Menu

Notice

The assertions on this website are assertions as to my opinions. My opinions are founded on the evidence provided on this website.

My assertions are not assertions of fact.

Readers should reject my assertions and then form their own opinions from the evidence provided.

My opinions and evidence as to my opinions were substantially before the Supreme Court of Victoria and are a matter of public record.

Justices Neave and Mandie declined to adjudicate on whether or not my opinions, expressed as allegations, are "unfounded".

******

This website is provided as a matter of public interest and public importance. Nothing is more important than the proper administration of justice. It is the cornerstone of our democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credits

 

Until and unless the courts address the issue of lawyers and barristers misleading the
courts with impunity then the courts, and the justice supposedly dispensed, are a sham.

Lying Lawyers Part Two - damn the truth, may the best liar win...

This page should be read after the Lying Lawyers Part One page.

As detailed on the Lying Lawyers Part One page, for the purpose of misleading the Court the lawyers fabricated a series of true lies in support of their fabricated assertion that the "critical document", the complete version of the industrial plans had enabled me to realise their pseudo "cause of action" and that the Council and Water Authority had given me that "critical document" and thereby openly disclosed that pseudo "cause of action"

Master Efthim was successfully misled by the "true lies" and the pseudo "cause of action" and made his decision against me based upon the "true lies" and the pseudo "cause of action" which had been fabricated by Dixon, Delany and Ahern.

I filed Notices of Appeal and as the appeal was an appeal from the orders of a Master it was an appeal by right. My Notice of Appeal did not require grounds for that appeal to be set out. The appeal was by way of so called re-hearing de novo which means it is essentially a new hearing so the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority were again required to lead off and make their case.

During the preparation for the hearing before Master Efthim and during the hearing the lawyers kept their planned submissions secret means of euphemisms and by keeping there planned submissions in relation to the "Book of Pleadings" and the pseudo "cause of action" until the last few minutes of the hearing before Master Efthim.

The appeal came on before Justice Osborn. The lawyers weren't quite so reticent this time. Apparently because the cat was out of the bag so to speak and they were emboldened by a judgment in the bag Dixon Delany and Ahern prepared a Second Outline of Submissions dated 30th October 2006 which spelled out in black and white, under bold headings the pseudo "cause of action" which they kept secret last time and omitted from their first Outline of Submissions.

Spelling out the pseudo "cause of action" and regurgitating the "true lies"

At paragraph 82 of their Second Outline, under the bold heading "No concealment of the cause of action: book of pleadings", Delany, Ahern and Dixon say:

"The plaintiffs key contention in the current proceeding ..... is that the initial sealing of the plans of subdivision was unlawful or illegal and that the plans were sealed in such a way so as to avoid the operation of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic)"

Then at paragraph 83, as a continuing slant on the "true lies", they falsely represent:

"The plaintiffs contend that they only worked out that the initial sealing of the plans of subdivision was unlawful or illegal when Mr. Thompson opened the 'black folder' in August 2000 and reviewed the copy of the complete plans for the industrial allotments."

Then at paragraph 84:

"However, what is clear from a book of pleadings annotated by Mr. Thompson ... .. is that Mr. Thompson had formed the view prior to the settlement of the prior Tylden Rd proceeding in 1991 that the initial sealing of the plans was unlawful. The 'new' matters that the plaintiffs are now seeking to rely upon .. .. have been known to them since prior to 1991 .... "

Then at paragraph 85:

"The following extracts are quotations from Mr. Thompson's handwriting in the book of pleadings

(a) this is the critical new fact that the plaintiffs contend that they were unaware of until August 2000;

'Notwithstanding it was illegal Buchanan had sold at least two of the allotments (notices of disposition opposite). In order to avoid the provisions of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act which at that time prevented the sale of allotments on subdivisions of more than two allotments (etc) Buchanan then lodged seven separate plans which were contrived to create several subdivisions of two lots each'"

The representation at paragraph 82 is the representation they kept secret until the dying minutes of the hearing before Master Efthim. [see here]

Before setting out these things, at their paragraphs 74 to 80, under the bold heading "The 'black folder': no concealment of the document: the 'complete' plan" Dixon, Delany and Ahern set out their "true lies" [see Lying Lawyers Part One under "Preparing the Strategy"]

By these these things the lawyers sought to mislead and deceive the court into believing:

Each of these representations was an overt fabrication designed and intended to deceive the court.

Delany on the "cause of action"

Early in the submissions before Justice Osborn, the following exchange took place between Justice Osborn and Delany:

Osborn: ".....what has to be concealed is the cause of action, in a sense that begs the question what the cause of action is."

Delany: "Well we've assumed that the cause of action is there." (my emphasis)

Osborn "Yes. As pleaded"

Delany: "Well, as pleaded, or in the affidavits."

Osborn: "The complaint is that made in the affidavits?"

Delany: "Yes."

[see transcript pages 44 and 45 at star and as circled].

Now the fact is that these lawyers, Dixon, Delany Ahern, Edward, Garde and Burchell:

Then after all this Dixon, Delany and Ahern set out the bold heading in their Second Outline, "No concealment of the cause of action: book of pleadings" and then set out the pseudo "cause of action" exactly as he had represented to Master Efthim.

And now, when Delany is put on the spot, he not only doesn't know what the pseudo "cause of action" is, or any "cause of action" for that matter, and he doesn't even know where to find it. Delany's problem was that the whole damn lot was a complete and utter fabrication. he could not, in truth, on the spot, point to the pseudo "cause of action" or any "cause of action" anywhere.

Osborn should have jumped up and down at this point. The lawyers had done all of the above and could not say what the "cause of action" was or where to find it! Osborn did not and this is symptomatic of the problem.

Edward Garde and Burchell regurgitate their garbage.

The First Outline of Submissions prepared by Edward, Garde and Burchell for the hearing before Master Efthim was simply nonsense. It was however extremely successful in avoiding mention or defining the true cause of action and the pseudo "cause of action", the paragraphs did not even logically follow one another. they contradicted one another. [details] [First Outline here]

For the hearing before Justice Osborn they inserted one meaningless paragraph and hit the reprint button. At great cost I might add. Their Second Outline is here. The comments with regard to their first Outline remain true it is identical in those respects.

My Submissions

My submissions were principally made in two written submissions entitled "Plaintiffs' Appeal Submissions" part 1 and Part 2.

 Part 1 explicitly set out the true causes of action, and also the fact that Master Efthim had been misled.  Part 2 the fact that Mr. Greg Garde QC had also misled the Planning Appeals Tribunal by representing in his written submission [para 4.0] that the "Water Supply Agreement" was an enforceable legal agreement. [My submissions part 1 here, part 2 here - these are large documents]

Transcript for day 1 here and day 2 here.

Even if Master Efthim had been carelessly misled, the fact that he had been misled was known to the lawyers and Justice Osborn after my submission. On the first 8 or ten pages of part 1 of my submission I substantially outline the misrepresentations made to Master Efthim and, by then, repeated before Justice Osborn. In addition at pages 25 to 30 of part 1 of my submissions I provided a complete analysis of the relevant legislation including how 2-lot plans do not facilitate avoidance of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act and a description of avoiding the "effect' of section 9.

After my submissions Justice Osborn and the lawyers were squarely fixed with knowledge that the Lawyers had misled Master Efthim and Justice Osborn.

I believe the evidence is overwhelming. The things set out on the Lying Lawyers Part One page did not happen by accident or happensance. The lawyers at all times knew full well that they had misled Master Efthim and had misled Justice Osborn. Having said this, in the extraordinary circumstance where the coordinated deception occurred by accident or happenstance the lawyers were fixed with knowledge of their deception after having read my submission.

The Lawyers Continue the Deception

After Osborn handed down his Judgment I appealed, the lawyers then represented to the Court of Appeal that the jugments of Master Efthim and Osborn were proper judgments based on the facts. The lawyers knew full well that each and every representation to this effect was deceptive and dishonest and yet further instances of overt misrepresentation.

********

Even if Garde, Edward, Delany, Ahern, Dixon et al. carelessly or mistakenly made their misleading submissions before Master Efthim; they were made fully aware of that error upon receiving my submissions to Justice Osborn. At that point, they had the option of righting that wrong or holding the line. They chose to hold the line and Justice Osborn accommodated them.

At the time of writing his Reasons and making his Orders, Justice Osborn had adequate of the above set out before him. Faced with exposing these "damn lies", Justice Osborn chose to ignore, deny, conceal and or make wrong my specific allegations and thereby perpetuate the almost 30 years of Lying Lawyers. .

Garde and Edward made application to the Court of Appeal for indemnity costs on the grounds that my allegations regarding their conduct were unfounded. Adequate evidence of the "damn lies" was before Justices Neave and Mandie who declined to adjudicate on that question, and instead rewarded Garde and Edward with indemnity costs on their own grounds.

On the face of it, the Supreme Court of Victoria not only tolerates lying lawyers,
it engenders and positively rewards them.

**********

Top of Page ------ Menu Page