Now, first of all a little legislative background or environment. Council’s must strike a rate in relation to every rateable property in their municipal district.
The then legislation said “All land shall be rateable property within the meaning of this Act except:-“ The legislation then goes on to define exceptions such as crown property and land used exclusively for charitable purposes and a few other exceptions. Then at s251(5) it says “Where part of any property which is a single property for rating purposes is used exclusively for charitable purposes that part of the property shall not be rateable”
I set this out because the Act uses the words “land” and “property” interchangeably but it is clear that it is in fact land which is “property” which is rated, i.e. that land which is the “property” of Fred the butcher is rateable and that land which is the “property” of the Salvation Army is not or in other word’s Fred’s land is rateable and the Salvation Army’s land is not and the land in each case is the land which is defined in a certificate of title or a lot defined on a plan of subdivision which is lodged with and recorded by the Registrar of Titles.
In addition s255(5A) of the Act provides that where a person owns two or more properties which are contiguous, i.e. side by side, the Council will rate them as a single rateable property and valued accordingly. Now this means that if Mrs Jones owns a property, lot 1. worth say $100,000 her rate notice will record lot 1 as the rated property and ascribe a rateable value of $100,000 to that property but if Fred owns then next 7 identical lots, namely, lots 2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 then they are rated as a single property and the single rate notice would describe that single property as Lots 2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 and ascribe a rateable value of $700,000 to that rateable property. Fred does not get cheaper rates because of a valuation which pretends that the 7 allotments do not exist. Then if Mrs Jones purchased Fred’s lot 5 she would then get two rate notices, one for each of lot 1 and Lot 7 and Fred would also get two rate notices, one for each group of three contiguous lots on either side of Lot 5 and the values would be aggregated accordingly at $300,000 for each of Fred’s aggregated Rate Notices.
The reasons why I set this out become pertinent and obvious a little later.
So now, onto the crooked rates and the lying lawyers. As detailed in Chapter 8 below Buchanan transferred the Tylden Rd Industrial land to me in 1980 with a Mortgage back to him, at that time he represented and I fully believed that the land had been lawfully subdivided and that the subdivision plans were being processed by the Titles Office so that I was in fact getting/purchasing 6 industrial allotments. Then all those things described in Chapter 8 occurred and in 1983 because of the Council’s and PS&R’s shenanigans I had occasion to go back to my original solicitor, Danny Ginsburgh and he told me that the plans filed by Buchanan were illegal and had been contrived to enable avoidance of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act. At that time I had no cause for concern that this would affect me in any way.
Up to that time I had been paying rates on those allotments and at a value which properly reflect the aggregated value of those six allotments which far exceeded the parent title value of perhaps $5,000. The Rate Notice defined the rates as being payable on the 6 allotments and identified them according to their Titles office ascribed lodged plan numbers and the rates were aggregated on a single Rate Notice as provided by s255(5A) of the Act, as described above.
In addition I was being rated on a property identified as Lot 1 on Lodged plan 124604 and at that time in good faith, I simply paid them all.
Then out of the blue, I received a letter dated 25th June 1984 from PS&R enclosing a letter dated 13th June 1984 from the Titles Office which disclosed that these crooked plans had not been processed at all in relation to the Industrial blocks and that because I was by then the registered owner of the parent title the Titles Office required a fresh application from me in order to process what by then I knew to be plans contrived for criminal purpose. So, my instantaneous resolute position, no thinking required, was that no matter what the personal cost I would not put my name to those crooked plans, I simply would not compromise myself.
So the fact therefore was that the six “properties” defined in those plans never did exist as separate properties or lands and what’s more they never were capable of lawfully existing, and to put it simply (and this becomes important), the six properties being the six discrete parcels of land expressly defined in the six lots set out on those crooked plans and rated by the Council as such never existed and to put it the reverse way the discrete portions of land being the discrete properties defined in those six allotments never existed as portions and were not capable of existing at law.
Then at this same time all of the Council and water Authorities shenanigans described in Chapter 8 below with the water supply to the Woodleigh Heights land and water supply had begun so from 1984 I simply refused to pay rates to that crooked and corrupt little Council.
Then in 1987, as if I did not have enough on my plate already with the fraudulent water supply from the Water Authority at Woodleigh Heights the Council opened up on me with all barrels and each barrel was loaded with further fraud and dishonestly,
On 23rd June 1987 the Council issued a Default summons against me claiming the sum of $3,708 and the summons said that this was due to rates however I soon learned that this was a mistake, the $3,708 was the supposed debt due to overrun of road making costs and in this Book I have extensively detailed the Magistrates Court proceeding, the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court and then the County Court and then eventually on the excessively dishonest conduct before Master Efthim and then of Course “The Honourable” Justice Osborn, but this case is also pertinent here in the sequence of events and the continuing conduct of the Council.
In this case the Council served a Notice of Discovery on me on 17th November 1987 and I served one dated 19th November 1987 on the Council, I complied and provided an affidavit of documents but the Council refused to comply, as I set out above I was not concerned because this was an open and shut case, as I thought, I was not “the owner”, at that time I had not factored in the incredible deceit of this Council and its lawyers. This proceeding went to hearing on 2nd December 1987 and as detailed above and more particularly detailed at Chapter 9 the Council won on the day because of its Perjury and a Barrister prepared to sell himself and compromise the Court system for a bit of moolah.
Anyway obviously filled with the success of its perjury in the Magistrates Court the Council waited a whole two days and then on the 4th December 1987 the Council issued another summons against me, this time for $4,426,36 and again the summons said that the amount was due for Rates but on this occasion it really was for Rates. So I collected all my rate notices together and found an amazing fact, the Council had been rating me for the six nonexistent industrial allotments and at the same time it had also been rating me for a property identified as being Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 124604 which was two typos away from the parent title identifier of Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 134684 and a quick title search disclosed that this Lot 1 on plan 124604 was in fact land situated in the Parish of Dumbalk, County of Buln Buln, hundreds of kilometres from Kyneton and as sure as night follows day the Council was not rating me on that land so while I was confident that they were in fact rating me for the parent title but miss-describing it and also for the six crooked lots which were correctly described I could not demonstrate that this Lot 1 of Plan 124604 was in fact the Parent title so I decided to play the hardball line that I did not own any of the properties purportedly rated so I basically told the Council it could jump in that lake, I was not going to pay a cent.
So the Council in its infinite grace and goodwill by letter dated 5th February 1988 knocked the $1437 which was due on the parent title which was miss-described as Lot 1 Plan 124604 from the claim leaving only the amount due in relation to the correctly described crooked nonexistent allotments and I definitely was not going to pay that because the rated properties/land did not exist..
By Notice Dated 5th February 1988 I required the Council to provide Discovery of Documents and on that same day I wrote to the Bendigo Magistrates Court and requested transfer of proceedings to Kyneton Magistrates Court. The Council again refused to comply with discovery but on this occasion I was not going to tolerate this so by letter dated 19th February 1988 I told that Council that unless it complied with discovery I would seek orders of the Court to force compliance, the Council continued to refuse to comply with discovery and then on 1st June 1988 I served the Council with a Request for Further and Better Particulars of its claim, the Council continued to refuse to comply with discovery and a date for hearing had been set for 14th July 1988 so on 8th July 1988 my solicitor swore an affidavit in support of an application for a chamber summons to force discovery and because of all these shenanigans the hearing which was set down for 14th July was adjourned sine die (to a date to be fixed) and the on 1st September the Court ordered the Council to comply with discovery with an order for costs against the Council,
Then on 28th September a further amazing little twist, the Council sent a letter which said it was only proceeding against me in relation to properties owned by me and it specified the six correctly described nonexistent properties as being those properties and it reduced its claim to $1492.39. In other words the Council reduced the claim by the amount due in respect to the mis-described parent title; Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 124604.
Then on 8th November 1988 the Council produced an affidavit of documents which set out each of the correctly described crooked plans as being relevant documents.
The Council refused to comply with the request for further and better particulars and then the Council abandoned the proceeding, unfortunately I cannot find any evidence but I think that the Council paid my solicitors costs, I certainly did not.
And this was a simple little claim for Rates excepting that once again I knew well the Council was yet again acting both dishonestly and fraudulently!
I then continued to refuse to pay rates to this crooked little Council.
Then on 31st December 1989 the Council had a revaluation of each rateable property in the Shire and it ascribed an aggregate value of $90,000 to the correctly described nonexistent lots/land/properties which was far and away in excess of the value of the undivided parent property. (see Rate Notices)
Then in late 1990 the Council thought it would have another shot at claiming these fraudulent rates and after a few “scary” demands from a debt collector and a Final Notice dated 10th December 1990 the Council eventually plucked up enough courage for a further try at this dishonest claim and issued a summons dated 17th July 1991 out of the Bendigo Magistrates Court claiming $3385.65 supposedly due to rates but as the Council and I both knew it was a fraudulent claim for rates purportedly levied on nonexistent properties/land/lots.
So, like before, I requested that the proceeding be transferred to the Kyneton Court and a hearing date was set down for hearing at Kyneton on 15th November 1991.
Then a week before the hearing I received a letter from the Council’s solicitors saying that the Council did not intend to proceed with the rate claim and that the Council would have the hearing adjourned to a date to be fixed, well this presented an interesting situation, the previous proceeding had also been similarly adjourned so now there was to be two unfinished proceedings, both relating, at least in part, to the exact same supposed rates. The Council then withdrew this most recent proceeding and paid my costs of $1,600 in 1991 dollars.
So by this time we have the Council refusing discovery, failing and refusing to provide further and better particulars, and two Court cases which the Council was, well, shall we say, reticent to proceed with a simple little claims for rates.
Then at this time, December 1991, in a directly related thing, the Council indulged in some, well, internal not quite right, paper shuffling, shenanigans which I did not discover until writing this book in 2013 and I will explain this a little later.
Then silence from the Council until 27th June 2000, during this period the 1995 Woodleigh Heights proceeding occurred.
On 27th June 2000 John R. Buman & Co, scaremongering, bottom dwelling, debt collectors of Bendigo Victoria, issued a “Complaint” out of the Bendigo Magistrates Court claiming $13,943.14 plus costs. This claim included the supposed unpaid rates all the way back to 1984 when I first refused to pay and which had been the subject of the two previous proceedings abandoned by the Council.
On this occasion however, the Council and its accommodating lawyers had a little plan, yep you guessed it! Deceive the Court with yet more lies and deceit.
While preparing a defence to this proceeding I discovered the true “causes of action” which led eventually to the 2005 Supreme Court proceeding and then Master Efthim and the crooked Reasons and Judgment of Osborn as described above.
A prehearing conference for this new rate claim was set down for 4th October 2000, I flew down from Orange to Bendigo on that morning rather expecting to bowl this claim out in two seconds but I was astonished by what occurred. The conference was before the Clerk of the Court, John R. Buman himself was present as was Ms Lisa Kennedy, Rates Officer for the Council.
John R. Buman and I sat alongside each other at a desk opposite the Clerk of the Court, Ms Kennedy sat off to Buman’s side, Buman started off by the bald-faced false assertion that the rates due had all been levied on the parent title, i.e. Lot 1 of on plan of subdivision 134684 and he flashed a recent rate Notice in order to provide verisimilitude to this outright falsehood, now unfortunately for Mr. John R. Buman he had had a bundle of neatly folded documents under his arm and the outer document was an extract from the Council’s rate register and even though it was the blank back of this document which was visible the pattern of the material printed on the front could be perceived and I recognised it as being an extract from the Council’s rate register so I patiently waited while he dug his own hole with his outright bald-faced overt misrepresentations before the Clerk.
I then told the Clerk of Courts that Buman was misleading him and that Buman himself was in possession of the very document which demonstrated the falsity of his assertions and I requested than Buman produce the document which he was holding. Buman, redfaced, produced the document and I then pointed out that the Council’s rate register in Buman’s and Ms Kennedy’s possession explicitly and unequivocally set out that the proportion of the claim which preceded about 1992 had in fact been levied on the nonexistent land/property and Buman’s assertion’s, on the face of it, were false and he and Ms Kennedy knew it.
Ms Lisa Kennedy Burst out crying and that was then end of that; I flew home having this incorrigibly corrupt Council’s and its abundance of dishonest lawyers deceit confirmed once again. I daresay Buman provided Ms Kennedy with a strong coffee or a stiff whisky before sending her back to her flexible and malleable rate records at Kyneton.
Shortly after this conduct of the matter was assumed by the masters of deceit, Maddocks, who’s partners, Ian Lonie and Ms. Michelle Elizabeth Dixon, are repeatedly referred to above and below, Lonie in relation to his misrepresentation to the Minister and to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Dixon in relation to her central and key part in the scheme to deceive the Court of Master Efthim and subsequently Osborn and then the Court of Appeal.
I then started preparing for the 2005 Supreme Court proceeding which then intervened until 2009 as detailed above.
Immediately after “winning” the 2005 Supreme Court proceeding in the fraudulent circumstances described above the Council again jumped in for another bite at the elusive rates cherry; on behalf of the Council Maddocks issued an Amended Complaint on 11th March 2009, this time for $25,161.07 which included interest accrued on the rates levied on the correctly described nonexistent properties.
The Amended Complaint alleged that the monies were due for rates, interest and other charges levied pursuant to the Local Government Act 1989 against property owned and/or occupied by the Defendant. Well the simple fact is that the land/properties being the crooked lots never existed and could not ever lawfully exist, they were not capable of being owned, occupied, purchased, sold, leased or rated, they simply did not and never did exist and the Council was demonstrably aware of these facts and Maddocks by this time were also demonstrably aware of this fact, a substantial proportion of the 2005 proceeding was predicated on the fact that these six properties never ever existed and Maddocks are a very professional organisation, their left hand is fully aware of what the right hand is doing and this rate claim was sitting in abeyance while Maddocks directed and took integral part in the corrupt scheme to pervert the course of justice in the 2005 proceeding before Master Efthim and Osborn and then the continuing deceit in the Court of Appeal as described above.
My Defence was twofold, firstly that I had a substantial counterclaim against the Council and that counterclaim was still valid as the Judgments in the 2005 proceeding had been obtained as a consequence of the fraud of the lawyers including those from Maddocks and also the dishonesty of the Supreme Court itself in the fabricated Judgment of Osborn. Secondly because the rates claimed included rates which had been purportedly levied on the nonexistent land/properties and prior to 1993 the rates claimed had not been levied on the parent title/land/allotment at all.
The reply of the Council and Maddocks to my defence was that the judgments in the Supreme Court had been properly obtained and that the rate had in fact at all times been levied on the parent allotment and that the specific references prior to 1993 to the crooked lots in the rate notices and the Council’s rate records were a misdescription of the parent title/land/property/allotment and that all along the property/land which had been rated was in fact the land/property described in the parent title, namely lot 1 on plan of subdivision 134684 being the land/property defined in certificate of title Volume 9408 Folio 064 and not the nonexistent land/properties expressly described in the rate notices and the Council rate records and this, as I have become accustomed to, was further fraud by the Council and its lawyers.
(It has been three days since I wrote the last paragraph, during these past three days I have been checking everything looking for the best way to demonstrate the fraud of the Council and the falsity of the evidence and submissions it and its bunch of lawyers gave to the compliant magistrate and I found a further little gem in a document which I have read a thousand times and which was reluctantly discovered by the Council during the 1988 Count Court proceeding; so lawyers of the ilk of Michelle Elizabeth Dixon and Osborn will no doubt assert that they Council openly disclosed its further perjury, the thing that I found was a typo in the Notice of Disposition which PS&R sent to the Council when I purchased the industrial parent title, in that document PS&R, instead of correctly describing the property as Lot 1 on plan of subdivision 134684 PS&R had made a typo and typed a “2” instead of a “3” and erroneously described the parent title as Lot 1 on Plan 124684, the Council then made a further typo and erroneously recorded and miss-described it in its rate records as Lot 1 on Plan 124604, with what follows I can now demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt what I could not demonstrate a few paragraphs ago let alone 25 years ago when the Council first tried to dishonestly claim these purported rates, namely that the Council was in fact concurrently rating me on both the parent title and the crooked nonexistent lots and then the rest is as follows.
In the foregoing I have described what occurred from my vantage point, now I will describe what occurred from the Council’s vantage point, i.e what the Council did and what the Council knew.
In late 1979, for $65,000 Buchanan purchased a property on Trentham Road Kyneton, this road is also known as Tylden Rd.
Then on 20th February 1980 the Council sealed a plan dividing that land into two lots, and these lots became known as Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 134684 and Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 134684 situated at Trentham Rd Kyneton. Lot 1, the industrial portion was 1.7 hectares and Lot 2 was 22.7 hectares in area so the broad acre value of lot 1 was less than $5,000
On the same day, 20th February 1980 the Council considered a single plan to divide Lot 1 into 6 industrial allotments and a further single plan to divide Lot 2 into 18 Residential allotments. Now as we know from the substantial foregoing material the Council did not further process the 18 lot residential plan after 20th February 1980 and nor did it process the 6 lot industrial plan after that date. Buchanan had illegally sold two of the residential allotments and he filed with and the Council accepted the contrived series of residential plans which Buchanan had contrived to avoid his mistaken view of s9 of the Sale of Land Act and he also filed a similar series of crooked little plans in relation to the Industrial land.
Then on 2nd September 1980 the crooked lawyers, PS&R filed these crooked plans with the Titles Office.
Then in October 1980 I purchased Lot 1 of Plan of subdivision 134684 for $45,000, this price or value was nine times the broad acre value paid by Buchanan for that Lot and that increased value was because it was represented to me that it had been subdivided into six separate industrial allotments.
PS&R then filed a Notice of Disposition with the Council advising the Council of the sale of lot 1 to me and the amount paid however this Notice of Disposition from PS&R contained a typo, it identified the land/property as being Lot 1 on plan of subdivision 124684, i.e. the “3” was substituted with a “2”.
The Council’s good little rates officers then did their duty and opened a rate record recording my interest except that they introduced a further typo, they recorded the land/property as Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 124604, i.e. the Council substituted the 8 with a “0” (zero) and the die was cast for me to demonstrate the fraud and I say perjury of the Council and its Lawyers 29 years later. The Council property number for the miss-described parent title was 3317002195.
Then at some point in time the Council was advised by the Titles Office of the assigned Lodged Plan Numbers of the crooked Industrial plans which the Council intended to seal into existence and thought it had sealed into existence and the Council then dutifully recorded me as owner of each of the crooked allotments and as each of these was derived from or a child allotment of the property/land being Lodged Plan 134684 the Council did not amend or cancel the rate record for the erroneously recorded parent allotment which it had miss-recorded as Lot 1 on Plan 124604 so from that point the Council was rating both the correctly described crooked nonexistent lots and the incorrectly recorded miss-described parent property.
As it was required to do by s255(5A) of the Act the Council rated the six contiguous, industrial allotments as a single rateable property but also as it was required to do it ascribed the aggregate value of those six separate properties/lands to the rateable property and rated them accordingly and the 1984 aggregate valuation of the six allotments as set out on the rate notice was $36,000. The Council property number for these six aggregated allotments was 3304001105. (see Rate Notices)
At this time the Council manifestly regarded each of the six separate industrial allotments as a separate properties from one another and capable of being owned occupied and sold as separate properties and separate from the undivided parent property and the aggregated or collectivised rate notices correctly described each of the six allotments but truncated the description on the printed notices.
Concurrently, the Council valued the miss-described undivided parent title at less than half the value of the aggregate value of the correctly described six non-existent allotments and the 1984 valuation of the miss-described parent allotment as set out on the rate notice for the parent property was $16,000 (see Rate Notices)
In other words the Council, in the belief that the (nonexistent) lots existed, quite correctly, valued the aggregate value of the correctly described six crooked, albeit nonexistent, allotments at a greater aggregated value than the miss-described undivided parent allotment.
These disparate valuations are strike one against the perjury committed some 25 years after that valuation. The inescapable evidence is that the Council was in fact rating the correctly described six nonexistent allotments and aggregating their values and rates in its property number 3304001105.
Then the Council issued the 1987 rate claim detailed above and that rate claim was a demand for the rates for both the miss-described parent title and the correctly described six nonexistent allotments.
After issuing the summons the Council realised that it did not have a hope in hell of succeeding with both claims so by letter dated 5th February 1988 the Council knocked the $1437 which was due on the miss-described parent allotment Lot 1 Plan 124604 from the claim leaving only the amount due in relation to the correctly described crooked nonexistent allotments and I definitely was not going to pay that.
So strike two against the perjury committed 21 years later, the Council overtly ceased rating and claiming the rates due on the miss-described parent title and overtly kept on foot the aggregated rates for the correctly described six crooked allotments. Had the Council in fact considered that it was or should have been properly rating the parent title it was a simple matter of correcting the two typos on that property record and cancelling the rate record for the correctly six crooked allotments but it did not, it deliberately and carefully continued to aggregate the value and rates of the correctly described six nonexistent properties.
Then after failing and refusing to comply with discovery until I obtained a Court Order forcing discovery the Council provided a letter which asserted that the (nonexist) six allotments were the properties owned by me and which were rated and subject to the claim and then the Council produced an Affidavit of Documents which discovered the crooked plans as relevant documents, those plans of course had the correct descriptions on them and which correlated with the correct descriptions on the Rate Notices. Strike three against the perjury 21 years later; if the rated property was the miss-described parent title the correctly described crooked plans would not constitute discoverable documents.
Then after failing and refusing to provide further and better particulars the Council abandoned the claim. There is only one logical reason for the Council to abandon a simple rate claim, it knew damn well the claim was crooked but had not yet figured out a method or perhaps not yet located a crooked lawyer to figure out a method to fraudulently claim these illegal rates on nonexistent land/properties.
Then on 31st December 1989 the Council had a revaluation of each rateable property in the Shire and it ascribed an aggregate value of $90,000 to the correctly described, but nonetheless nonexistent, lots/land/properties. (see Rate Notices)
Then in late 1990 the Council thought it would have another shot at claiming these fraudulent rates and after a few “scary” demands from a debt collector and a Final Notice dated 10th December 1990 they eventually plucked up enough courage for a further dishonest claim and issued a summons dated 17th July 1991 out of the Bendigo Magistrates Court claiming $3385.65 supposedly due to rates but as the Council and I both knew it was a fraudulent claim for rates purportedly levied on the correctly described nonexistent properties/land/lots.
So, like before, I requested that the proceeding be transferred to the Kyneton Court and a hearing date was set down for hearing at Kyneton on 15th November 1991.
Then a week before the hearing, by letter dated 8th November 1991 the Council’s solicitors advised me “that at this stage the Shire does not intend to proceed with this matter.” The Council then withdrew this simple little claim for council rates and paid my costs of $1,600
So, why did the Council not proceed? Well surprise, surprise, it had finally realised that it would never succeed with that little claim so it was time for a little more overt fraud, deceit and skulduggery. New Rate Notices were due to be issued a few days after the Council’s solicitor’s letter of 8th November 1991.
So what did this clever little Council do? Well it cancelled the rate records of the correctly described six crooked allotments and opened a new rate record in respect of the parent title, correctly described this time, and then it fraudulently transferred the rates which had purportedly been levied on the much higher valued and rated correctly described six nonexistent lands/allotments/properties to the new rate record for the now correctly described parent title and fraudulently recorded those purported rates on the non-existent properties as arrears on the parent property and additionally for fraudulent continuity it fraudulently ascribed the higher aggregate value of the correctly described six nonexistent lands/properties/allotments to the undivided parent allotment when it knew full well that the undivided parent allotment was far less valuable than the value ascribed to the six nonexistent allotments and it knew full well that because that new rate record did not exist at the time of the 1989 rate revaluations no value had been ascribed to the undivided parent property at the time of the 1989 revaluations and it further knew that no rate had been struck at all in relation to that new rate record or struck at all in relation to that parent property in the preceding few years.
Now this clever but dishonest little Council knew well it would look damn stupid, let alone dishonest, if it cancelled a court case claiming rates on the six nonexistent allotments and then a few days later issued new rate notices which not only do not include a notice for the crooked rates but do include a Notice for an entirely different property, namely the parent property with the arrears and valuation related to the nonexistent properties fraudulently transferred to this new property record. So what does a crooked Council do? Simple just don’t send the Rate Notice, Burn it instead. The Council did not send me a 1991/1992 Rate Notice; it went straight into the corruption rubbish bin
So now this clever little Council had a further problem, the valuation it had was not commensurate with an undivided parent title. The 1989 valuation was commensurate with the aggregate valuation of the six crooked allotments which the Council wished to fraudulently represent as never having existed in its rate records.
The Rate Book records discovered by the Council show that the valuation fraudulently ascribed to the parent title remained so ascribed until and including 1997 but then there is a gap in the Council’s discovered documents until a rate notice dated 26th September 2000 when the valuation suddenly declines to $40,500 which is less than half the aggregated 1998 valuation fraudulently ascribed to the parent title then on the 2003 Rate Notice the valuation further declines to $35,000 which is less than the 1984 valuation ascribed to the aggregate value of the six crooked lots, then in 2004 the valuation jumped to $67,000, i.e. doubled in two years but still less than the 1989 aggregated valuation of the nonexistent properties and then in 2006 it jumped even further to $159,000 which is better than 200% supposed rateable value capital gain in two years and from there to $214,000 in 2008. This damn crooked Council was still grappling with trying to resolve its own fraud and deceit when it fraudulently transferred the arrears and valuation from the nonexistent properties fourteen years earlier. (see Rate Notices exhibited by Council CEO Peter Johnson).
The 2000 valuation of $40,500 however is consistent with increasing property prices over the period 1984 until 2000 and a commensurate increasing valuation over the 1984 valuation of the miss-described parent title of $16,000
So strike four is the valuations which are totally inconsistent with reality for the parent property, the overwhelming documentary and circumstantial evidence says that the Council did in fact aggregate the value and rate the correctly described six nonexistent lands/properties during the period about 1980 until 1992 when it then fraudulently transferred the purported arrears and the purported valuation of the nonexistent land/property to the newly created parent title rate record which had no arrears at all and had not been valued in 1989 and then the Council continued to rate the parent title at the fraudulently transferred inflated valuation until and including at least 1997 and perhaps later..
Ok so now let’s have a look at what the lawyers, Katherine Styles and Barrister Richard A Harris and the Council Rates Officer, Ms Lisa Kennedy and the Council CEO Mr. Peter Johnson told the Magistrate.
The Outline of Submissions presented by Maddocks and read by Richard Harris said;
The plaintiffs issued a complaint on 27th June 2000 against the defendants in respect of outstanding Rates, Charges and Interest pertaining to a property owned by the Defendants being all that land contained in Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 134684 ………. (“the industrial land”)
The Defendants have been the registered proprietors …. … .since 1981
The Defendants have been issued with Rate Notices in respect of the Industrial land and since 1983 have failed and or refused to pay any of the amounts contained in the said Rate Notices.
This constitutes an overtly false assertion that the Council had at all times rated the parent title and had at all times issued Rate Notices in relation to rates struck on the parent title and that I had failed and refused to pay rates correctly and lawfully levied on that Parent Title.
The lawyers, Ms Katherine Styles and Mr. Richard Harris were not possessed of anything at all giving rise to a belief by them as to these assertions, these assertions were in the face of the documentary evidence available to them. The only possible ground for their assertions as to these things were the bald faced false assertions of the Council which flew in the face of the documentary evidence.
Each of these representations is false, in that each of Maddocks, Ms Katherine Styles and Mr. Richard A Harris were aware that, on the evidence, during the period prior to 1992 the rates were not levied on and do not purport to be levied on the property defined by them as “the industrial land”, they were instead levied on the correctly described six non-existent allotments specifically defined in the Council’s Rate Book and in the Rate Notices and which are not and do not constitute properties at all much less the parent property described by them as “ the industrial land”.
These representations are further false in that at least the Council’s officers, if not the lawyers, were thoroughly aware or ought to have been aware that, as described above, the Council in fact ceased rating the miss-described parent title and overtly continued to rate the correctly described nonexistent properties at inflated values over and above the miss-described parent title and then in or about 1992 the Council cancelled the rate record for the correctly described nonexistent properties and for fraudulent purpose transferred both the valuation and purported arrears from those non existent properties to the newly created, but now correctly described rate record for the parent title and then it fraudulently rated that parent title at the greatly over valued fraudulently transferred rate valuation.
Maddocks, Ms Styles and Mr Richard A Harris sought to and did provide verisimilitude to their false and misleading submissions by calling upon and intending that the Court rely upon and hold as true the false and misleading evidence of Ms Lisa Kennedy and Mr Peter Johnson.
The evidence of Mr. Peter Johnson was in the form of a document which he and Maddocks and Ms Styles and Mr. Harris represented as being a certificate under the hand of the CEO of the Council and in purported pursuance of s242(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 which provides to the effect that a Court must take notice of a certificate certifying any matter relating to the content of any document kept by a Council and in this instance Mr. Peter Johnson certified:-
That the rate notices exhibited by him and including a Rate Notice for the year 1990/1991 were Notice of Valuation, Rates and Charges .. … for the property situate at Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 134684 ….
….. that Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 134684 … ….( previously described as Lot 1 LP 135199, Lot 2 LP 135200, Lots 3-6 LP 135201 Parish of Lauriston.)
Each of the Rate Book extracts for the years 1983 until 2000 also related to Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 134684 … …. (previously described as Lot 1 LP 135199, Lot 2 LP 135200, Lots 3-6 LP 135201 Parish of Lauriston.)
The express representation of Peter Johnson was that the Council had at all times rated the parent property and during the years prior to 1992 the Council had miss-described (previously described) that parent property as being the six nonexistent properties.
For the reasons set out above each of these representations by Peter Johnson were false and misleading with no possible grounds for a belief by his as to that assertion. The facts known to Peter Johnston demonstrated that the property being Lot 1 of Plan of subdivision 134684 had never been described as Lot 1 LP 135199, etc, and in addition Peter Johnson concealed and failed to exhibit those Rate Book records of Council property number 3317002195 being the Lot 1 of Plan of Subdivision 134684 with two typos which would have given the immediate lie to his false assertions tantamount to perjury. The Council plainly has those records and a rate record search under the reasonably apparent criteria “Thompson” will find it. One would think that they had done such a search. In addition the Council would have its records of the earlier aborted rate claims.
There are no possible grounds for a belief by him as to his certificate. Like very single solitary thing done by this corrupt Council and its endless supply of corrupt lawyers his certificate was a fabrication intended to deceive the court.
Peter Johnson is a senior Officer of the Council and is or ought to be schooled in the correct notions of Rateable Properties and being so schooled he would be or ought be fully aware that the descriptions Lot 1 LP135199, Lot 2 LP135200 and Lots 3-6 LP 135201 are not definitions for or miss-descriptions for the discrete property being Lot 1 LP 134684 and he would be aware that on the abundant evidence the Council in fact purported to aggregately value and levy the rates during the period 1983 until 1991 on those six nonexistent lands/properties defined in Lodged Plans 135199-201 to the absolute exclusion of the property being the parent property being lot 1 on plan of subdivision 134684 as described by him..
From the voice recording provided to me; In her sworn evidence Ms Lisa Kennedy, Rates Officer, said;
Mr. Harris. If I call Lisa J Kennedy. [Ms Kennedy then sworn in]
Mr. Harris: Are you familiar with the property which we are concerned with here with respect to the outstanding rates.
Ms Kennedy :I am
Mr. Harris: Can I hand to you this document, it is behind, your honour tab 10 in Court Book 2, do you produce that document on behalf of the plaintiff
Ms Kennedy: Yes
Mr. Harris: I tender that your honour, it is a certificate signed by Peter Johnson the Chief Executive Officer
Mr. Harris: Ms. Kennedy, I wish to ask you a few questions about that……
Mr. Harris: The certificate exhibits notices, rate notices and also extracts. Can you tell me what the position was in respect of the Council retaining rate notices prior to 2000.
Ms Kennedy From 1983 through to 2000 they didn’t keep rate notices as such…….they produced a printed annual rate books as the rates are struck they print a rate book.
His Honour: they printed
Ms Kennedy: a rate book which detailed the rates struck for each and every property within the shire.
Mr. Harris: You heard Mr. Thompson indicate that the rates that have been levied on this particular land ought not to have been levied, as we gather, because the land didn’t exist, what do you say about that?.
Ms Kennedy: The Local Government Act says that we have to rate all land ….. The description used is council sealed a plan of subdivision, it was able to be taken to the Titles Office so the rate office
His Honour Bearing in mind I know nothing about this, you might have lived with the case
Ms Kennedy: When Council sealed the plan of subdivision, the subdivision sealed plans were handed over to the developer or the owner at the time and council’s Rate Office then starts to use that as a new legal description, still the same piece of dirt, for the want of another word. Its still rateable under the Local Government Act. Once it was identified to us by Mr. Thompson that those titles were never issued we reverted back to the original parent title thus the lot one on that plan, new plan of subdivision, 134684. (my emphasis)
His Honour: I am told by Mr. Thompson that the plans of subdivision could not be sold…..(indistinguishable) —
His Honour: So during the interim period, while the Council rated according to the plans of subdivisions the subject then was lot 1 …….errrrr, can you tell me….
Mr. Harris 134684.
His Honour: 134684.
His Honour: for how many years was the land rated under
Ms Kennedy: I think it was 1990, 91 that that we changed to the parent title. so it was from, probably about 7 years.
His Honour: So are you saying it reverted to the parent title in about 1990
Ms. Kennedy: Yes in the first instance we were rating the lots from the new subdivision plan (my emphasis)
His Honour: From when?
Ms Kennedy: From 1983 through to about 1990 I think we changed. I can verify that from these rate books.
His Honour
Ms Kennedy. From 1983 through to 1988, 89 and 1989 90 it was the multiple lots on the plans from the new subdivision that was sealed and from 1991, 92 it was the Lot 1 on plan of subdivision 134684 (my emphasis)
Glenn Thompson: Sir May I? …. There is one point that needs to be clarified. It’s really very simple but quite crucial.
Glenn Thompson: I thought it was sorted out, Miss Kennedy said that they were using the legal description, that is the lots, you know, Lot 1,2, but she said that it was still the same piece of dirt meaning the parent title. what they were in fact rating was the parent title, now just a little bit later she said rating the lots, now I really wish to be clear on what they say they were in fact rating. Was it the same piece of dirt?.
Ms Kennedy: Yes, It was the same piece of dirt. (my emphasis)
Glenn Thompson: So you were in fact rating 9408 064, That’s the Parent Title.
Ms. Kennedy: Yes
Glenn Thompson: Yes: Thank you.. That’s all sir.
Glenn Thompson: They say that they were rating the parent title.
His Honour: My understanding here is that up until 1990 the area covered by the relevant survey was rated as part of a larger area from 1990 ummm from 1983. I’m sorry I will start again.
His Honour: The way I understand it. Up until 1983 the area of land covered by the relevant survey was rated as part of a larger title, from 1983 until 1990 it was rated as part of,… as one lot of a plan of subdivision from 1991 to the present it was rated as ….. indecipherable
Glenn Thompson: To make it absolutely clear. What I understand the Council to be saying is that they were not rating the lots on the plans of subdivision
Glenn Thompson: They were not rating the individual lots.
Ms Kennedy: Individual Lots. No.
Glenn Thompson: [Discussion on aggregation.]
Glenn Thompson: Now what needs to be precisely clear here is that my understanding from Miss Kennedy at the moment and my clear understanding from Peter Johnson is that what they are saying is that they were rating the Parent Title all along and just miss-describing it.
Ms Kennedy: That’s exactly right, yep
Glenn Thompson: Thank you. That says it. They were rating the parent title all along, prior to 1991 they were miss-describing it. OK. Very crucial.
This evidence by Ms Lisa Kennedy is very telling, it appears that Ms Kennedy is not possessed of the necessary notions as to what constitutes properties, e.g. Ms Kennedy said;
When Council sealed the plan of subdivision, the subdivision sealed plans were handed over to the developer or the owner at the time and council’s Rate Office then starts to use that as a new legal description, still the same piece of dirt, for the want of another word (My emphasis)
in the first instance we were rating the lots from the new subdivision plan
Yes, It was the same piece of dirt
So on the one hand Ms Kennedy says;
“When Council sealed the plan of subdivision, the subdivision sealed plans were handed over to the developer or the owner at the time and council’s Rate Office then starts to use that as a new legal description”
“in the first instance we were rating the lots from the new subdivision plan”
“ From 1983 through to 1988, 89 and 1989 90 it was the multiple lots on the plans from the new subdivision that was sealed and from 1991, 92 it was the Lot 1 on plan of subdivision 134684”
“Once it was identified to us by Mr. Thompson that those titles were never issued we reverted back to the original parent title”
In other words she expressly and unequivocally states exactly as asserted by me, that the Council was rating these six allotments until the Council became aware that they did not exist.
Then in the next breath, with mind snapping ignorance, or clever, possibly coached, cunning, she said; ”still the same piece of dirt”
Well, the most obvious fact is that, well obviously it was the same “dirt”, the “dirt” concerned was the same “dirt” as was purchased by John Batman from the Wurundjeri people for a few tomahawks and blankets and prior to that it was the same “dirt” as was trampled by dinosaurs however with the development of western society and the introduction of the Australian developed Torrens Title system most people, excepting it seems, the Council’s rates officers and CEO and these corrupt lawyers, understand that we were not dealing in or discussing “dirt” we were discussing the exceedingly simple modern day notion of properties and when a Council seals a plan of subdivision its specific intention is to create the individual properties being the allotments set out on the plan and that plan is filed with the registrar of titles and the registrar assigns lot plan numbers the allotments set out on those plans are both at law and in fact separate properties independent from and discrete from one another and from the property being the parent title and those new properties are capable of being purchased, sold, owned, occupied and rated according to their lot numbers and lodged plan numbers and while the parent and child properties are of the same “dirt” they are not the same property and while a rate levied on a child allotment is a rate levied the same “dirt” it is manifestly not on the parent property and cannot, except as a consequence of carefully contrived deceit or extreme ignorance, be construed or understood or represented as such.
The indisputable fact is that the Council sealed the plans of subdivision for the specific purpose of creating six new properties separate and distinct from the parent title and capable of being separately sold, purchased, owned and occupied and then rated by the Council as separate properties and then the Council did exactly that, it did in fact rate those separate properties and aggregated them and their aggregate values exactly as it was required to do pursuant to s255(5A) of the Act excepting that in this case, due to the corrupt developer and the corrupt lawyer and the corrupt council, the plans and the purpose of and for them was unlawful and because, no matter what the cost to me I refused to add my signature to that corrupt little cesspool and the allotments defined in them never did become properties capable of being either sold, purchased, owned, occupied or rated.
This clever little Magistrate was so blindly accepting of the Council’s lies that the following exchange took place between the Magistrate and me.
Glenn Thompson: The rate Notices, they say that the rates were struck on lot 1 of Lodged Plan 135199 lot 2 on Lodged Plan Lot 3 on Lodged plan etc, this is not a misdescription, as they assert
His Honour: Where’s the evidence of that
Glenn Thompson: On the Rates Notices themselves.
His Honour: No, where’s the evidence it is not a misdescription.
Glenn Thompson: Well it’s in the fact of the various values. The evidence that they were rating them as separate allotments is in the Rate Notices themselves which describe them as Lots 1, 2, 3 and the value.
The Magistrate was so blinded to the fact that the Council’s Rate Book and the Rates Notices all clearly set out that the properties rated were the nonexistent allotments and that there was in fact no evidence that these descriptions were a misdescription of the parent property, he in fact, in the complete absence of evidence, relied upon the bald absurd assertions of Ms Kennedy and Peter Johnston that the precise descriptions in the Rate Book and Rate Notices were a misdescription of the parent property and then required evidence from me that they were not misdescriptions, this is absurd. The evidence was in his hands, in the rate Notices and in the Rate Books.
The Council had in fact very carefully and very correctly described and recorded in its Rate Book and rated and valued the six new properties which it fully believed it had sealed into existence and then deceitfully misrepresented to him that these careful and accurate descriptions were a misdescription. And he required evidence from me that they read as they read, damn! Talk to the hand! It is impossible to deal with such an absolutely inane mindset. His mind was transfixed by this “same piece of dirt” notion deceitfully and corruptly planted and nurtured by the lawyers and the CEO. While I think it probable that Ms Kennedy was genuinely ignorant the certain fact is that the lawyers and the CEO were possessed of the correct notions and they knew full well they were misleading the court and probably exploiting Ms Kennedy for their corrupt purpose.
In finding that the Rate Books and the Rate Notices were misdescriptions the Magistrate effectively held/altered the Rate Records to read other than they do and such an action was beyond his jurisdiction. Only the Supreme Court has that power and the lawyers knew it.
The Magistrate swallowed the deceit of the Council and its lawyers hook line and sinker and then regurgitated the deceit as fact in his Reasons for Decision where he said;-
…..Miss Kennedy introduced the Certificate of Mr. Peter Johnston the Chief Executive Officer of the Plaintiff … it will be observed however the descriptions in the Plaintiffs rate documents of the rated land change at different points ……in this regard I refer to the distinct restatement of these matters at the foot of both paragraphs one and paragraph two of the certificate of Mr. Johnston ….Importantly Miss Kennedy maintained that in all relevant years that notwithstanding the change or changes in descriptions in the Plaintiffs documents the actual land that was rated was the same throughout (my emphasis and Yep and the same land/dirt as the dinosaurs trampled but definitely not the same property in modern notions)
The Magistrate, Mr. Bernard Fitzgerald accepted the mind snapping mindless notion that a child allotment is the “same dirt” as the parent property. The Magistrate was not possessed of the notions to properly adjudicate this matter and the Council and its Lawyer, by their clever and purposeful deception ensured that the Magistrate remained ignorant of or non accepting of the correct notions put by me which quite simply was that each lot is a discrete property and discrete from the property being the parent title and quite clearly, from the Rate Books, the Rate Notices and the varying values that is exactly as the council thought them to be and treated them. I pointed out that it was the “same dirt” as Batman purchased and the dinosaurs trampled but the notion flew over his head.
“Same bit of dirt”, “same land”, are nincompoop notions. The lawyers Katherine Styles and Richard A Harris and the CEO squarely, carefully and purposely misled the court; the lawyers and the CEO are not nincompoops, they played the Magistrate for a fool.
In the premise that Ms Katherine Styles, solicitor, and Mr. Richard A. Harris, Barrister, and Mr. Peter Johnston, CEO, or any one of them, were possessed of the fundamental notion that a child allotments of a subdivided parent property is not and cannot be construed as the same property, “the same dirt”, as the parent property then they carefully and dishonestly conspired with one another to mislead the Court.
On the face of it Harris and Styles knew they could run rings around the Magistrate who’s expertise was speeding fines and petty theft. I make no allegation as against the Magistrate; he like Master Efthim was deliberately and fraudulently duped by experts but unlike Master Efthim the Magistrate genuinely was not possessed of the correct notions to realise he had been duped. Having said that the fact is his decision was in the face of the abundant unequivocal documentation and as I said he required me to prove the Rate Notices said what they said. Mindless!
The Council, once again, defrauded me and my family.
In my view the competent but crooked lawyers abused Ms. Kennedy’s apparent sincere lack of proper understanding to secure apparently expert but manifestly deceptive testimony for their crooked purpose. But why did Ms Kennedy cry at Bendigo when I pointed out the truth which was in her and Council’s solicitor’s possession? It is difficult to believe that this Rates Officer does not understand the difference between “dirt” and “rateable property” but she appeared sincere — — — or well schooled.
The Magistrate refused to allow me to put anything of my Counterclaim because my counterclaim depended upon my assertions as to the fact that Osborn’s Reasons had been fabricated and the Magistrate would not hear anything as to those things. Similarly Daniel Isakow had issued a default summons against me claiming the “costs” of Ian Waller and his puppet, my defence was that they had been retained to act in relation to Osborn’s fabricated Reasons and that Master Efthim had been misled and that they had done nothing and would not even obtusely utter anything, the Court ordered mediation, mediation occurred at the Melbourne Magistrates Court and the Court appointed mediator impressed upon me that the Court would not allow me to put my case, I saw this as true because of the conduct of the Court of Appeal and the Magistrate in the rates case. I threw up my arms and settled with Daniel for $20,000 and I was filled with further resolve to expose the corruption, including those complicit by their deafening silence. Silence is surety for corruption.
This corrupt proceeding occurred in 2009, the Council corruptly sealed the Woodleigh Heights subdivision in 1979 and corruptly sealed the crooked plans giving rise to this fraudulent rate claim were sealed in 1980, the Water Authority entered into the corrupt Water Supply Agreement in 1982.
Forty years of uninterrupted fraud and corruption and silence.