Courts on Trial

Teaser. The things set out on this website are so outrageous as to beggar the belief of fair minded people, they strike at the very heart of democracy. To demonstrate that my opinions are founded on fact and to induce people to read the rest of this website I provide a little detail in this box.

In essence I say the evidence provided on this website demonstrates:

• that the Council and Water Authority were engaged in a deliberate calculated fraud and that lawyers engaged by the Council and Water Authority during the period about 1986 to the present deliberately misled Ministerial Inquiries and various courts for the purpose of concealing that fraud and obtaining wrongful judgments.
  
  
• that when these facts were put to Justice Osborn in 2006 he fabricated Reasons for Judgment in such a manner as to ignore, deny, conceal and/or otherwise make wrong the fact of the fraud and the more serious fact that the lawyers had misled the various inquiries and courts.

Why would Justice Osborn fabricate a judgment?

The people who misled the various inquiries and courts are very high stature "friends of the court" and include:

• Major General Greg Garde AO, RFD, QC
• Mr. John Middleton QC who had become Justice John Middleton of the Federal Court by the time of the hearing before Justice Osborn.
• Mr. J. Delany SC

A judgment by Justice Osborn which even implied that these persons had misled the court would have very serious ramifications indeed. Justice Osborn avoided these ramifications by bringing down a false judgment the certain effect of which was to ignore, deny and conceal the fact that these people had misled the courts and that the Council and Water Authority had engaged in fraud.

A little evidence, Major General Garde's misrepresentations.

As detailed on this website the Council and Water Authority conspired with one another and others to render my land unsaleable to anyone other than the timeshare company Woodleigh Heights Resort Developments Pty. Ltd. ("WHRD") An essential tool in this fraud was an alleged Water Supply Agreement between the Water Authority and the timeshare company, the effect of which, according to the Water Authority, was to deliver ownership and control of the water supply and reticulation system within the cluster subdivision to the timeshare company.

Essential to this fraud was that the Water Supply Agreement be represented as being lawful and enforceable and providing the effect represented by the Water Authority. These two essential things are encapsulated in the misrepresentations of Greg Garde when at page 193 of the transcript of the hearing before Justice Osborn he said:

."...what subsequently happened was that there was a dispute that broke out between the Buchanans and the Thompsons as we apprehend the position with the consequent result that the development company that was controlled by the Buchanans denied any access to the water which that company had procured through the supply agreement to the Thompsons"

and at page 197

“There was under the provisions of the Act a legally valid water agreement in existence between the board and the development company and that under the water agreement, the development company owned and operated the water supply reticulation system within the cluster subdivision.” (my emphasis)

This was essentially a repeat of the misrepresentations made by Garde when he was representing the timeshare company WHRD. At page 2 of his written submission dated 7th March 1988 to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Garde said:

"in 1984 Supreme Court proceedings erupted between the three developers (vis Glenn and Cheryl Thompson, the Appellant ..............."

and at page 4

"the applicant has the benefit of enforceable legal agreements with the waterworks trust for the provision of water .... " (my emphasis) (Note:- Garde capitalised his misrepresentations in his written submission)

These representations by Garde were false, misleading and deceptive with no possible reasonable grounds for a belief by him as to the truth of those representations.

• The Water Supply Agreement was entered into for fraudulent purpose, namely to give effect to the "proviso" that all the land in the cluster subdivision be owned by the timeshare company. [details]
• The Water Supply Agreement was unlawful and unenforceable in every imaginable respect [details]
• The water supply and reticulation system was common property not owned by the development company
• The development company did not and could not deny access to water
• Only the Water Authority had the statutory authority to even purport to deny acess to water
• The dispute which arose was as a consequence of the denial of water and not vice versa as misrepresented by Garde.

Garde's misrepresentations deceptively diverted the act of denial of water from the Water Authority to the timeshare company and falsely asserted and held that the Water Supply Agreement was lawful.

These misrepresentations by Garde were not made carelessly and recklessly:

• The 1988 misrepresentation was purposeful and contrived to mislead and deceive the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, it was made in answer to and to counter my written submission which was faxed in advance to his instructing solicitor Mr. John Norman Price of Gair and Brahe (now Garland Hawthorn Brahe) and which set out the truth and the facts. (as best I could say them at the time). The Tribunal accepted Garde's submission made under colour of silk and the fraud continued as a direct consequence of his misrepresentations.
  
  
• Garde's misrepresentations before Osborn were made in knowledge that they were false, misleading and deceptive and could only have been made with a sense of impunity and immunity borne of a confidence that neither his "learned friends" nor the court, and particularly Osborn, would do anything at all about the fact of his misrepresentations.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal relied on Garde's misrepresentations. Osborn did not, Osborn was aware of Garde's misrepresentations and concealed the fact of them by means of his own supporting misrepresentations in the form of his Reasons for Judgment.

Osborn's Reasons for Judgment.

For the purpose of the appeal before I Osborn I had prepared a very strong written submission which included that the lawyers had misled Master Efthim and that Greg Garde had previously misled the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Osborne was on notice that any finding by him which included that the water supply agreement was unlawful would, by implication at least, have the potential for very serious ramifications for the Major General.

As both Garde and Osborn well know, any notion that a person can control the water supply or any other essential service to their neighbours property, especially when the purpose of that control is to force the sale of that neighbours property to the first person, is a notion which is not only offensive to any sense of fairness and natural justice but is also so offensive as to be not possible at law. In addition in this specific instance for the reasons set out on the water agreement page of thiis website the so called "Water Supply Agreement" was manifestly unlawful and both Garde and Osborn were well aware of those reasons and the fact it was unlawful and had been entered into for the fraudulent purpose specifically set out at paragraph 74 of Osborn's Reasons..

Osborn's Reasons for Judgment are astonishing, as detailed on the Osborn pages of this website, he fabricated essentially every aspect in such a way as to ignore, deny and conceal the numerous misrepresentations and the fact of the fraud. For the present, teaser, purpose I am demonstrating the aspect related to Garde's misrepresentations.

In his Reasons for Judgment Justice Osborn said::

• at para 18. "...... a dispute arose as to the withholding of reticulated water supply from the plaintiffs' land by the subdivider ...." (my emphasis)
  
  
• at para 74 "WHRD wished to compel the plaintiffs to complete the sale of land by the plaintiffs back to it" (my emphasis)
  
  
• at para 75 ".... it was further said that under the agreement, WHRD controlled the supply of water from the Water Board to the cluster subdivision" (my emphasis)
  
  
• at para 152 "It was after all denial of access to this water supply which was the basis of the plaintiffs actions" (my emphasis)

Each and every one of these reasons by Osborn is predicated on and includes an implied assertion by him that the "Water Supply Agreement" was in fact a lawful and enforceable agreement and WHRD was capable of doing these things. At the time of writing his Reasons Osborn was fully aware that the Water Supply Agreement was in fact unlawful and the entire basis of his Reasons false. Osborn was fully aware that the timeshare company WHRD did not and could not:

• withhold reticulated water supply
• compel the plaintiffs to complete the sale
• control the supply of water
• deny access to the water supply

Osborn was fully aware that it was the Water Authority which in fact did all of these things, not WHRD as asserted by him. The Water Authority was the only entity with the Statutory Authority to purport to do these things. On the specific documentary evidence before Osborn it was the Water Authority not WHRD which did these things. Osborn was also fully aware that the Water Supply Agreement was an unlawful agreement utilized for fraudulent purpose, namely to force the sale of my land to WHRD.

Osborn fabricated his reasons in the face of the law and the facts known to him. The effect of these fabricated Reasons, known to Osborn, was to ignore, deny, conceal and/or make wrong:

• That the Council and Water Authority had in fact engaged in fraud
• That Major General Greg Garde AO RFD QC consistently lied to the courts on this issue.

There are no possible grounds for either Garde's deceptive misrepresentations or Osborn's deceptive and fabricated Reasons.

These things are not fine ethereal points of law, they are fundamental common sense and explicit law, all of the relevant facts and the law were squarely before and known to each of Garde and Osborn. .

If either Osborn or Garde's neighbour purported to gain control of the water to their land they would have the person and associates prosecuted for extortion and fraud and you can be assured that Osborn and his fellow Judges would find that person guilty.

In the premise that there are no grounds for the assertions of Garde and Osborn then no matter what their apparent stature, in my opinion, based on the evidence on this website, Garde and Osborn, like ex Justice Einfield, are merely dishonest little men who besmirch the court and their silk gowns and wigs.

Garde has profited by several hundred thousand dollars as a direct consequence of his 1988 misrepresentations. He continues to profit to this very day A bill for $167,000 was recently rendered by Mason Sier Turnbull, substantially due to fees payable to Garde for his misrepresentations. This brings the total costs payable to Major General Garde Steven Mark Edward, Sharon Burchell, Arnold Dallas McPherson, solicitors and Mason Sier Turnbull to in excess of $400,000. A similar amount is due to Maddocks, Delany, Ahern and Dixon. All reasonably directly attributable to Garde's 1988 deception.

Had Garde not misled the Administrative Appeals Tribunal the entire fraud would certainly have been at an end in 1988. Garde has profited most handsomely from his misrepresentations. My family on the other hand has suffered greatly at his and Osborn's hands.

Osborn did not fabricate his Reasons by accident. They were fabricated with the intent and purpose of making my allegations against Garde and the rest of the lawyers wrong. Osborn did not make genuine mistakes of facts and law that WHRD could control the water supply as misrepresented by Garde.

Mr. J. Delany SC and the rest of the lawyers.

Under instruction from Ms. Michelle Elizabeth Dixon of Maddocks, Mr. J. Delany SC and Mr. G. Ahern specifically and overtly misrepresented both the law and the facts known to them and Ms. Dixon. These misrepesentations were a coordinated team effort and also involved Greg Garde and Ms Sharon Burchell under instruction from Mr. Steven Mark Edward of Mason Sier Turnbull but formerly of Arnold Dallas McPherson. They specifically and overtly misrepresented matters related to section 9 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 and documents prepared by me in relation to that. These things are set out on the Lying Lawyers Part One page and Osborn's denial of these additional misrepresentations is dealt with on the Osborn pages.

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.

You may be the next victim of our justice system
Make no mistake, anyone can end up in court at any time