole families may depend! where the chance of his judging right, or wrong, is barely equal; and where, if he chances to judge wrong, he does an injury of the most alarming nature, an injury without possibility of  redress.

——————————————————–