Deceitful Obfuscation?
Layman's synopsis
|
In respect to Woodleigh Heights, my "cause of action" was that the Council had sealed the plans of cluster subdivision in full knowledge or with careless disregard for the fact that the 1978 water supply had not been completed in 1979 and there was no lawful means of compelling anyone to complete that water supply. It was not complete because the water mains had not been laid in 1979 as they should have been but were instead laid in 1982.
The Council and Water Authority made application to have my 2005 proceeding struck out before trial on the grounds that I knew about the "cause of action" too long ago.
Therefore the question which should have been before Master Efthim was, when did I know that the water mains for the 1978 water supply had not been laid?
For the purpose of giving effect to the "proviso", the Council and Water Authority had fraudulently represented that my land was not entitled to a "reticulated water supply". For the purpose of this fraudulent misrepresentation, the Council and Water Authority had to and did conceal all details of the private water supply and reticulation system (the 1978 water supply) which had been a condition of the planning permit and which was an approved supply for the purpose of building permits. It consisted of a lake, tanks and reticulation system. The fact of this concealment is detailed at paragraph 28 and 29 of my affidavit of 18th October 2005 and in the writ to the 1995 proceeding.
It was not until 1995 that I gained access to the plans and submissions which showed that the private water supply was an approved supply for the purpose of building permits. These plans also showed the details of the approved reticulation system (water mains) which should have been laid when the plans were sealed in 1979. It is obvious therefore that it is impossible for me to have known before 1995 that the reticulation system (water mains) had not been laid in 1979. One cannot know that which is not without first knowing that it was or should be.
For the purpose of supporting their spurious strike-out application, the lawyers deliberately and deceptively obfuscated the issue by simply representing that I knew by at least 1987 that "the" water supply was "laid" in 1982. At the time of making these representations, the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority knew full well:
-
that "the" 1982 water supply was not "the" private 1978 water supply.
-
that the issue was water mains within the cluster subdivision related to the 1978 water supply, not water supply per se
-
that the 1982 water supply was an unlawful water supply provided in puported pursuance of an unlawful Water Supply Agreement
-
That the Water Supply Agreement prrovided for supply to the boundary of the cluster subdivision and did not provide for or relate to internal reticulation.
The lawyers had no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate my prior knowledge that the water mains were laid in 1982 and not 1979 as required by the planning permit so they used the cleverly and intentionally deceptive term "water supply was laid". Water supplies are not "laid", water mains are "laid".
Of course I knew that water was being supplied to the subdivision by the Water Authority in 1982. What I didn't know until 2000 was that the reticulation system (water mains) within the subdivision was laid at that time. In 1995, when I discovered that the private water supply and reticulation system was an approved supply for the purpose of building permits, I fully believed that the pipes within the subdivision had been laid by 1979.
The Council had sealed the plans in 1979 and that sealing included an express representation that the planning permit had been complied with. So, the reticulation system within the subdivision should have been there.
I had previously believed that, when the Water Authority laid their water mains along Edgecombe Rd in 1982, they merely connected their water to the existing system within the subdivision. It wasn't until August 2000 that I discovered that the reticulation system (water mains) had not been laid when the plans were sealed, but were in fact laid in 1982.
The lawyers knew that they had no evidence at all fixing me with knowledge that the water mains within the subdivision were "laid" in 1982, but falsely represented to Master Efthim that I was aware that "the" water supply was "laid" in 1982 and that I was aware of this since 1987 and that I had failed to mention my awareness. [paragraphs 87 and 88 of their Outline]
As "documentary evidence" of my awareness, Master Efthim was referred to my letter of 24th August 1987. This letter clearly shows I was aware of the 1982 water supply but this water supply was not "the" private water supply in question. My letter makes no mention of the 1978 private water supply much less the reticulation system that was supposed to be there. At the time of writing my 1978 letter the Council and Water Authority, for the purpose of the "proviso", were continuing to conceal all details of the 1978 water supply.
My 1978 letter contains nothing whatsoever of knowledge of the 1978 water supply or internal reticulation. The water main referred to in the letter was, as the letter states, laid along edgcombe road was external to the subdivision
The "documentary evidence" is evidence of nothing but the truth that, as at 1987, I had no knowledge that the 1978 private water supply had been approved for the purpose of building permits and no knowledge that it had not been completed in 1979. If I had known, it would have been in my letter and the fraud would have been at an end.
The submissions by Dixon, Delany and Ahern were dishonest, deceptive and deisgned to obfuscate and confuse.
As dishonestly intended by Dixon Delany and Ahern their submission did deceive and mislead Master Efthim. At paragraph 60 of his Reasons Master Efthim said "Mr Thompson was aware from at least 1987 that the reticulation water supply was laid in 1982. I have been referred by the First Defendant to a letter dated 24 August 1987 ....... inconsistent with the allegations made by Mr. Thompson."
So Master Efthim clearly understood from the intentionally deceptive submissions of Dixon, Delany and Ahern that I knew that "the" reticulation water supply was laid in 1982 the problem of course is that "the" 1982 reticulation water supply was not "the" water supply in question.
Due to the deception by obfuscation by Dixon, Delany and Ahern it is impossible to determine if Master Efthim even understood that the question was related to the "water mains" related to the 1978 water supply and not water supply per se.
In addtion Dixon, Delany and Ahern were each fully ware that the 1982 water supply was an unlawful water supply provided in purported pursuance of an unlawful water supply agreement.
If this is how courts are conducted then they are a sham. On the behaviour of Dixon, Delany and Ahern any court procceeding in which they are involved then the probablity is that it is a sham.
This is classic obfuscation, one of the tools of the lawyer's trade, but if it ain't the truth, it's a "damn lie". |
**********
Top of Page ------ Menu Page