Tainted High Court of Australia.

This new webpage consists of the transcript of a soon to be published You Tube video which explicitly sets out the systemic and cultural corruption, including judicial corruption, in the justice system of Victoria, Australia. It also sets out the reasons for my opinion that the High Court of Australia is tainted by that Victorian corruption.

 

Previous Home Page of "courtsontrial.com"

Immediately after publishing this new webpage, by email, I advised each of the lawyers and judges and others who are adversely mentioned in this webpage.

A copy of that email is available here.

By registered mail I also advised each of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Justice Geoffrey Nettle and the Attorney General of Australia. A copy of my letter to them is available here.

Transcript of soon to be published, You Tube video entitled  "Tainted High Court of Australia"

Hi, my name is Glenn Alexander Thompson, my contact details are on the web and my website domain-name is on the bottom of the screen.

On the screen now is a photograph of Justice Geoffrey Nettle, he is presently  a judge of the High Court of Australia.


Prior to his appointment to the High Court Justice Geoffrey Nettle was a judge in the Supreme Court of Victoria Australia and the Victorian Court of Appeal.

Also on the screen now are photographs of the Victorian Judges, Major General Justice Greg Garde and Justice Robert Osborn.

As demonstrated in this video, on 1st November 2006, in the Supreme Court of Victoria, under the nose of all Victorian Court of Appeal Judges, including Justice Nettle, and in full view of the five Victorian lawyers pictured at the bottom right of the screen,

the now Major General Justice Greg Garde and Justice Robert Osborn fearlessly conspired with one another,  in open court, to have Osborn corruptly fabricate purported Reasons for Judgement which were flagrantly and crassly contrived to pervert the course of justice and to conceal the serial corrupt conduct of the now Major General Justice Greg Garde and others and to deceive the people of Victoria.

Then on 29th November 2006 Justice Robert Osborn did publish such purposefully fabricated Reasons.

It must be that at the time of conspiring with Garde and at the time of composing and publishing his Reasons Justice Robert Osborn was at least self assured that the five lawyers and all of the Victorian Court of Appeal Judges, including Justice Nettle, would in turn protect him and conceal his crimes  in identical manner as he had concealed Garde’s serial corrupt conduct.

Then in the Victorian Court of Appeal the five other lawyers conspired with one another and with Garde to make flagrantly false submissions which were intended to conceal the fact known to them that Osborn had fabricated his purported Reasons.

Then in knowledge of unequivocal evidence that Osborn’s Reasons were fabricated and that the six lawyers, including Garde, had made false submissions, six randomly allocated Court of Appeal judges, not including Justice Nettle, did make orders and publish Reasons, some of which were known to have the simple effect of concealing the corrupt conduct of Osborn and the six lawyers and some of which expressly denied and concealed that corrupt conduct.

Those Court of Appeal Judges must have been at least self assured that the Victorian Attorneys General would protect them and conceal the entire chain.

Then three consecutive Victorian Attorneys General acted to conceal and deny the entire chain and as detailed in this video Victorian Attorney General Robert Clark conspired with the Victorian Assistant Government Solicitor, Stephen Lee, to maliciously and corruptly misrepresent fact and law to intimidate my webhost in an attempt to censor the web and conceal the entire chain of corrupt conduct.

In addition, as also detailed, at least two Supreme Court judges, probably Garde and Osborn, conspired with the Court Security officer, Garry Ryan,  to have him corruptly intimidate my webhost  and censor the web

From these things I conclude a number of things;

Firstly, that the reputation of the courts and justice system is dependent upon an incestuous and sycophantic culture where otherwise honest and honourable judges and lawyers will not hold corrupt lawyers and judges to account.

Secondly, that the incestuous and sycophantic culture gives rise to a silent and unspoken conspiracy where, in this instance, Osborn and the six lawyers and the six Court of Appeal judges played their respective parts exactly as the sycophantic culture demands of them.   

Thirdly, that under that unspoken conspiracy lawyers and judges sacrifice the democratic rights of citizens to their misguided and self serving perception of the greater good of maintaining the reputation of the courts and the justice system and particularly of themselves.

Fourthly,  that the so called justice system is on a self perpetuated carousel of corruption and concealment.

In my view Justice Nettle is indelibly tainted by the corruption detailed in this video and he has no honourable option other than to resign from the High Court and provide the catalyst to force reformation of the so called justice system of Victoria, and possibly all of Australia, and force the removal from office and the incarceration of at least Justice Robert Osborn and Major General Justice Greg Garde.

I leave my viewers to from their own opinions.

The content and structure and title of this video and my web domain name are calculated to force the Australian so called justice system to act, either by silencing me and further concealing and perpetuating the class of corruption detailed in this video or by reforming the justice system and prosecuting and incarcerating the crass criminal judges and lawyers named in this video including in particular Justice Robert Osborn and Major General Justice Greg Garde.

I am fearful of them seeking to incarcerate me but I am more fearful of the prospect of living with myself without having stood up. 

We shall see.

Immediately prior to publishing this video, by registered letters, I informed the Chief Justice of the High Court and Justice Nettle and the Australian Attorney General of the publication of this video and my website and I included copies of some of the documents which I refer to. I also included a transcript of this video.

For my other viewers a transcript of this video is on my website and all relevant documents may be viewed from the links in the transcript.

For added force this video is an open video letter to Justice Nettle and CC’d to the Chief Justice and the Australian Attorney General.

I will therefore speak as if I am speaking directly to Justice Nettle with the others listening in.

For reasons which will become apparent you will note that I speak with perceptive disdain. I cannot muster or feign respect.  

I will now get straight to the point and the initial evidence.

Justice Nettle, On 29th November 2006 Justice Robert Osborn published purported Reasons for judgment in Supreme Court proceeding number 6321 of 2006.

I was the plaintiff in that proceeding and because that proceeding  addressed corrupt conduct of lawyers during earlier proceedings  I had no option other than to represent myself in that proceeding.

Now, Justice Nettle I refer you to paragraph 18 of Osborn’s purported Reasons. A copy of that paragraph, published under the heading “factual background”, is on the screen now.

  1. Following such purchase a dispute arose as to the withholding of reticulated water supply from the plaintiffs’ land, by the subdivider. Such water was supplied by the Water Board to this subdivision in 1982.

Now, for context, at his paragraph 17 Justice Osborn said that I had purchased certain land at Kyneton Victoria.

Now, Justice Nettle, as you can see, in reverse order, Osborn's paragraph 18 says two critical things.

Firstly that the water was supplied to the subdivision by the Statutory Authority being the Water Board.

Secondly that the subdivider withheld that water from my freehold land.

Now, Justice Nettle, as you can see that paragraph is simply preposterous and any person from any country where the citizens enjoy democratic property rights would know that it was not morally or lawfully possible that a so called subdivider or anyone at all could withhold water from someone else’s freehold land when such water was supplied by statutory authority.

Manifestly Justice Robert Osborn composed and published  that paragraph knowing full well that it could come before the Court of Appeal Judges including yourself.

Osborn knew that you would instantly conclude that his paragraph 18 was preposterous nonsense, repugnant to law, morality and plain common sense.

Osborn also knew that you would look at the primary documents which are on the screen now and you and your fellow judges would see that the cluster subdivision was registered by the Victorian Registrar of Titles on 9th August 1979 and that the so called subdivider was in fact a private timeshare company which did not exist until it was incorporated in March of 1981 and was not and could not have been the subdivider.

Osborn also knew that you would see that the water supply referred to in his paragraph 18 was supplied in purported pursuance of a purported water supply agreement dated 1st January 1982 between the timeshare company and the Water Board.

Osborn also knew that you would see that the purported Water Supply Agreement was not and could not be an agreement to provide water “to this subdivision” but was instead an agreement to provide water exclusively to the timeshare company. 

You would then see that the so called water supply agreement recites that the timeshare company was “owner or occupier” of all of the subdivision whereas it manifestly was not either owner or occupier of my land or the common property. So on the face of it that representation is false and may well be fraudulently false.

Now, Justice Nettle, being an astute judge, you would immediately perceive that by falsely representing that the newly incorporated timeshare company was “the subdivider” Justice Osborn was providing superficial verisimilitude to his otherwise overtly preposterous and false representation that my neighbour being the newly incorporated timeshare company withheld water from my freehold land.

That representation also provided verisimilitude to the manifestly false and probably fraudulent recitals of the water supply agreement.  

So, Justice Nettle, at the time of composing and publishing his purported Reasons Justice Robert Osborn knew well that within two or three minutes you and your fellow Court of Appeal judges would know that his paragraph 18 is a palpable nonsense and is completely and flagrantly false and could not have been composed and published by accident or error.

Osborn knew that you would then have no option other than to conclude the probability that Osborn’s paragraph 18 was purposefully fabricated to deceive the people of Victoria and to conceal the facts and circumstances known to him

So, Justice Nettle, Osborn was manifestly aware that you, as an astute judge, and any other person with a modicum of common sense, could conclude that Osborn's paragraph 18 may have been composed and published for some extremely nefarious purpose such as concealing the corrupt conduct of a friend or crooked lawyer.

Now, Justice Nettle, the important point I am making here is that on the face of it and in the premise that his purported Reasons were crassly fabricated for any ulterior purpose at all let alone for some exceedingly nefarious purpose then Justice Osborn must have been at least self assured that you and your fellow Court of Appeal judges would protect him and conceal his corrupt and criminal conduct from the people of Victoria.

Now, Justice Nettle, notwithstanding that you are reputed to be an astute and apparently above average judge it would take you several hours to discover whether Osborn's Reasons were fabricated for some criminal and nefarious purpose such as protecting corrupt friends so I will assist you and my other viewers in that  regard.

In the proceeding before Osborn, while a mere barrister, the now Major General Justice Greg Garde was barrister for the Water Board mentioned in Osborn's paragraph 18

On the screen now are some extracts from the transcript of proceedings before Osborn

 

In those extracts Osborn and Garde were discussing the Water Supply Agreement between the so called subdivider and the Water Board mentioned in Osborn's paragraph 18.

Now, I'm not going to read out those purported submission, instead, below those extracts, in blue, is a fair summary of pertinent aspects of Garde’s submissions to Osborn.

Those viewers who wish to read those purported submissions may pause the video.

In summary Garde preposterously said;

OK, on the screen again is Osborn's paragraph 18 together with the summary of Garde's submissions and as you can see they are substantially identical and identically false and preposterous.

  1. Following such purchase a dispute arose as to the withholding of reticulated water supply from the plaintiffs’ land, by the subdivider. Such water was supplied by the Water Board to this subdivision in 1982

Osborn's paragraph 18 represents that the subdivider did withhold water from my freehold land and Garde's purported submissions say that at its whim the development company could grant or withhold access to the reticulations system and water supply from other owners of freehold land such as myself.

Now of course the subdivider referred to by Osborn and the development company referred to by Garde were one and the same private timeshare company which both Osborn and Garde knew did not exist when the subdivision was subdivided / developed and manifestly was not either the subdivider or the development company.

Both Osborn and Garde were lying in identical manner and both providing identical but false superficial verisimilitude to their preposterous utterances.

So, Justice Nettle, isn't that incredible, the now Major General Justice Greg Garde made palpably preposterous and  false submissions to Osborn and then knowing they were preposterous and false Osborn substantially repeated them in his paragraph 18 and represented them as being facts.

OK, now Justice Nettle, we'll get to the really serious aspects.

On the screen now is photographs of all of the lawyers who were opposing me in the proceeding before Osborn.

At the time that Garde was making those contrived submissions all six of those lawyers, including Garde of course, knew well that a high crime was in progress and in particular a conspiracy in open court between Garde and Osborn to pervert the course of justice and conceal Garde's serial corrupt conduct.

As I will demonstrate, those submissions by Garde were prearranged between Garde and Osborn.

Those submissions were made for the purpose of providing on the record grounds or basis for Osborn to fabricate purported Reasons contrived to deny and conceal Garde's serial corrupt and criminal conduct.   

So, Justice Nettle, we'll now have a look at Garde's serial corrupt conduct.

Justice Nettle, I now refer you to pages 9 to 12 of part two of my written submissions to Osborn and as you can see in rather more genteel terms I said that the now Major General Justice Greg Garde was a fraudster who in 1988 deceived the then Administrative Appeals Board and as you can see Justice Nettle, I made those allegations with great particularity.

Justice Nettle, I now refer you to Garde's signed written submissions in that 1988 Tribunal hearing and which submission I alleged had deceived the Tribunal in 1988.

Now, as you can see at his paragraph 4.2 Garde represented that the Waterworks Trust is legally obliged to provide water "to the estate" where the words "the estate" are intended to and do have the same meaning as the words "this subdivision" in Osborn's paragraph 18.

Now, Justice Nettle, I refer you to the so called water supply agreement and as you can see and as discussed earlier, Garde's written submission is simply false.  

The fact known to Garde was that to the exclusion of all other property owners that agreement was to supply water exclusively to the timeshare company which did not exist until 1981.

As also discussed earlier that water supply agreement represents that the timeshare company was owner or occupier of the whole of the subdivision.

The timeshare company and the Water Board knew that representation was false and never had been true however it was expected to become true in time because the timeshare company intended to acquire all of the land, including mine.

On those points, at his paragraph 166 Osborn falsely says that the Water Supply Agreement was for the supply of water to the whole of the subdivision and at his paragraph 74 Osborn falsely says that the timeshare company wished to compel me to complete the sale of my land back to it. 

Osborn’s representation that the timeshare company wished to compel me to sell my land back to it falsely  implies that I purchased my land from the timeshare company who as supposed subdivider once owned all of the land and  could have superficially legitimately entered into an agreement for the supply of water to the whole of the subdivision.

Now, Justice Nettle, as you can see from Garde's 1988 submission, by falsely representing that the agreement was for the supply of water “to the estate” his intention at that time was to pervert the course of justice by deceiving the tribunal into a belief that other owners of allotments, including mum and dad potential purchasers of the allotments subject of the Tribunal appeal, were entitled to that water supply.

So, Justice Nettle, we now have a further incredible circumstance, in 1988 Garde fraudulently represented to the Tribunal that the water supply was "to the estate" and in his paragraph 18 and 166 Osborn fraudulently represented that water was supplied to "this subdivision" and to “to the whole of the subdivision”.

So, Justice Nettle, as you can see, Osborn's representation of fact that water was supplied to the subdivision in 1982 is bald faced false and Osborn's Judicial representation of fact has the effect of authoritatively concealing that Garde's 1988 representation was false and contrived to pervert the course of justice.

Now, Justice Nettle, as you can also see, Osborn's representation that the subdivider withheld water from my land is also flagrantly false. To the extent that the agreement was lawful the supply was exclusively to the timeshare company.   

The timeshare company could not supply that water to me and I could not and did not claim entitlement

One cannot withhold that which one cannot supply or that which another has no right or entitlement to.   

Now, Justice Nettle, I will now address “the subdivider" and "Development company" aspect of Osborn's Reasons and Garde’s contrived submissions.

Now, incredibly, as I will discuss later I learned of this aspect from Osborn's fabricated reasons so rather than conceal Garde's corrupt conduct Osborn in fact opened my eyes to the true extent of Garde’s corrupt conduct and which extent was unknown to me prior to Osborn’s calculated fabrications.     

On the screen now is a newspaper report about a conspiracy which was described in the Victorian Parliament.


Two of the three conspirators named in parliament were the timeshare company and the Water Board referred to in Osborn's paragraph 18.  The third conspirator was the then Kyneton Shire Council.

In essence that conspiracy was that Council fraudulently represented that water from the water board was a prerequisite to building permits for my land and the Water Board preposterously represented that pursuant to the water supply agreement the timeshare company owned and operated the water supply and reticulation system within the cluster subdivision and that water supply was not available to my land.

The true root of that fraud and conspiracy was that my land was rural land and the Council concealed that the planning permit for the cluster subdivision approved roof rainwater tanks as the source of domestic water.

The known and obviously intended effect of that fraud and conspiracy was to prevent the lawful sale of my land on the open market and, as stated at Osborn’s paragraph 74, to force the sale of my land to the timeshare company at useless land prices.

Now, in 1988 Garde represented the timeshare company in a planning appeal before the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

At that time the timeshare company opposed  the Water Board and Council however they each needed to conceal the fact of and the facts of the conspiracy described in Parliament so they devised a little scheme.

Now, as we have seen Garde fraudulently represented to the Tribunal that the Water Supply agreement was an agreement to supply water "to the estate".

Now such a representation is simply preposterous where the timeshare company was simply my newly incorporated neighbour who merely owned a few blocks and never did own “the estate”

Now at that time, under instruction from the Council and Water Board, in his written submission, the solicitor Ian Lonie fraudulently represented that the timeshare company had been the subdivider/developer of the subdivision since 1976.

To support that fraudulent representation Ian Lonie's written submission exhibited a fraudulently fabricated schedule of planning permits issued by the Council since and including 1976  and a copy of that schedule is on the screen now and as you can see that schedule does not define or designate the owner/developer at the time which each permit was issued.

Now also on the screen now is a similar schedule of Planning Permits which the Shire Engineer prepared in January 1989 for the private and exclusive information of the Councillors and Water Board Members and as you can see that second schedule defines and specifies the owner/subdivider as being a K.R. & Y.R. Buchanan. So in context the first schedule, exhibited by Lonie, is a palpable and purposeful fraudulent fabrication by the Council and Water Board and intended to deceive the Tribunal and pervert the course of justice.

Now, by authoritatively and fraudulently representing that the timeshare company was the subdivider/developer since 1976 the Council and Water Board and their solicitor provided superficial verisimilitude to Garde's otherwise preposterous representation that the Water Supply Agreement with the in fact recently incorporated timeshare company was an agreement to supply water to "the estate"

Manifestly Garde could not have contemplated that otherwise preposterous fraudulent misrepresentation unless he was pre-assured that Ian Lonie and the Council and Water Board would corruptly provide the necessary superficial verisimilitude.

The Tribunal accepted and relied upon Garde and Lonie’s fraudulent misrepresentation and an extract from the Tribunal’s written Reasons is on the screen now.


In those paragraphs the Tribunal said that the timeshare company was always engaged in Timeshare accommodation and that the timeshare company had subdivided the subdivision in a series of subdivisions beginning in 1976.

Then at page 7 of its Reasons the Tribunal said that the timeshare development was supplied with water pursuant to agreement between the timeshare company and the Water Board.

Unbeknown to the Tribunal each of those reasons or statements by the Tribunal are absolutely false.

Garde and Lonie and their respective clients conspired with one another to successfully pervert the course of justice and exactly as intended by them they concealed the fraud described in parliament by making the facts of that fraud and conspiracy appear at least superficially legitimate.

Justice Nettle, if Garde has not yet destroyed the file you may inspect the originals yourself when you next visit Victoria.

Now, at that time I saw Garde's and Lonie's misrepresentations as two unrelated things and I saw Garde's representation as being simply preposterous and would only be accepted by gross incompetents.

Manifestly a private company, or anyone at all, cannot enter into an agreement for provision of water or any other essential service to an entire subdivision or to anyone else’s freehold land.

After reading Osborn's Reasons a thousand times it suddenly occurred to me that Osborn's representation that the timeshare company was the subdivider provided superficial verisimilitude to his otherwise preposterous representation that the timeshare company could withhold water from my me and my freehold land.

Upon realising that I put two and two together and concluded the 1988 conspiracy between Garde and Lonie and their respective clients to conceal the conspiracy described in Parliament and to pervert the course of justice.

Significantly, the Council and Water Authority could have succeeded in that appeal by simply relying on the fact known to them and their solicitor, that the Water Supply Agreement was not an agreement to supply water "to the estate".

Now, going back to Garde's pre-arranged submissions before Osborn, by referring to the timeshare company as "the development company" Garde was placing on the record that the timeshare company was "the subdivider" so that Osborn could use that fraudulent representation to provide superficial verisimilitude to the fabricated Reasons agreed to between Osborn and Garde.

Now, Mr. Justice Nettle, you were a mere barrister in 1988 and Garde and Lonie pre-arranged their written fraudulent representations not knowing or caring or fearing that I might engage you or any other Victorian barrister to appear for me at that Tribunal hearing.

So, Mr. Justice Nettle, the only source or Ground for Osborn's fraudulent misrepresentation that the timeshare company was "the subdivider" was from the fabricated Submissions of Garde and the only source of that for Garde was that Garde and Lonie used that little tag team trick  to deceive the self same tribunal as the now utterly corrupt Major General Justice Greg Garde is now president of.  (With Garde at the helm there's little hope for justice in that place I would think.)

Now, the circumstances surrounding Garde’s fraudulent submissions to Osborn and Osborn’s parroted fabrications were that Osborn called a short, undefined, adjournment after I handed up my submission which made the allegations against Garde.

During that adjournment Garde disappeared from the courtroom and surrounds, no one else did.

After resumption Garde and Osborn danced a manifestly pre-arranged charade contrived to place agreed to false and fabricated material on the record so that Osborn could then incorporate those fabrications into his pre-arranged fabricated purported Reasons.

That charade extended from page 185 to page 205 of the transcript and every aspect was contrived and in part Osborn personally raised or prompted fabricated aspects.

Everyone in the court knew that Garde's submissions and Osborn's interactions were false and contrived.

Osborn then refused me right of reply and adjourned sine die.

Incredibly Garde is a board member of the Judicial Commission of Victoria which was established to investigate complaints against Victorian Judges.   I would think that a complainant has no chance.   

Ok, so now onto the serious corruption, the corruption described to this point is mere Child’s play on the scale of high crime and judicial corruption. 

Justice Robert Osborn published his fabricated Reasons for Judgment on 29th November 2006.

I was absent from court on that day so Osborn did not make any orders except for adjourning the court until 7th December 2006 for orders.

On 7th December 2006, in full knowledge that Osborn had fabricated his Reasons the six lawyers on the screen now, including Garde, made application that I be ordered to pay them punishing indemnity costs.

In reply and half expecting that corrupt and malicious Osborn may incarcerate me I provided a set of written allegations which in no uncertain manner, but more genteel terms, alleged that Justice Osborn was a fraudster and that Garde and the other lawyers knew it.

I also told Osborn that I would appeal his orders and exceedingly importantly I set out that under the rules of the Court of Appeal, because I was a self represented layperson litigant, Garde and the other lawyers were required to compile a summary of facts.

I then pointed out the self evident truth, known to Osborn and Garde and the other lawyers that that summary of facts would necessarily be at odds with Osborn's fabricated Reasons.

In other words I pointed out the self evident fact that under the Court Rules Garde and the other lawyers would expose Osborn and themselves.

Then in knowledge of these things Osborn made orders dismissing my proceeding and that I pay Garde and the other lawyers punishing indemnity costs.

That was a clear case of Court ordered criminal extortion where Osborn wielded the gun and the six lawyers, including Garde, were henchmen.

I then had 14 days from the date of Osborn's orders to file an appeal.

I filed a Notice of Appeal on the last possible day.

My notice of appeal was not an appeal in the ordinary sense where one appeals because of cute error of law or fact.

My appeal alleged criminal conduct and in particular that Osborn had fabricated his purported Reasons and that Garde and the other lawyers knew it.

Unfortunately, at that time I had not yet read Osborn’s reasons a thousand times and had not realised that the Garde and Osborne’s representation that the timeshare company was the subdivider provided superficial verisimilitude to otherwise preposterous nonsense and that the balance of Osborn’s fabrications flowed from there.

Now, Justice Nettle, I refer you to the full transcript of 29th November 2006 and the orders page of the transcript of 7th December 2006.

Now, Justice Nettle, on the screen now is a letter from Garde's instructing solicitor, Steven Mark Edward and that letter fraudulently represents that my appeal had been filed out of time from the orders made on 29th November 2006.

Now as you can see from the transcripts the representations in that letter are bald faced false. No orders other than adjournment were made on 29th November 2006.

Significantly that letter was authored by Garde’s instructing solicitor, Steven Mark Edward.

Attached to that letter were two purported “Authenticated Order” documents issued and authenticated under the seal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

On the screen now is the first of those purported "Authenticated Order" documents and as you can see Justice Nettle, that purported “Authenticated Order" document fraudulently represents that orders dismissing my proceeding before Osborn were made on 29th November 2006 whereas Osborn and the Court and Garde and Garde's instructing solicitor knew well that no orders apart from adjournment orders were made on that day.

Also included with the letter was a second purported "Authenticated Order" document sealed by the Court and that document fraudulently represented that only costs orders had been made on 7th December 2006.

Now, Justice Nettle, both of those documents were prepared on the same day as one another, namely 12th April 2007.

Now, Justice Nettle, manifestly the fraudulent representations of the first "Authenticated Order" document could not exist or stand without the fraudulent by omission representations of the second and vice versa.

Those fabricated "Authenticated Order" documents could not happen by accident or slip.  They represent overt fraud and corruption under the seal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. 

The purpose of those fabricated "Authenticated Order" documents was to corruptly render my appeal invalid and thereby conceal the corruption set out in this video and a great deal more.

I overcame that crass further fraud but that aspect is presently superfluous. Interested viewers may view my YouTube video entitled "Justice Osborn, Fabricated Orders'. It is available on my website.

So, my other viewers, take a good look, those documents are probably unique in the world.  Deliberate, calculated fraud by the Court itself in conspiracy with at least Garde's instructing solicitor.

A further attempt to knock me out was made when Garde and the other lawyers made application that I be ordered to lodge security for their fees in the appeal.

That application came on before Justices Buchanan and Redlich.

In full knowledge that Osborn had fabricated his Reasons to protect Garde he and the other five lawyers relied on the crass fabrications of Osborn to support their application.

I relied on my allegations and the new fact that the Court itself had fabricated so called "Authenticated Order" documents.

Osborn's crassly fabricated paragraph 18 formed the root or basis for his entire set of crass fabrications and any half baked judge would see that they were contrived and from the papers and from the fabricated "Authenticated Order" documents Justices Buchanan and Redlich were well aware of at least strong prima facie evidence that Judicial corruption was afoot.

Justices Buchanan and Redlich ruled that my ability to pay the fees of Garde and the others was more important than my chances of winning the appeal.     

They ordered that I pay $60,000 dollars into the Court as security for Garde and his co-conspirators fees.

Justices Buchanan and Redlich were well aware that such order would knock most self represented litigants out and in this case conceal the flagrant corruption which they had at least strong prima facie evidence of.

I paid that $60,000 in cash.

Next came a directions hearing before the now Associate Justice Lansdowne.

Garde and his co-conspirators sought orders that I compile an appeal book consisting of in excess of 30,000 pages.  Yep you heard me right, 30,000 pages and which complied with the finicky requirements of the Court of Appeal with every page indexed and alpha numerically referenced at the foot of each page.

In support of their application Garde and his co-conspirators relied on Osborn's Reasons which they knew well had been fabricated to conceal their corrupt conduct.

In reply I sought orders that Garde and his co-conspirators be ordered to compile the summary of facts required under the rules and that the Appeal Book then be limited to relevant documents of perhaps a couple of hundred pages at most.

The now Associate Justice Lansdowne had read the papers and from the papers and from my submissions to her she was well aware that the summary of facts could expose the corruption alleged by me and that the Appeal Book could be limited as submitted by me.

She was also aware of the fact of the fabricated "Authenticated Order" documents.

Incredibly, the now associate Justice Lansdowne said that she was not convinced that Garde and his co-conspirators could agree with me as to the facts.

That was abject nonsense and Associate Justice Lansdowne knew it.   There is nothing contentious about the fact that the subdivision was registered on 9th August 1979 and that the timeshare company was not incorporated until March 1981 and which facts alone are sufficient to completely demolish Osborn’s crassly fabricated Reasons.

Associate Justice Lansdowne ordered that Garde and his co-conspirators not compile the summary of facts and she ordered that I compile an appeal book consisting of more than 30,000 finicky pages.  

Lansdowne and the rest were well aware that not providing the summary of facts was a further step in concealing the corruption.

The now Associate Justice Lansdowne and Garde and his co-conspirators were well aware that the onerous task of preparing a 30,000 page Appeal Book would be well beyond the ability of most self represented appellants and they knew that in default of compiling that 30,000 pages on time my appeal was automatically dismissed.

For those interested a photograph of that 30,000 page appeal book is on the screen now.


At that time it occurred to me that my position was hopeless in a court where Garde and his co-conspirators could flagrantly lie to the Court with absolute and proven impunity so in my continuing naivety I decided to seek an honourable senior barrister who would stand against Garde and match his colour of office.  

When Osborn published his reasons my belief in and lifelong faith in the Australian system were at odds with what my eyes and intellect were forcing me to conclude,

I venture to say that I felt what I expect the Pope would experience if he was suddenly faced with unequivocal evidence that Jesus was a Martian or the devil incarnate.

At that time I consulted a junior barrister Louie Hawas whose photograph is on the screen now and he agreed that on the face of it Osborn had fabricated his purported Reasons.


It was only then that I could set aside my faith and reconcile myself with myself.

After Lansdowne’s incredible orders I engaged a Melbourne solicitor to find me a courageous senior barrister who would be prepared to work with Louie Hawas as his junior and to put my case.

That Melbourne solicitor located Ian Waller QC whose photograph is also on the screen now.   


I met with Ian and Louie on several occasions and it slowly dawned on me that although well aware of it Ian Waller would not refer to let alone address the flagrant corruption and Louie had become nothing but a yes man to Ian Waller.

They refused to act for me and they told me that the Court would find a way to make judgment against me and they recommended that I save my money and abandon my appeal.

At the time of refusing to act Waller and Hawas were well aware that they were refusing to stand against flagrant and overt corruption in the Court and well more corruption than the snippet set out in this video.

Waller and  Hawas rendered a bill for $40,000. I refused to pay. They never intended to mention the corruption let alone appear for me and stand against corruption.  They could have given their Lilly livered  recommendation in 5 minutes and at a cost of $10.00

I decided to embark on a guerrilla campaign to expose the court corruption, I reserved the web domain name “courtsontrial.com” and then filed my Notice of Discontinuance and abandoned my appeal.

Having abandoned my appeal, under the court rules and in ordinary circumstances I was liable for costs until that time.

Not surprisingly Garde's instructing solicitor jumped in early and sought orders that I pay punishing indemnity costs in regard to Garde and associates fees.

That application came on before Justices Neave and Mandie.

Predictably Garde's application relied on Osborn's Reasons which he knew to have been fabricated to protect him and he also relied on allegations by him that I had vilified him, the other lawyers and the court.

In reply I made very substantial submission demonstrating the truth of many of my allegations, to the extent then understood by me  at that time and I submitted that that I ought not be ordered to pay costs at all.

At paragraphs 261 to 263 of my submissions to Neave and Mandie and which paragraphs are  on the screen now I said so long as barrister like Garde can lie with impunity then the court was not the place to seek justice and that I had abandoned my appeal in favour of a guerrilla action to expose the corruption in the courts.

In their Reasons for Judgment justices Neave and Mandie said that my allegations against Osborn and Garde and the rest were assertions only and must be regarded as unfounded and scandalous.

The palpable fact is that Neave and Mandie were bald faced lying to deceive the people of Victoria and to protect Osborn and the rest.

From a simple reading of the papers Justice Neave and Mandie were well aware of abundant unequivocal evidence of the criminal allegations made by me and they were aware of the fabricated “Authenticated Order” documents.   

Justices Neave and Mandie ordered that I pay Garde and his associates punishing indemnity costs.

That was a further case of Court Ordered extortion.

Notwithstanding that I had abandoned my appeal Justices Neave and Mandie were well aware of unequivocal evidence of criminal judicial corruption and they were not entitled to avert their eyes but they did.

Next, the lawyers for the Council, Jim Delany SC and his associates, made application that I pay punishing indemnity costs to them.

That application came on before Justices Redlich and Beach.

Again, they also relied on Osborn’s fabricated Reasons in full knowledge that they were fabricated.

Justices Redlich and Beach did not order that I pay punishing indemnity costs however they did order that I pay costs.

In their written reasons Justice Redlich and Beach said a number of things and a copy of a relevant paragraph is on the screen now and a summary in blue below that.

In summary Justices Redlich and Beach said;

  • That I made a number of serious allegations against Osborn and the lawyers.
  • That I have a serious misunderstanding of the evidence and its legal implication.
  • No, written or oral submissions have been provided which might support my allegations.

They were also bald faced lying to deceive the people of Victoria and to protect Osborn and Garde and the rest.

They had read the papers and they were aware of the fabricated “Authenticated Order” documents and in my submissions to them, with particulars I a set out a number of instances of overt corrupt conduct including a portion of Garde’s fabricated submissions as described earlier in this video

Justices Redlich and Beach made a particularly annoying fabrication and again the part of their reasons is on the screen.

 

In that part they said that I had abandoned my appeal shortly after getting legal advice and that a self represented litigant such as myself would not necessarily know that their case was hopeless.

In other words they said that Ian Waller and Louie Hawas advised me my case with without merit.

At the time of making that representation the true facts were set out in my submission to them and I said that I recognised that I had no hope when barristers deceive the court with impunity and that I  had attempted to engage barristers with the courage and integrity to put the facts to the Court.

I then said that I was unsuccessful in finding such barrister and abandoned the appeal.

Justices Redlich and Beach were lying to protect Osborn and Garde and the rest.

In 2009 I published the first version of my website detailing some of the corruption in the court and I drew it to the attention of the then Chief Justice, Members of Parliament and all 1800 odd Barristers by email and I repeated that process a number of times.

In 2013, shortly after the Victorian excuse for a corruption commission opened I referred the matter to that corruption commission and the Commissioner,  Stephen O'Brien QC, who is also a barrister refused to investigate by saying that he was prevented from investigating by section 63 of the Act. 

s.63 of the IBAC legislation, quite properly, mandates that the IBAC must not investigate a complaint which DIRECTLY RELATES to the MERITS of a decision or order or judgment of a judicial officer complained about.

Now, an allegation that Reasons for Judgment are fraudulently fabricated is not an allegation as to the merits, like fraudulent artworks the merits can be unimpeachable but the question of whether or not something is fraudulent is not a question as to the merits.

I say the commissioner, who is one of the mob, wrongly refused to investigate.

I then published a number of You Tube videos and tried to publicise as much as possible to no effect.

Then an extraordinary thing occurred, on the screen now is Mr. Garry Ryan the Court security officer and below that is an email from Garry Ryan to my internet content host.  Viewers may pause the video if they wish to read, I will just provide a summary.

In that email the Court doorman says that he is acting on behalf of a number of Supreme Court judges.

That number of judges almost certainly included Osborn and Garde but may well have included Justice Nettle or the Chief Justice herself.

Ryan then implies that my webhost could be charged with contempt of court if he did not remove my website from the web.

Now, this is simply crass nonsense which demonstrates that the Victorian Justice system is nothing more than a bunch of bandits who resort to strongarm tactics to achieve their object of concealing corruption.

You can be assured that the Justices of the Supreme Court of America or the Law Lords of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom would not engage the court doorman to act on their behalf.

My web host was intimidated however he had the courage to tell Ryan that the Judges could get a court order and he would not remove my website without a court Order.

On the screen now is photographs of the 2014 Victorian Attorney General, Robert Clark and the Victorian Government Assistant Solicitor,  Stephen Lee.


On the screen now is a letter from those two to my webhost.

The topic of that letter fraudulently represented that there was a court proceeding on foot entitled "Attorney General v Thompson"  and in that letter they fraudulent represented that my internet content host was a so called internet platform provider and was liable or responsible for the material on my website and they also implied that my webhost could be charged with contempt of court if he did not remove my website from the web.

That letter from those two was a little too much corrupt intimidation for my webhost so I simply move my website to an American webhost.

At the time of writing that letter Clark and Lee were well aware that I was the owner and author of my website but they did not write to me.

They were also well aware that my webhost was not an "internet platform provider" such as Facebook and Twitter where ordinary users may publish material on their platform.

The fact known to them was that my webhost in fact an "Internet Content Host" as defined in the legislation. (A full discussion on Clark and Lee's corrupt conduct may be viewed here)

I wrote to them and offered to remove or amend anything at all which was not factually correct or not reasonably based on fact.

They never did reply.

Their letter to my webhost was malicious and probably a corrupt misuse of power and office.

Now to the reason for my new domain name and the present video.

The fact of the extreme corruption in the Victorian Justice System is clear.

I tried every method and referral that I could think of to have the corruption exposed and dealt with.

A tried and true method of corrupt corporation, courts and governments concealing corruption is to simply ignore complainants/informants.

The Victorian Justice system uses that tried and true method.

A short while ago it occurred to me that  by being appointed to the High Court Justice Nettle had become the Achilles heel of the corrupt Victorian so called justice system.

It occurred to me that High Court and the Attorney General of Australia could not be seen to stand by and ignore a website and  You Tube video which alleged that the High Court of Australia was tainted as now alleged by me in this video and on my website.

We shall see.

Check my website from time to time for updates. I expect that in the not too distant future the media may report the removal  and incarceration of at least Osborn and Garde and a truly reformed justice system will mean a lot less pain for a lot of people.

The Victorian Government may need to engage a squadron of Somali  judges to lift the standards and review past cases.

Thank you for watching.

********************

The foregoing represents about 10% of the high crime and corruption in the justice system known to me. I will publish much more in the not too distant future.

********************

Contact Glenn Thompson

********************