Justice Osborn's Reasons for Judgment are so comprehensively and cohesively wrong You be the judge. |
Prejudice v truth
Background
In relation to the Tylden Rd the "cause of action" was that the Council had unlawfully sealed the plan of subdivision in full knowledge or with careless disregard for the fact that the services were not present and there was no lawful Notice of Requirement and therefore no lawful means of compelling construction of those services. The Statements of Claim in the 2005 proceeding alleged that this was done for the purpose of enabling avoidance of the "effect" of s.9 of the Sale of Land Act.
At the hearing before Master Efthim, to the specific exclusion of things related to the Notices of Requirement, the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority misled Master Efthim into believing that I was previously aware of the cause of action and in particular the scheme to avoid s.9 of the Sale of Land Act. [details]
Now to Justice Osborn and these things
As I have set out elsewhere in this website Justice Osborn fabricated his Reasons for Judgment the effect of which was to ignore, deny, conceal an/or make wrong the facts of the fraud perpetrated by the Council and Water Authority and the fact that the lawyers had misled Master Efthim [details]. There are grounds for a belief that Osborn was prejudiced.
In addition to fabricating his Reasons so as to ignore, deny etc my specific "causes of action" Justice Osborn also fabricated his reasons so as to provide verisimiltude to the Reasons of Master Efthim.
Before proceeding I reassert that;
- the "unlawful" series of "contrived" plans did not facilitate avoidance of s.9 of the Sale of Land Act [details]
- the "unlawful" plans did not and could not cause loss and damage and in no way formed any part of the true "cause of action". [details]
- once sealed so-called "unlawful" plans are lawful for all purposes. [details]
So, in other words, "unlawful" plans are completely and utterly irrelevant and Master Efthim made his Judgment in relation to these irrelevancies and he apparently remained totally unaware of what consituted the true causes of action. [details] He was comprehensively misled. [see also Lying Lawyers Part One]
.Justice Osborn and the Court had a problem
If Justice Osborn found either for or against me on the true facts then the facts and circumstances of and surrounding the Judgment of Master Efthim would be exposed.
The only way around this was to find against me and to fabricate reasons which provided support or verisimilitude to the gross wrongs of Master Efthim's Reasons. An overt examply of how Osborn provided verisimiltude to Master Efthim's Reasons is discussed here.
Providing versimilitude to Master Efthim's rendition of my affidavit
At his paragraph 113 Justice Osborn says;
"Master Efthim summarised the thrust of the firstnamed plaintiff's primary affidavit as to the background to this aspect of the matter as follows"
After which he purports to transcribe Master Efthim's paragraph 35 but does not. He omitts the final, but telling subparagraph of Master Efthims paragraph 35 [Master Efthim's para 35 here and Justice Osborn's para 113 here]
The notable thing about Master Efthim's paragraph 35 (as transcribed by Justice Osborn here) is that it contains nothing of relevance to the true causes of action. It is only relevant to "unlawful" plans as wrongly understood by Master Efthim. It does not contain any of the extensive submissions made by me in relation to the true causes of action, namely the Notice of Requirement. Master Efthim appears to have been so succesfully misled that he did not even refer to the relevant parts from my affidavit, he only transcribed the irrelevancies related to plans of subdivision. The most notable aspect however is the final sub-paragraph of Master Efthim's paragraph 35 which Justice Osborn omits to transcribe. In this subparagraph Master Efthim says:
"As a result of perusing ......... it became apparent to Mr. Thompson for the first time .... the First Defendant had acted maliciously ....... by sealing the residential plans ..... the evidence of Mr. Wilson ...... to the Magistrates Court had the effect of concealing the First Defendant's true conduct from the Court and himself".
Master Efthim transcribed this from my affidavit so he could logically go on and say, at his paragraph 55:
"One may ask why Mr. Wilson's evidence had the effect of concealing the First Defendant's true conduct from the Court and Mr. Thompson. This is not a credible explanation."
The relevancy of these paragraphs is that they demonstrate that Master Efthim did not adjudicate on the the question as to whether or not I previously knew that the Notice of Requirement had not been served.
Master Efthim's paragraph 55 is incompatible with an understanding of the true cause of action because the fact is that the fact that the Notice of Requirement was not served was manifestly concealed from the Courts and me. [details] Master Efthim could not be both aware of the true "cause of action" and hold a belief as to his paragraph 55.
Justice Osborn on the other hand knew full well that the true "cause of action" was nothing to do with unlawful plans. Osborn further knew, the fact that the Notice of Requirement had not been served had been concealed from the Magistrates Court, the Supreme Court and the County Court and me by a combination of perjury and false admissions. He also knew full well that the final subparagraph of Master Efthim's paragraph 35 contained reference to the truth which, by deceptive submission, had been concealed from Master Efthim, namely that the Council and Water Authority had concealed "the First Defendants true conduct from the Court and....."; me.
Accordingly Justice Osborn omitted to transcribe the final subparagraph of Master Efthim's paragraph 35. That omitted subparagraph contains reference to the fact of the perjury etc.
Justice Osborn transcribed Master Efthims paragraph 35 for the sole purpose of providing verisimilitude to Master Efthims Reasons. Except for the final subparagraph which he did not transcribe It was in fact entirely irrelevant to the true "cause of action" known to Justice Osborn and there was no reason to transcribe Master Efthim's paragraph 35 other then that of providing verisimilitude to Master Efthim's Reasons.
Providing verisimilitude to Master Efthim and the "Book of Pleadings"
At his paragraph 117 Justice Osborn refers to Master Efthims consideration of the "Book of Pleadings" and Justice Osborn states "...... Master Efthim highlighted the relevant extracts from the document in his decision which I shall amplify" (my emphasis)
Master Efthim had "highlighted the relevant extracts" according to his mistaken belief as to the "cause of action" and his mistaken belief that these extracts demonstrated my knowledge of "unlawful" plans which facilitated avoidance of s.9 of the Sale of Land Act
Justice Osborn transcribed [third star and following] those parts of the "Book of Pleadings" which Master Efthim had transcribed to his Reasons and Justice Osborn did "amplify" these extracts by inserting the paragraph numbered "C6".[fourth star] into the subparagraphs which Master Efthim had transcribed into his reasons. In addition Justice Osborn added a few lines to some paragraphs transcribed by Master Efthim.
None of these subparagraphs demonstrate any knowledge at all that the Notice of Requirement related to the 18-lot plan was not served.
When Master Efthim transcribed these paragraphs into his reaons, because he had been misled, he thought the "cause of action" was related to the "unlawful" 2-lot plans so he reasonably did not transcribe the paragraphs from the "Book of Pleadings" which related to my belief as to the existance or not of a section 569E requirement. Justice Osborn on the other hand was under no such misapprehension, he knew full well that the cause of action was related to the non service of the Notice of Requirement. The Paragraph "C6" [fourth star] inserted by Osborn is simply not related to the question as to whether or not I held a belief that the Notice of Requirement had been lawfully served and imposed a duty on Buchanan to construct the works. .
Having transcribed Master Efthim's extracts from the "Book of Pleadings" and having "amplified" these subparagraphs Justice Osborn is fixed with knowledge of the content of the "Book of Pleadings"
The extracts from the "Book of Pleadings" which Justice Osborn omitted/failed to transcribe show that I absolutuely believed that a lawful Notice of Requirement had been issued and that Buchanan had been lawfully obliged to perform those requirements. In addition as Justice Osborn was fully aware the Amended Statement of Claim, including its paragraph 7 was drafted after the "Book of Pleadiings" and that paragraph 7 and the Book of Pleadings manifestly show what Justice Osborn overtly denies. Justice Osborn was fixed with these facts but set out the complete opposite in his reasons and he omitted facts and falsified facts for the purpose of his Reasons.
After, by omission, overtly misrepresenting the content of the "Book of Pleadings Justice Osborn said;
"These extracts demonstrate that the plaintiffs were well aware as at the date of the annotations (prior to the delivery of the amended statement of claim in the Councty Court proceeding) that:
(c) There was no notice of requirement served or pursued in respect of the original proposal to subdivide the whole of the land pursuant to the global plans of subdivision for industrial lots and residentiial lots respectively"
This simply a false statement. Justice Osborn was fixed with knowledge of the evidence to the contrary but he carefully and studiously omitted the evidence which did not suit his purpose. .
Providing further verisimilitude to Master Efthim
At his paragraph 125 Justice Osborn does more of the same. Under the heading "concealment" he says;
"There is a further fundamental problem confronting the plaintiffs' case as to fraudulent concealment of the relevant facts"
He then continues at his paragraph 126 and says;
"The black folder comprised documents discovered in the County Court proceedings. In this regard I accept the conclusions of Master Efthim at paragraphs [53] and [54] of his decision."
Justice Osborn then goes on to transcribe Master Efthim's rendition of my affidavit by transcribing paragraphs 53 and 54 of Master Efthim's Reasons for Decision. [beginning at star]
Master Efthim's paragraph 53, as transcribed by Osborn begins:
"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 plan of the industrial allotments................"
Master Efthim wrote his rendition of my affidavit because he had been totally misled and decieved into believing that the "cause of action" related to "unlawful" plans of subdivision and he wrote his paragraph 53 accordingly and included material, from my affidavit, relevant to the "unlawful" plans to the total exclusion of the material in my affidavit which related to the true "causes of action" namely the Notice of Requirement.
Justice Osborn on the other hand was under no such misapprehension. At the time of transcribing Master Efthims paragraph 53 he was fully aware of the matters and things constituting the true "cause of action" and he was aware that Master Efthim's rendition of my affidavit was entirely irrelevant to the true "cause of action"
Master Efthim's paragraph 54, as transcribed, then states;
"Based on the material before me there has been nothing concealed from Mr. Thompson. The Documents contained in the black folder had been previously discovered to Mr. Thompson"
Master Efthim concluded this because, as already set out, he had been totally misled by the lawyers.
Then at his paragraph 127 Justice Osborn says:
"It cannot be that to voluntarily provide copies of discovered documents to the firstnamed plaintiff at the time of settlement in 1991 was to conceal the facts..............."
The problem for Justice Osborn in transcribing Master Efthim's paragraph 53 and 54 and puportedly concluding as stated by him at his paragraph 127 is that "...the critical documents from the black folder which led to this matter being further litigated are the complete versions of the plans plan of the industrial allotments .... " was a complete and utter fabrication by Dixon, Delany and Ahern for the purpose of providing verisimilitude to their central fabrications, according to them it was evidence that disclosed that 2-lot plans facilitate avoidance of section 9. [see Lying Lawyers page] There is no document existing or which is capable of existing which discloses the "right of action" as represented to Master Efthim by Dixon, Delany and Ahern et al.
Justice Osborn's paragraph 127 was also a complete and overt fabrication used by him to provide versimilitude to his own and Master Efthim's Reasons.
Justice Osborn was fully aware that the Council and Water Authority did not "voluntarily provide copies of discovered documents" which openly revealed or disclosed their perjury, false admissions etc by which the Council and Water Authority concealed the fact that the Notice of Requirement related to the 18-lot plan had never been served.
It is not possible that Justice Osborn held a judicial belief as to his reasons.
**********
Top of Page ------ Menu Page