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 One - damn the truth, may the best liar win...

Background

For ease of understanding this page should be read aftert the Story page and the fraud pages.

The 2005 proceeding before Master Efthim involved two separate, but related, claims, one in respect to the Tylden Rd land and the other in relation to the Woodleigh Heights land.

The Kyneton Council and Kyneton Water Board/Trust were engaged in unlawful practices which were designed to assist property developers. One of these schemes was designed to enable deveopers to avoid the law which prevented sales of land until such time as all the services (roads/water) were completed. It was the facts of this practice which I discovered in 2000 and which was the genesis of the entire fraud against my family and I and which formed the claim in the 2005 proceeding issued by me.

The "cause of action" which was set out in the Amended Statement of Claim is summarised at paragraph 55(b) of my affidavit as "My present cause of action is that the Council did in breach of its specific duty seal the residential series of plans and the industrial series of plans and the plans of cluster subdivision in full knowledge that the allotments thereby created were unusable due to a lack of services and in full knowledge that there was no lawful means to compel or cause construction of those services in order to make the allotments useable." [text version here] [pdf version here]

By sealing the plans in this manner, the Council enabled the developer Kenneth Raymond Buchanan to sell the land without the services (roads, water) being completed and before he would otherwise have been lawfully entitled to sell it. The Council had facilitated avoidance of the "effect" of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act in relation to both the Tylden Rd land and the Woodleigh Heights land and in the case of Tylden Rd also facilitated avoidance of the "effect" of section 97 of the Transfer of Land Act. This page only deals with some Tylden Rd aspects.

Where the intention of the developer was to subdivide into three or more allotments, section 9 of the Sale of Land Act operated to prevent the sale of allotments in subdivisions until such time as the Registrar of Titles had approved the plans. The "effect" of this legislation was that land could not be sold until the planning permit had been complied with and all required services completed. [details]

The 2005 Amended Statement of Claim expressly alleged that the Council had sealed the plans for the purpose of avoiding the "effect" of section 9 and the "effect" of section 97. There are two parts to this allegation, firstly the act of sealing the plans and secondly the purpose of sealing. The purpose was not the "cause of action"; or even part of it, it was the reason why the Council sealed the plans in the circumstances alleged.

The circumstances alleged in the Amended Statement of Claim included that the services (roads etc,) were not present AND the Council had not issued a Notice of Requirement to compel the construction of the services. It was the sealing of the plans in these circumstances which gave rise to the loss and damage and therefore the "cause of action". It was these circumstances which facilitated the purpose.. These are the circumstances expressly defined in paragraph 55(b) of my affidavit as constituting the "cause of action".

It was these circumstances which the Council and Water Authority had concealed by a combination of perjury and falsified documents in the Magistrates and Supreme Courts and false admissions in the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding. [details]

Buchanan had been involved in an earlier failed and futile attempt to avoid the provisions of section 9. [details]

In 1988, as a consequence of the things set out on the story page and the coordinated fraud page of this website, I had occasion to issue proceedings against the Council and Water Authority. At that time, for the exclusive use of my then barristers, I prepared a document entitled "Book of Pleadings" which set out almost everything I knew and hypothesised at that time. In 1999 Steven Mark Edward, solicitor for the Water Authority, unethically and without my knowledge obtained a copy of the "Book of Pleadings"

At the time of compiling the "Book of Pleadings" I was fully aware of Buchanan's futile attempt to avoid section 9 and I included full detail in the "Book of Pleadings". At the page numbered 5 of the "Book of Pleadings" I had written the words:

"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" [see page 5 here]

On the face of it and out of context, to someone ignorant of the law, my words at page 5 of the "Book of Pleadings" could indicate that at the time of compiling the "Book of Pleadings" I had knowledge that Buchanan had avoided section 9 of the Sale of Land Act by means of 2-lot plans of subdivision.

However, in context, it is clear that I knew that Buchanan had not avoided section 9 when at page 3 I included a copy of section 9 with critical words underlined and at page 8 I wrote "although Buchanan thought he had exploited a loophole in the law he had in fact broken the law". He had in fact breached both section 9 of the Sale of Land Act and section 569(1) of the Local Government Act. [details]

Now to the Lying Lawyers

The lawyers wished to have my 2005 proceeding struck-out by the Court without trial.

For the purposes of a strike-out application, the lawyers needed to be able to demonstrate to the Court:

The lawyers could not demonstrate these things in relation to the circumstances giving rise to true "cause of action" so they contrived a strategy to mislead the Court.

As I have said, an allegation of the 2005 proceeding was that the Council sealed the plans for the purpose of avoiding the "effect" of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act and the "effect" of section 97 of the Transfer of Land Act. This allegation was set out at paragraph T7 of the Amended Statement of Claim.

As I have also said, page 5 of the "Book of Pleadings" when taken out of context and in ignorance of the law can be read to mean that I understood that Buchanan had avoided section 9 of the Sale of Land Act by means of 2-lot plans.

The strategy developed by the lawyers was to falsely represent that the allegation and purpose at paragraph T7 of the Amended Statement of Claim constituted the "cause of action" and to then take page 5 of the "Book of Pleadings" to demonstrate that I had knowledge of their fallacious, fabricated, pseudo "cause of action".

The strategy developed by the lawyers and subsequently implemented by Maddocks, Mr. J. Delany SC and Mr. G. Ahern was to (mis)represent to the Court:

Each and every one of these strategic things was false:

Preparing the strategy

First of all the lawyers had to make the "Book of Pleadings" available and legitimise Edward's possession of it. To this end, before the summons was issued, Edward swore affidavits and prepared exhibits which included the "Book of Pleadings" effectively concealed within 1795 pages of extraneous documents. [details]

Secondly the lawyers kept the strategy and the pseudo "cause of action" secret by using euphemisms. The lawyers prepared a number of affidavits and Outlines of Submissions yet not one of these documents disclosed or even intimated what constituted the "cause of action" let alone the pseudo "cause of action" [details] which they intended to represent. In addition Edward, Garde and Burchell introduced the "Book of Pleadings" in a deceptive manner which specifically represented that the content of the "Book of Pleadings" was consistent with my affidavit [details] and thereby concealed their intended (mis)representation of the "Book of Pleadings". Edward, Garde and Burchell's outline was, well, fabricated without regard to anything. [details]

Ms. Michelle Elizabeth Dixon swore two affidavits. The first dated 23rd September 2005 in purported support of the summons included a table of allegations common to the 2005 and the previous proceedings. The second dated 28th October 2005 purported to be in response to my affidavit of 18th October 2005. In this second affidavit Dixon says what she purports to "understand" from reading my affidavit and effectively puts words into my mouth which were never said or even implied by me.

From these two affidavits Dixon, Delany and Ahern then morphed the table of common allegations and Dixon's "understanding" into a number of false statements which were then expressed as truth and fact in the Outline of Submissions of Dixon, Delany and Ahern. These "true lies" were developed for the purpose of demonstrating that the "complete plan" disclosed the pseudo "cause of action" and that the Council and Water Authority had given me that complete plan and thereby openly disclosed the pseudo "cause of action" [details]. A further purpose of the "true lies" was to put words into my mouth [details] and to then show that those words were false.[details] They did all this while continuing to use euphemisms.

By doing these things the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority had prepared their case without mentioning or even alluding to the pseudo "cause of action" which they intended to submit. By using the euphemisms they had led me to believe that they were referring to the true "cause of action" and, in that context, the "true lies" were merely nonsense which confused me.

Executing the strategy in Court

In the normal course of events a party bringing an action leads off in court and makes their case in a clear manner. The defendant then has the opportunity to respond to that case and then the party bringing the case has an opportunity to respond to anything new raised by the defendant. This did not occur in this case:

  • Delany led off, he put the "true lies" while still using euphemisms. During this submission Delany gave a conveniently erroneous "understanding" of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act thereby laying the groundwork for his subsequent misrepresentations in relation to the pseudo "cause of action" and "Book of Pleadings". He did not put his case in relation to the pseudo "cause of action" or the "Book of Pleadings". [details]

  • Garde then made his submission. He introduced the "Book of Pleadings" but said nothing of significance in relation to it [details]. Garde did not even intimate the pseudo "cause of action" nor the use which had been planned for the "Book of Pleadings", which was to misrepresent its content.

  • My barrister, Mr. John Middleton then purported to give my defence, for reasons which are beyond me he specifically misrepresented me and my case. His submissions flew in the face of the law and my specific written instructions to him. [details] [also see Middleton page]

  • In supposed reply, in the final minutes of the hearing, Delany finally dropped his camouflage and showed his true colours, he overtly misrepresented the law and the "Book of Pleadings" and represented the pseudo "cause of action" to be the "cause of action" set out in the Amended Statement of Claim. [details].

Each and every representation by Dixon, Delany and Ahern, in court, was an overt misrepresentation:

Each and every one of these misrepresentations was a fabrication which flew in the face of the law and the facts which were squarely before each of the lawyers.

Were these misrepresentations the consequence of deliberate deceit or collective neglect and incompetence?

In my view the evidence is overwhelming. The lawyers deceitfully contrived a strategy and deceitfully implemented it. [details]

Master Efthim did not adjudicate on the true "cause of action"

Master Efthim was squarely and manifestly misled by the lawyers' submissions that "unlawful" plans and "unlawful" sealing for the purpose of avoiding section 9 constituted the "cause of action" and that the so called "critical document" disclosed this pseudo "cause of action" . At paragraph 53 of his Reasons for Decision, Master Efthim said:

"It is clear from Mr. Thompson's first affidavit that the critical documents from the black folder which led to this matter being further litigated are the complete versions of the plans of the industrial allotments....." (my emphasis)

Master Efthim did not derive this conclusion from my affidavit. He derived it directly from Dixon, Delany and Ahern's combined "true lies" [see circled texts here, here and here] As described above these "true lies" were damn lies which were expressed as fact in the affidavits and Outline of Dixon, Delany and Ahern. They were fabricated for the purpose of deceiving the Court and Master Efthim was deceived as planned and anticipated.

Each and every substantive paragraph of the Outline of Submissions of Dixon, Delany and Ahern and oral submission by Delany was a damn lie taken as true by Master Efthim.. The Affidavits of Dixon provided the grounds for those damn lies and appear to me to be calculated to provide those grounds.

Dixon, Delany, Ahern, Edward, Garde and Burchell wrongly obtained a false Judgment on behalf of their respective clients, Macedon Ranges Shire Council and Coliban Water.

********

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. [see under "Osborn" menu option]

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. [see under "Mandie et al" menu option]

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