Last Will and Testament no longer honoured in 'Dictatoria'?

Your Will is a legally binding document where your last wishes are to be honoured after your death, right?

It may be challenged and overturned if proven the author may be non compos mentis or something similar.

Well that may not be true in the colony that is approx 9,500 miles as the bird files from British Empire’s headquarters, as it seems that 'money talks' and not just ones sanity.

As most of the world knows, the colony was settled in not the most ‘honourable’ manner as it has a fundamental history of being settled by criminals not only from the general population pool, but also from the authorities, which is also true with today's immigration policy.

China has a low opinion of Australia, irrespective of whatever trade agreements are in play, where the state’s newspaper mentioned it as an insecure place once “roamed by rascals and outlaws from Europe”.

The (colonial) government was so out of control that the Imperial government stepped in and installed the Colonial Laws Validity Act in 1865 to mitigate the lawless nature of those in authority.

The saying ‘Australia, is a lucky country’ from the mid 1960s is a derogatory dig at those in charge  as the rest of the quote by author Donald Horne goes onto say “run mainly by second-rate people who share its luck”.

Today Australia is still an “insecure place” as described by the Chinese, but also a totalitarian state, a corporatocracy, our own version of oligarchical rule, a secretive police state and no doubt a few more ‘states’ that many can think of.

There is also another problem that the authorities and the mainstream media are deliberately hiding from the serfs, and it’s got everything to do with the highest court of the State, in particular Victoria.

The Supreme Court of Victoria oversees deceased estates, wills etc.

In order for a court to function ‘lawfully’ it must be established with its corresponding Act.

The following is an excerpt from the Supreme Court of Victoria:

1850s: Establishment of the Supreme Court

In 1851, the District of Port Phillip separated from New South Wales and the Colony of Victoria was established. One of the colony’s earliest legislative acts was to establish the Supreme Court with William a’Beckett becoming the first Chief Justice. He and the other judge appointed to the Court, Redmond Barry, took their seats on the for the first time on 10 February 1852.

The of gold in 1851 and the colony’s population growth led to a rapid increase in the business of the Court. A third judge, Justice Edward Eyre Williams, was appointed in 1852 and another, Justice Robert Molesworth, in 1854.

The most significant trials during this period were the treason trials of 13 of the men captured after the Eureka Stockade in 1854, all of whom were acquitted. The prosecutor in these trials, William Foster Stawell, later replaced William a’Beckett as Chief Justice in 1857.

Source: https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/about-the-court/our-history

So from the above excerpt: 

“One of the colony’s earliest legislative acts was to establish the Supreme Court with William a’Beckett becoming the first Chief Justice. He and the other judge appointed to the Court, Redmond Barry, took their seats on the for the first time on 10 February 1852.”,

people may be of the impression that the Supreme Court of Victoria has been established legitimately.

But is that factually true?

Has the entire process of making law been followed to the letter, or rather letters patent?

Let’s take a closer look within the link:

Has the Supreme Court of Victoria been validly established?

A very ‘public’ Victorian, a businessman, former Australian GP boss and Lord Mayor of Melbourne, Mr. Ron Walker died in 2018 aged 78.

In short, the Will of a sane and competent minded person was not executed, but rather an action of selling the property in question, for profit was deemed more beneficial, under the excuse that it would be better utilised in another person’s hands.

A fundamental question could be, "was it a fair and/or impartial hearing"?

Of course not, as the Victorian government was a stakeholder with regards to the decision, as it would profit as a result of the stamp duty from the sale of the property, if a judgement was to be made that it was to be sold.

So if that can happen to a man of his stature, what does that say about what can happen to the rest of the serfs, keeping in mind that the actions of the Supreme Court of Victoria are NOT 'lawful'.

Australia is truly one corrupt place, where the people are blisfully unaware of this, just as the sociopaths in government need them to be.