Corrupt Supreme Court, Justice System and Attorney General of Victoria, Australia.
This page demonstrates that some justices of the Supreme Court and the Attorney General of Victoria resorted to dishonest corrupt conduct to censor the web and conceal the abundant evidence of abundant corruption from the people of Victoria.
A personal note to my website visitors;
You will no doubt think my initial description, in red letters, below a little hyperbolic and/or intemperate however if you take the time to read the reasons set out below I am quite sure some superlatives of your own will come to mind; you may even think I have understated.
(I referred the material below to all Victorian Members of Parliament, predictable silence ensued except from a couple who sought to alleviate responsibility by saying that I should refer the matter to IBAC which is the Victorian imitation of a corruption commission, I therefore now include the conduct of IBAC and the Victorian Inspectorate here, menu options also at bottom of this page.)
Breaking News:- For the purpose of dishonestly and corruptly censoring the web and concealing the material set out on this website from the people of Victoria;
- Some Judges of the Supreme Court,
- Robert Clark, the Attorney General of Victoria,
- Mr Stephen Lee, assistant Government Solicitor,
- Mr. Gary Ryan, General Manager, Court Security;
have each engaged in squalid, dirty, underhanded, deceitful, reprehensible, mafia like tactics and threat and overtly misrepresented fact and law and from the following I conclude that the purpose was to dishonestly and corruptly intimidate the web host (Internet Content Host) of this website and have them remove this website from the web.
This sordid conduct, completely detailed below, is entirely consistent with the extreme corrupt conduct set out in this website and which the bar and the bench and the Attorney General are all desperate to deny and conceal.
The nub of the material which the court, the justices and the Attorney General are seeking to conceal is that Major General, Justice Greg Garde, when acting as a barrister, serially conspired with others to flagrantly pervert the course of justice and that Justice Robert Osborn flagrantly fabricated Reasons for Judgment for the purpose of concealing Garde's conduct.
In turn Justices of the Court of Appeal overtly concealed and denied the the fact of abundant evidence of the conduct of Osborn and Garde. Osborn also flagrantly fabricated court documents for the purpose of concealing his own corrupt conduct. Sufficient evidence of these things is set out further below.
This concealment of Garde's corrupt conduct necessarily included that Osborn and the Court of Appeal also concealed and denied the evidence of very serious crimes of a corrupt property developer and the predecessors to Macedon Ranges Shire Council and Coliban Water.
Macedon Ranges Shire Council remains corrupt to the present day in that as recently as 2010 it committed perjury to continue to conceal and deny its earlier corrupt conduct. Each of the present councilors is well aware of the evidence of this fact but they do nothing.
This website has contained the evidence of these things since about 2010 and the Attorneys General have been well aware of the abundant evidence of these things but sought to deny them via various lackeys.
There is an old adage; "give a man enough rope and he will hang himself".
I have bided my time and stirred the pot occasionally and on the material below the present Attorney General, Robert Clark, has now figuratively hung himself.
The material set out below leads me to conclude that for ulterior purpose, justices of the Supreme Court, Gary Ryan of Court Security, Mr. Robert Clark Attorney General of the State of Victoria, and Mr. Stephen Lee. Assistant Government Solicitor, acted in a deliberate and calculated corrupt manner to conceal the evidence of the grosser corruption from the people of Victoria.
Due to the serious nature of this new aspect this page has become the home page of this website. The previous front page of this website is now here.
This is a first draft of this page, now that the Attorney General has exposed his hand substantial new, explicit, serious and shocking material will be added shortly.
This new material will detail the crimes of the property developer and a local council which Osborn also carefully concealed for the purpose of concealing the crimes of his friend, Garde and Garde's from time to time co-conspirators.
By incredible coincidence, at the very moment that this dishonest Attorney General and his lackey were seeking to deny my allegations, one of the frauds which Garde was party to in 1988, and which the Attorney General is well aware of, is bearing fruit at this exact time but a little more about that later in this document.
I have a few other surprises in store as well.
My personal message to the Attorney General of Victoria.
As I told Justices Neave and Mandie, truth and fact are far more powerful than any judgment of the Supreme Court.
It is also far more powerful than your futile and sordid attempts to ignore, deny and conceal.
You do not have a snowflakes chance in hell of continuing to conceal and deny these things.
I will see Justice Robert Osborn and Justice Greg Garde and perhaps a few more drummed out of office and at least Osborn and Garde incarcerated.
Before long I will achieve the critical mass of exposure.
The only real question is the degree of additional infamy you will induce on yourself, the courts and the justice system in the meantime.
Thank you for your recent, unintended, assistance; detailed below.
You have abundantly demonstrated that the so called justice system is corrupt from the top down.
Part A -- Conduct of Justices of the Supreme Court and Gary Ryan, manager court security.
Prior to 10th January 2014 my internet content host, Mr. Chris Baker, received several blank emails from Mr. Gary Ryan, General Manager Court Security. These blank emails led to telephone conversations between Chris Baker and Ryan.
During these conversations Chris Baker learned to the effect that Ryan was seeking that Chris Baker close down this website.
In response; by email dated 10th January 2014 Chris Baker sent an email to Ryan which said;
"If you are having an issue with a site I am hosting you will need to outline what you find offensive or is breaking the law,............" (my emphasis).
In reply, by email dated 13th January 2014, Mr. Gary Ryan, General Manager Court Security wrote to my internet content host, Mr. Chris Baker and said; (note:- my emphasis and paragraphs)
"Chris...........I am writing to you on behalf of a number of Supreme Court Justices who are subject to the writings on a website "Courts on trial" authored by a Mr. Glenn Thompson.......
Mr. Thompson is currently engaged in a personal attack on Justices, Solicitors and anyone else involved in a number of court cases ranging from 1999 in the Victorian Supreme Court. ... ... .....
in relation to the website and the potential contempt of court charges..........
I would seek your support in the removal of the Google links and the website from your IT service."
Now the first thing to note is that this bloke, Gary Ryan, is the underling responsible for the security x-ray machines and shutting the windows of the various courts and on the representations of Ryan I have the incredible spectre of supposedly Honourable, Learned Judges of the Supreme Court of Victoria consulting with and engaging Ryan to represent and act for them and express legal opinions on the serious and complex issues involved and to seek to shut down this website.
In the premise that Ryan's assertion that he wrote on behalf of a number of Justices is true it appears to me that the more probable scenario is that the less than Honourable Justices, mentioned in my website, or some of them, conspired or cooperated with Ryan to have him use his position and title and assertion of potential contempt of court charges in what was on the face of it a joint email, from the unnamed justices and Ryan, to wrongly intimidate Chris Baker into closing down my website.
The Justices principally mentioned in this website are Justices Osborn, Garde, Buchanan, Redlich, Beach, Mandie and Neave. (I do not know which of these engaged Ryan to act for them.)
Ryan, on behalf of the supposedly Honourable Justices, did not outline or define anything at all which was either offensive or illegal with the result that Chris Baker acted honourably and courageously and refused to close down my website unless ordered by a court or ACMA.
In reply to the email of the unnamed Justices and Ryan and in telephone conversation Chris Baker advised Ryan to the effect; "They are judges, they can get a court order and I will not close down the website until I receive an order from the court or from ACMA" (Chris Baker has given me his permission to quote him in this regard.).
Notwitstanding his courageous stand Chris Baker was succesfully intimidated and was too scared to provided me with the evidence of these things until after the further outrageous and reprehensible things set out below had been done to him.
Gary Ryan did not contact me at all.
Part B, conduct of Robert Clark and Stephen Lee & the Government Solicitors Office.
Under instruction from the Attorney General, Robert Clark, by letter dated 1st July 2014, the Victorian Government Solicitors Office and in particular Mr. Stephen Lee overtly, and apparently deliberately and carefully misrepresented fact and law for the express purpose of wrongfully intimidating my internet content host (web host) and having him close down this website.
First and foremost the letter contained the subject line:;
This subject line "Attorney-General v Thompson" overtly represented to my Internet Content Host that there was a legal dispute or proceeding on foot between the Attorney General and myself and that the letter to my Internet content Host was legitimately sent in respect to that current dispute.
This was the first fraudulent representation because the fact known to Clark and Lee was that neither the Attorney General or Lee or the Government Solicitors Office had ever contacted me at all let alone in relation to the subject matter contained in the letter.
The fact known to Clark and Lee was that there was no such dispute or proceeding and that Clark and Lee had very carefully and purposefully avoided communicating with me because they were thoroughly aware that the various allegations and imputations set our on my website were founded on extensive immutable and unequivocal facts also set out on my website.
Clark and Lee's letter then went on to bald-faced assert that the content of this website is defamatory of Justices Osborn and Garde and bald-faced asserted that the content of this website is in contempt of Court.
The letter did not provide any particulars in support of these bald-faced assertions.
The letter requested that this website be taken down until such time as material that is defamatory or in contempt of court is removed.
Then under the bold heading "Liability of Internet platform providers" Clark and Lee said;
This paragraph by Clark and Lee was intended to deceitfully and wrongly intimidate and it contains and depends upon numerous overt misrepresentations as to fact and law which I willl particularise shortly.
This letter by Clark and Lee did have the desired effect and as intended by Clark and Lee. It did intimidate my internet content host so that he was concerned for his business and livelihood of his family and he informed me that he must take down my site and that he would advise me when about to so that I could concurrently migrate my website to an .internet content host situated outside of Australia.
As discussed above my internet content host was Chris Baker trading as "Your IT Connection". Chris is very hardworking small businessman situated at Bathurst in New South Wales. He leases or is otherwise entitled to exclusive use of of web server hardware and disk space which is owned and operated by a firm known as Dedicated Servers and who are situated at Milton Queensland.
Chris Baker then, in turn, subleases/sublets exclusive disk space on that server to Webmasters such as myself
Over the ensuing few weeks I inquired several times as to when Chris intended to carry out the takedown however because of the demands on him attending to clients he was having difficulty finding adequate time.
For the reasons set out below I was thoroughly aware that Clark and Lee had misled Chris Baker but having regard to Chris' understandable concern for his business and family and the complexity of the issues involved I did not attempt to dissuade him from taking my website down.
In the meantime, by letter dated 14th July 2014 I wrote to Clark and Lee and in essential detail I pointed out the self evident fact that I was the publisher with editorial control of my website and that my internet content host did not have editorial control and could not possibly be expected to have knowledge of the content or legal implications of the content of my website.
In my letter I also requested Clark and Lee to particularise any matter fact or thing set out on my website which was in factual error and I undertook to alter/amend/remove any such matter fact or thing and I undertook to alter/amend/remove any conclusion or imputation not reasonably based on the matters facts and things set out on my website.
Clark and Lee and the Victorian Government Solicitors Office ignored my letter and did not reply at all let alone particularise anything which might give rise to or support their bald-faced, unsupported assertions and they thereby chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity to mitigate or entirely remove the unspecified material supposedly giving rise to their bald-faced assertions.
Then, obviously because the source of embarrassment to them and their corrupt little friends in the court had not disappeared fast enough, Clark and Lee decided on even further dishonest intimidation.
In continued full knowledge of their misrepresentations as to facts and law which I will shortly discuss and in full knowledge that they had chosen not to reply to me and not particularise their bald-faced assertions and in full knowledge that they had chosen not to avail themselves of my undertaking to alter/amend/remove errors of fact and unsupported imputations Clark and Lee wrote to Dedicated Servers by letter dated 9th September 2014 and verbatim repeated their letter to Chris Baker.
Again their letter contained the deceitful subject line;
So not only did Clark and Lee continue with the deceiful representation that their letter was pursuant to a current dispute or legal proceeding between the Attorney General and myself they did so in the face of the fact that they had failed and refused to communicate with me in respect of the matters set out in their letter and had failed and refused to particularise their bald-faced assertions and avail themselves of the opportunity to have errors of fact and/or baseless imputations edited or removed..
In addition my letter to them graphically and unequivocally set out evidence, known to them, that Major General, Justice Greg Garde had in 1988 conspired with others to deceive the then Administrative Appeals tribunal and that Justice Robert Osborn had fabricated his Reasons for Judgment to deny and conceal the conduct of Garde. (see Clark and Lee's letter to Chris Baker and my response here.)
By incredible coincidence, the fraud described in my letter to Clark and Lee and which fraud involved a conspiracy between a corrupt Timeshare Company and the predecessors to Macedon Ranges Shire Council and Coliban Water to force the sale of my land to that timeshare company is bearing fruit at this exact moment.
Associates of the timeshare company did acquire my land as a direct consequence of the corrupt conduct of Garde and his co-conspirators and the successor timeshare company is offering that land for sale at this exact time and at an extremely handsome profit thanks to Garde. (Sale Advertisement Here) (more on this fraud in the near future).
By writing to Dedicated Servers in such a manner and circumstance and in knowledge of abundant evidence of a portion of the corruption alleged by me Clark and Lee intended to deceitfully and perhaps maliciously intimidate Dedicated Servers with the foreseeable probability that their overt misrepresentations as to fact and law could or would place the entire business and livelihood of Chris Baker and his family at risk.
In other words, for the purpose of protecting his grubby corrupt friends, Osborn and Garde, the Attorney General of the state of Victoria, Mr. Robert Clark and his lackey, were prepared to and did place the livelihood and well being of a young, hard working family, in jeopardy
Clark and Lee's letter to Dedicated servers did have the intended and foreseeable effect and Peter Blunt for Dedicated Servers wrote the following email to Chris Baker on 16th September 2014. (my emphasis)
We have received the attached letter from the Victorian Government Solicitor regarding a website that you host on a dedicated server that we provide you.
Whilst we are usually reluctant to do so, in this case we believe that it is appropriate to remove the website. Can you please immediately respond to the Victorian Government Solicitor directly and provide us with a copy of your response. We would prefer that you handle this matter directly as the only option we have is to suspend your entire server."
Faced with the fact that Chris Baker's entire business and the welfare of his young family was at risk I cooperated with Chris and my website was migrated to an overseas internet content host within a week.
PDF copy of Dedicated Server emails here
My website was available at all times during that migration process. Their efforts were for nought.
(As a personal comment; in view of the foregoing and matters set out below I find it difficult to imagine more reprehensible and ugly conduct than that of this Attorney General and his lackey. In my view neither of them are fit for public office. These worms were prepared to and did endanger Chris Baker's business and young family's welfare with their conduct and misrepresentations and they did so for corrupt and dishonest purpose, namely to protect corrupt friends.)
Part C, the abundant and overt misrepresentations as to fact and law by Robert Clark, Stephen Lee and the Government Solicitors Office.
The web consists of four separate, distinct and discrete classes of persons, entities or things, these four classes are defined in BROADCASTING SERVICES ACT 1992 - SCHEDULE 5 and are;
- Internet Service Providers.
- Internet Content Host.
- Internet Content.
- Internet Carriage Service.
In practice an internet content author leases/rents or is otherwise entitled to exclusive use of disk space leased/rented from an Internet Content Host who connects to an Internet Carriage Service via or through an Internet Service Provider.
An internet content author is commonly known as a Webmaster and internet content cannot exist otherwise than by being created by a Webmaster or by a software/algorithm controlled by the Webmaster.
A Webmaster may install bulletin board or usenet software or other software which permits third parties to write or submit material to be displayed by that software but in no case does that third party, many of whom are anonymous, become the Webmaster who is responsible for the Internet Content which is stored on the disk space which is exclusively leased/rented to the Webmaster by the Internet Content Host.
As in my case, a Webmaster may also write simple webpages which he may then store on his exclusive and private disk space and he may then choose to make those pages available on the web as Internet Content or he may choose to keep them private and unavailable in which case even though stored on disk space exclusively leased from an Internet Content Host they do not constitute Internet Content.
As discussed below, the criminal and civil liability of an Internet Content Host and an Internet Service Provider is defined at section 91 of BROADCASTING SERVICES ACT 1992 - SCHEDULE 5 which also provides that a law of a State or Territory, or a rule of common law or equity, has no effect to the extent to which it overrides or extends the defined liability.
A Webmaster is not provided limited liability for the effect of Internet Content of his website or of the effect of software which executes on or from his website.
Under the bold heading "Liability of internet platform providers" Clark and Lee referred to two recent court cases, namely Tamiz v Google and Trkulja v Google, and said;
In this paragraph Clark and Lee sought to and did represent;
that the Tamiz and Trkulja judgments referred to each related to the liability of a "platform provider"; and;
that each of Chris Baker and Dedicated Servers were "platform providers" within the meaning of each of those judgments; and;
that these judgments, Tamiz and Trkulja established case law applicable to the liability of "platform providers".
that a "platform provider" was liable upon being notified of the existence of offending material.
that their unparticularised, bald-faced, assertion as to the existence of "offending material" constituted notification of the presence of that material and sufficient notice to invoke liability within the meaning of Tamiz and Trkulja and that Chris Baker and Dedicated Servers were responsible to take down my website until such time as the unspecified and unparticularised "offending material" had been removed.
At the time of making the first, second and third of these representations Clark and Lee must have been aware that they were false and untrue in that they were aware;
In the case of Tamiz, at paragraph 4 of the Reasons of Mr Justice Eady it is said; (my emphasis)
"Google Inc provides a range of Internet services including via Blogger.com (also based in and managed from the USA). This is described as a "platform" which allows any Internet user, in any part of the world, to create an independent blog free of charge."
At appeal in Tamiz, At paragraphs 1 and 24 and elsewhere of his Reasons in Tamiz v Google, Lord Justice Richards, also described Blogger.com as a "platform." The fact however is that it is the software which is peculiar to and resident on Blogger.com which provides the function or platform described.
In the case of Tamiz Judgement was made against Google in its capacity of Webmaster of Blogger.com and owner/operator of the blog creating software or platform which is peculiar to Blogger.com and which creates the Internet Content of or resident on Google's website Blogger.com.
In the case of Trkulja the nub of the proceeding is found at paragraph 20 of the Reasons of Justice Beach and is that google's search engine software created and displayed the offending and defamatory material "which was a page not published by any person other than Google Inc. It was a page of Google Inc’s creation".
In the case of Trkulja Judgment was made against Google in its capacity of Webmaster of google.com and/or google.com.au and because Google's search engine software created the defamatory material.
In the case of Trkulja there was no "platform" analogous to Blogger.com involved. People cannot interact with Google's search engine.
That each of Chris Baker and Dedicated Servers are Internet Content Hosts as defined in the BROADCASTING SERVICES ACT 1992 - SCHEDULE 5 and cannot be construed to be a platform provider as described in Tamiz and represented by Clark and Lee and cannot be construed to be a Webmaster acting in the capacity of Google in Tamiz and in Trkulja.
That the provisions of s.91 of the BROADCASTING SERVICES ACT 1992 - SCHEDULE 5 and which defines and limits the civil and criminal liability of Internet Content Hosts are not modified at all by either Tamiz or Trkulja.
That my function as proud and admitted Webmaster of this website and responsible for the Internet Content of this website is identical to the function of Google in its capacity of Webmaster of Blogger.com and google.com and/or google.com.au and that the precedent cases, Tamiz and Trkulja, apply to me, not to my Internet Content Host.
That Tamiz and Trkulja established case law applicable to me as Webmaster of this website and not to either Chris Baker or Dedicated Servers or any other Internet Content Host.
Clark and Lee made their misrepresentations to Dedicated Servers after I had specifically notified them that I was the Webmaster responsible for the Internet Content of this website and that the Internet Content Host was not responsible for that content and from the facts and the law known to them Clark and Lee were well aware of the truth of my notification to them.
At the time of making their fourth and fifth representation Clark and Lee were well aware that that they were false and untrue and intended to dishonestly deceive and intimidate each of Chris Baker and Dedicated Servers for the purpose of censoring the web.
The provisions of s.91 of the BROADCASTING SERVICES ACT 1992 - SCHEDULE 5 are clear and unequivocal. State and Territory laws are of no effect where that law
directly or indirectly subjects an Internet Content Host to liability where he is not AWARE of the nature of the content hosted by him.
directly or indirectly requires an Internet Content Host to monitor or make inquiry about or keep record of internet content hosted by him.
The legislation, quite properly, provides no such protection to Webmasters.
Clark and Lee were well aware that the legislation mandated that liability does not accrued to an Internet Content Host where he is not AWARE of the nature of offending material.
Clark and Lee were also well aware that nothing at a State or Territory level can require an Internet Content Host to make inquiry about the content hosted by him.
One cannot be AWARE of anything let alone the nature of it without having made inquiry about that thing and its nature sufficient to provide personal understanding sufficient to provide personal AWARENESS of that thing and its nature.
Clark and Lee were well aware that their unparticularised bald-faced assertion as to the existence of unspecified "offending material" did not and could not convey AWARENESS at all of the "Offending Material" and particularly not of its nature.
Clark and Lee were also well aware that particularised or not, bald-faced or not, their assertion merely made the Internet Content Host aware of their assertion and the Internet Content Host could not become aware of the truth of that assertion or acquire the required AWARENESS of the nature of the material without making the inquiry which the legislation mandated that he is not required to make.
Clark and Lee were also very well aware that the material on my website concerns matters of very complex and extensive legal issues and that on the face of it each and every allegation and imputation set out on the website is supported by hard evidence and that it is not reasonably possible for a third party layperson to become AWARE of the nature of the legal implications and the truth or otherwise of Clark and Lee's unparticularised bald-faced assertions.
Clark and Lee were also well aware that a layperson reading the material on the website and viewing the video available below and entitled "Justice Greg Garde & Jim Delany SC Fraudsters Conspirators" could well form the view that Clark and Lee were bald faced liars and that their assertion of defamation was false. Such layperson could also form the view that Garde and his co-conspirators acted exactly as alleged by me and that Clark and Lee were bald faced liars with their allegation of contempt of court.
Clark and Lee were well aware that their assertion that liability accrued to the Internet Content Host on their bald-faced unparticularised purported notification was false.
In the case of each of Tamiz and Trkulja
the offending material was published by software resident on and executed from Google websites and which Google, as Webmaster, was directly responsible for.
Additionally, in both cases Google had been provided with fully particularised detail of the offending material and its nature.
Google, as Webmaster was required to make inquiry and due its simple and apparent nature Google was consequently AWARE of the nature of the specified material and responsible for its publication and had refused to remove it
In the case of Tamiz there was an unsupported allegation that he was a thief and notwithstanding that the allegations was authored by a third party on Blogger.com that allegation was published by Google's software.
in the case of Trkulja there was an unsupported inference that he was a marked criminal and that inference had been created and published by Google's search engine.
In light of these facts, in the case of Tamiz and Trkulja the judgments of Lord Justice Richards and Justice Beach respectively were eminently correct. Notably, in the case of Tamiz the Judge appealed from had deficient understanding of the nature and structure of the web and that is why he made his error.
Further, because of the legislative protection provided to Internet Content Hosts and not to Webmasters and because the two functions bear no relationship or similarity at all Tamiz and Trkulja do not provide precedent which even purports to modify the legislatively defined and limited liability and duties of Internet Content Hosts.
The unnamed Justices and Gary Ryan failed to particularise the "offending material" when asked by Chris Baker and Clark and Lee failed to particularise the "offending material" when asked by me.
At the time of deceiving Chris Baker and Dedicated Servers Clark and making their fabricated assertions as to the liability of the innocent and legislatively protected Internet Content Hosts Clark and Lee were well aware that I was the very proud Webmaster and they were further well aware that I had undertaken to edit/remove material, allegations and imputations particularised by them as wrong or unreasonable.
- On the face of it the representations of the unnamed justices and Ryan and by Clark and Lee were false and fraudulent representations made under colour of office for ulterior purpose.
Clark and Lee may as well have bald-faced asserted that a passage in my website contained a hidden satanic message while failing and refusing to particularise the passage and that their assertion was only true if the unparticularised passage was read backwards while skipping each second character and then asserting that the Internet Content Host had been informed of and was aware of and liable to remove that satanic message.
These disgusting, very little men, Clark and Lee, lied for the purpose of intimidating my Internet Content Hosts while knowing full well that they had failed and refused to particularise their allegations at all let alone to me and while knowing full well that I was well AWARE of the nature of my content and it was me who was responsible at law to edit and knowing full well that I had offered to edit and amend material particularised by them.
Manifestly their purpose was ulterior and that purpose was to censor the web and dispose of the embarrasment to Clark and his corrupt friends and conceal the things on this website from the people of Victoria.
In my view Clark and Lee are both unfit for public office.
At the time of making their various representations, the unnamed justices, Gary Ryan, Robert Clark and Steven Lee were well aware of the following matters and things and the things set out elsewhere in this website and in the light of those things I say that Justices of the Supreme Court, Gary Ryan, Robert Clark, Attorney General of the democracy of Victoria and Stephen Lee are seeking to conceal the abundant evidence of the corrupt conduct of justices and other court officers and for that purpose they also deny and conceal the evidence of the crimes of the property developer.
By seeking to conceal that abundant evidence of corrupt conduct and thereby protect corrupt judges and court officials I say that the Justices of the Supreme Court, Gary Ryan, Robert Clark and Steven Lee are acting in contempt of the people of Victoria and democracy itself and are themselves acting in a corrupt manner.
Justice Greg Garde and Jim Delany SC Fraudsters Conspirators
Justice Robert Osborn. Fabricated Orders and Authenticated Order Documents.
As detailed elsewhere on this website Justice Robert Osborn was well aware of the corrupt conduct of Garde and his from time to time co-conspirators and he carefully and fraudulently fabricated his Reasons for Judgment for the purpose of denying and concealing that corrupt conduct and then he fraudulently fabricated orders and Authenticated Order documents to conceal his own corrupt conduct.
Fixed with substantive knowledge of the things set out in the above two videos and the conduct of Osborn and a great deal of further evidence of similar conduct, during various hearings in the Court of Appeal;
Justices Buchanan and Redlich said to the effect that there was nothing in my allegations as to the fabricated Authenticated Orders.
Justices Neave and Mandie said that my allegations were unfounded and scandalous allegations made in relation to the Court.
Justices Redlich and Beach said of me; "He makes a number of serious allegations concerning the trial judge and the legal representatives involved in the proceeding" and then they said; "no material has been advanced by written or oral submissions which might on any view support these allegations
Justices Redlich and Beach also said that my allegations "involve a serious misunderstanding of the evidence and its legal implications"
These utterances by Neave & Mandie and by Redlich & Beach are contained in written Reasons for Judgment published by them. The utterances of Buchanan and Redlich were made from the bench and after the particular hearing was closed.
These utterances are extreme utterances to the effect that there is an absolute dearth of evidence as to my allegations and that my allegations arise from my ignorance as to fact and law.
On the face of it these extreme utterances, by these Court of Appeal Justices are bold faced lies which could only be designed and intended to deceive the people of Victoria and protect Osborn and Garde & Delany in the identical sense that Osborn protected Garde and Delany.
From the court documents and my written submissions to them each of these Court of Appeal Justices were well aware of abundant and unequivocal evidence as to the things described above and set out in my videos below and elsewhere in this website and much more.
These utterances by Neave, Mandie, Redlich and Beach were superfluous to relevance to their reasons and on the face of it were made in their written reasons and under colour of office for the purpose of preemptively denying and refuting the facts and material which they were on notice would be exposed on this website. At paragraphs 261 to 263 of my written submissions to Neave and Mandie I said;
Copies of my submissions and exhibits before these justices and their written reasons may be viewed from the Documents page of this website. My submissions and exhibits abundantly and unequivocally described and evinced the things graphically demonstrated in the videos above and below.