Osborn Dissected – Tylden Rd

At the time of the 1988 proceeding I was thoroughly aware of Buchanan’s criminal intent to avoid section 9 of the Sale of Land but the fact was that these siilly little plans did not facilitate such avoidance and on the facts as fraudulently represented by the Council and Water Authority that the 18 lot plan had been kept on foot and then processed in several parts the allegation referred to by Osborn at his subparagraphs 115(a) and (b) were allegations in respect to Buchanan’s intentions but which could not be demonstrated or proven as against the Council because on the Council’s representatons that each of the silly little plans was a legitimate part of the 18 lot plan then each such plan did show all of the streets and roads pertinent to each such part or plan.

In addition to the extent that there may have been anything unlawful the things set out in Osborn’s subparagraphs 115(a) and (b) were fixed by s569B(10).

Osborns subparagraph 115(c) is simply false, it is his mispresetation of subparagraph 20(a)(iii) of the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim as discussed above.

Osborn then goes on;

On Osborn’s 115(c) such conjecture hardly seems necessary; on the one hand his paragraph 115(c) asserts precisely what his paragraph 116 postulates; I think that Osborn himself was somewhat confused by his own fraudulent convolutions of mind.

On the face of it Osborn is relying on his own flat out lies and in particular his flat out lie at his paragraph 115(c) which is his fraudulent rendition of paragraph 20 of the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim.

On Osborn’s “Factual Background” the “Requirements” and the Notices of Requirement which would have consequently issued would be valid in all respects. On Osborn’s “factual background” at his paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 each of the Notices of Requirement which would have subsequently issued in related to the contrived plans or “in effect stages” as he refers to them would be entirely legal; as “effective stages” of the 18 lot plan and associated resolution they have the benefit and force of the enabling resolution of 20th February 1980 as expressly and unequivocally asserted by Osborn at his paragraph 6..

My personal view is that Osborn has got so caught up in his Gordian knot of fraud and deceit even he does not know what he is saying or trying to say; he’s just fabricating as best he can to achieve his corrupt purpose of upholding the Masters Reasons and Orders and concealing the corrupt conduct of his and the Court’s friends.

A little more verisimilitude for the Master. According to Osborn “Master Efthim highlighted the relevant extracts…”; the question is relevant to what? 

The Master adjudicated on silly little plans, Osborn was adjudicating on corrupt surrogate advocate Osborn’s “different framework”. Osborn went on to transcribe the Master’s transcription from the Book of Pleadings. As we shall see however Osborn’s corrupt little scheme was to have these silly little plans render the “Requirements”/”Notices of Requirement” invalid and thereby be roughly in accord with the Master and the pseudo “cause of action” put forward by his corrupt little friends.

The point Osborn was making or seeking to strongly imply was that he and the Master had concluded the same thing and on Osborn’s rendition that thing was long standing knowledge of what Osborn said at his paragraph 116 “the central fact that valid notices of requirement were not served…”   Fascinating, the Master didn’t even know they were relevant and that their true status had been concealed from the Courts and myself.  Master Efthim adjudicated on my knowledge of the silly little plans which was the entire reason that corrupt advocate Osborn had to adopt his “different framework”

Here Osborn is corruptly and fraudulently providing verisimilitude to the Masters fatally flawed Reasons.

On the face of it I think that Osborn is trying to assert, without actually asserting it, that knowledge of “unlawful plans” and “unlawful sealing” somehow gives rise to unlawful Notices of Requirement and knowledge of them but the problem there is this annoying 569B(10) which fixes everything except the consequence of breach of s.569B(7)(a)(iii) and what he is saying is the ultimate in absurdities in any event.

With regard to 118(a) and (b) YES  — I also understand salmon was about $10,00 a kilo at that time and trout was a little cheaper.  Osborn should have said something of the price of minnows or whether I had eggs for breakfast.

In relation to 118 (b) I refer to Osborn’s paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6, in those circumstances all entirely legitimate. The additional Notices were dated in accord with their enabling resolution.  As pointed out above Osborn’s pargraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 are in exact accord with the Council’s perjurous evidence.

118 (c) YES excepting that Osborn very carefully reduces the “Notice of Requirement” referred to in the paragraph 7 of the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim to “the PURPORTED “requirement” of 20th February 1980 which is very carefully in accord with his flat out misrepresentation of paragraph 20(a)(iii) of the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim

118 (d) Another damn flat out, in your face lie. This man is a fraudster. I refer to the page 9 of the Book of Pleadings and numerous other entries which expressly assert and imply that I believed that the Notice of Requirement referred to in the abovementioned paragraph 7 had been served and that the “Requirement” imposed in respect of the “global” plan extended to each of the “several parts” or “effective stages” and that Buchanan was lawfully bound by that “Requirement” until, as the Book of Pleadings says; the Council “let Buchanan of the hook so to speak” by lifting the “Requirement” when the Council wrongly accepted my guarantees.

In addition, in respect to Osborn’s paragraph 118(d), in the circumstances perjourously asserted by the Council and Water Authority and corruptly asserted be Osborn at his paragraphs 3 to 6 it matters not as to whether or not the Notice of Requirement related to the 18 lot plan was served, the only relevancy is as to whether or not either the Notice of Requirement related to the 18 lot plan AND/OR the several Notices of Requirement served in respect of each of the silly little plans had the benfit of the enabling resolution of 20th February and the several sillly little plans were processed as several parts of the 18 lot plan as asserted by the Council and Water Authority or as “in effect stages” of the global plan as equivalently asserted by Osborn. On the Council and Osborns fraudulent assertions the service or not of the Notice of Requirement related to the 18 lot plan was irrelevant.

The non service of the Notice of Requirement related to the 18 lot plan was merely corroberating evidence of abandonment of the 18 lot plan and associated resolution yet Osborn asserts that the resolution was not abandoned.   

In addition Osborn’s states at his paragraph 118; the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim was drafted subsequent to the Book of Pleadings; despite Osborn’s dishonest assertions paragraph 7 of the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim specifically alleges service of the Notice of Requirement which he falsely asserts that the prior or earlier Book of Pleadings demonstrates my awareness that it was not served.

Notably at his paragraph 118(c) Osborn is explicit, he says “no notice of requirement” — he is not limiting himself to “valid” or “proper” as in his earlier paragraphs.

I think Osborn is presenting a bunch of random pronouncements to look relevant because the ordinary reader would not have a damn clue and then in between these random pronouncements he slots in his lies and deceit at random spots and he relies upon the fact that his little fraud is published under the banner of the Supreme Court.

Osborn is a flat out fraudster. I think it probable that it was he who also fabricated the fraudulent “Authenticated Orders”; all three of them and it was probably Osborn who passed them to Garde or Edward for subsequent corrupt uttering.

The fraudulently fabricated “Authenticated Orders” were fabricated, communicated and uttered for the express purpose of denying or blocking a forum for my assertions and thereby concealing the matters and things which I am now setting out.

Then in apparent culmination we have this classic;

So now we finally get to the real crux of Osborn’s little fraudulent scheme; he rendered the “Requirements” valid at his paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 and then he renders them invalid because of these ludicrous things and fraudulently and corruptly asserts that I knew they were invalidated by these moronically absurd and irrelevant things.

138(a) –   When the 18 lot “global” plan and Notice of Intention was given !!!!!!!!!!!!! ????????????

138(b) –  When, on the Council’s assertion each “part” showed only the roads pertinent to that part and on Osborn’s assertion of fact as to “effective stages” that each plan showed all of the roads pertinent to each such “part” or “effective stage”  !!!!!!!!!!!!!   ???????????

138(c) When on the Council’ assertion as to “parts” and on Osborn’s fact as to “effective stages” the Notices of Requirement” were predated to reflect the date of the legitimately enabling resolution.  !!!!!!!!!!!!!  ?????????

As to Osborn’s paragraph 138(a).  Buchanan filed Notice of Intention in respect of the “global plans of subdivision” on 12th February 1980. The Council did not even consider those plans until 20th February 1980 yet Osborn asserts I was aware that “The Defendants had issued invalid s.569E Notices” when “notice of intention to subdivide had been given ……….   “

As to Osborn’s paragraph 138(b), that is simply a preposterous assertion; I am not sure if he trying to corruptly assert that the fact that some of the plans only showed part of the roads rendered the plans unlawful or unlawfully sealed or somehow rendered the Notices of Requirement served (lawfully n the circumstances described at his paragraphs 3 to 6) were somehow rendered invalid because some of the plans showed only part of the roads but Osborn’s problem there is that even if this preposterous asserton were somehow true the fact is that three of the seven silly little plams show the whole of the road.   

As to Osborn’s paragraph 138(c) the simple fact is that on the perjurous evidence of the Council and on the fraudulent representations of Osborn at his paragraphs 3 to 6 it cannot be said that the backdating to the date of the enabling resoliution was improper. There is one thing and one thing only which can render the backdating improper and render the Notices of Requirement served in respect of the silly little plans fabricated and that one thing is that the 18 lot plan and associated resolution was abandoned and the silly little plans processed discretely from the 18 lot plan and associated resolution but the Council and the Water Authority and now corrupt little Osborn fraudulently each denied and concealed that fact.  

Each of these things asserted by Osborn are simply absurd. They are fraudulent in your face fabrications.

Little wonder Osborn or his corrupt friends fabricated the “fraudulent Authenticated Orders”, if this material had come before an honest Judge of the Court of Appeal ………….   

For his corrupt scheme this grossly dishonest little man  had to deny the true root of the cause of action which was the abandonment of the 18 lot plan and associated resolution of 20th February 1980 because the manifest fact is that the Council had concealed that fact by perjury and by false admissions to the above reproduced paragraph 7 and by the overt restatement of that perjury during the 1988 proceeding so this corrupt little man kept that resolution on foot as a fact and then purports to render the “requirements” invalid by virtue of these silly little plans and thereby provide verisimilitude to the Master’s fatally flawed Reasons and also legitimise the corrupt PSEUDO “cause of action” brought by Delany, Garde and Co.

The Master and Delany, Garde and Co had all asserted that the Council and Water Authority had openly disclosed the new “cause of action” but their assertions were in respect to “unlawful sealing” of “unlawful plans”.

So to accord with that at his paragraphs 127 and 128 Osborn said;

Osborn knew full well that the “actions now complained of” resulted from the Council abandoning the 18 lot plan and associated resolution of 20th February 1980 and that this had been concealed by perjury etc and that this concealment was overtly, explicitly and unequivocally repeated in the “discovered” documents”.

Osborn knew full well that the Council and Water Authority did not “voluntarily disclose” the fact of the Council’s perjury or the fact of their respective false admissions and falsified discovery during the 1988 proceeding.

Had the Council and Water Authority openly disclosed the roots of the true “cause of action” there would be no need for Osborn’s overt corruption or the corruption of his friends whom he was seeking to protect.   

Osborn concealed and denied these things by his fraudulently fabricated paragraphs 3 to 6 and then corruptly and dishonestly says;

Osborn is simply a flat out fraudulent liar.  No such thing was even intimated by me.

Here Osborn specificall says to the effect that I realised that the plans “may have been clipped to conceal the fact that the requirements were made with respect to parts only of the roads ….. “

As I will shortly demonstrate the fact known to Osborn was that my assertion was that the cliipping of the plans concealed the perjury of Graeme Wilson, CEO of the Council when he gave false evidence in the Magistrates Court;

That the Council considered the large plan on 20th February 1980 and resolved to issue and serve on the developer a notice of requirement in relation to the roads shown on the plan and for the provision of water.

That pursuant to the resolution of Council the Council did serve on the developer the Notice of Requirement dated 20th February 1980

That the large plan was processed in seven parts, those parts being sealed by Council on 21st May 1980 with a road-making endorsement placed thereon.

This perjurous evidence by the Council concealed the fact that the large (18 lot) plan had in fact been abandoned and that the contrived series of silly little plans had been processed in lieu of or in substitution for the 18 lot plan and the council had never made a resolution to impose a requirement in respect of any one of those silly little plans.

This fraudulently false assertion at Osborn’s paragraph 129 are fraudulently constructed by him to fit with the corrupt scheme of his fraudulently contrived Reasons.

The scheme of Osborn’s fabricated Reasons was to rely on the identical fraud and perjurous evidence of the Council and Water Authority and conceal and deny the fact that the Notices of Requirement served in respect of the contrived plans had no authorising resolution of the Council and corrupt little Osborn did that at his paragraphs 3 to 6 and then, in the face of s.569B(10), Osborn renders the requirements somehow illegitimate because the plans were somehow ulawful and I refer to his paragraphs 59(b), 115(b) and 138(b) where in the context of “invalid” Requirements Osborn specifically refers to the plans not showing all of the roads.

.Although not expressed by Osborn the fact is that this false assertion by Osborn is derived from paragraph 53 of my affidavit of 18/10/05 and from paragraphs 67  and 69(m) to (ii) of part 1 of my written submission to Osborn or more likely an overt misrepresentation of paragraph 56 of my affidavit to the fraudulent ignore of the said paragraphs of my written submission.

In relevant parts paragraph 53 of my affidavit of 18/10/05 said; (complete affidavit here)

I again began reviewing all of the documents available to me.  I re-examined the contents of the large black folder referred to in paragraph 26 of this affidavit.

Upon examining the documents within the black folder it became apparent that there were two versions of the plans for the industrial allotments of the Tylden Rd subdivision. Namely complete versions and clipped versions. I recognised the clipped versions as being the same as those which had been submitted into evidence by Wilson in the 1987 Magistrates Court proceeding and in the subsequent Supreme Court Appeal……….

I then noticed that the black folder also contained copies of the residential series of the Tylden Road plans of subdivision and that these plans had also been clipped and I recognised these clipped plans to also be identical to those which had been admitted into evidence in the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court Appeal………….

In the Magistrates Court, a bundle of documents was tendered  which contained, inter alia, the following documents:-

A large plan showing all of the residential allotments and the complete road.

The seven plans comprising the Residential series of plans, none of which show all of the allotments and none of which show the complete road and all of which had been clipped in the manner described above.

Council minutes for 20th February 1980 containing at item 8 a minute of resolution that the Council serve Notice of Requirement on the subdivider in relation to the subdivision referred to in items 8(a) and 8(b) of the Engineers Report of 20th February 1980.

Engineers report of 20th February 1980 containing:-

at item 8(a) a reference to a 16 lot plan of subdivision owned by Buchanan.  (note the reference to 16 is a typographical error and should be 18). Now produced and shown to me and marked with the letters “GAT-12” is a copy of the Engineers Report of 20th February 1980..

at item 8(b) a reference to a 6 lot plan of subdivision (industrial) owned by Buchanan.

Copy of a Notice of Requirement dated 20th February 1980 and bearing the plan reference number 79305/G and a statement that the plan referred to was lodged with the Council on 12th February 1980 and a statement that the Notice of Requirement related to the road shown on the plan.

With reference to the bundle of documents and in particular the documents identified above Graeme Wilson gave evidence inter alia, :-

That the Council had approved a planning permit for the Tylden Rd subdivision permitting 18 residential allotments and 6 industrial allotments.

that the large plan and the series of plans were all filed with the Council on 12th February 1980.

That the Council considered the large plan on 20th February 1980 and resolved to issue and serve on the developer a notice of requirement in relation to the roads shown on the plan and for the provision of water.

That pursuant to the resolution of Council the Council did serve on the developer the Notice of Requirement dated 20th February 1980

That the large plan was processed in seven parts, those parts being sealed by Council on 21st May 1980 with a road-making endorsement placed thereon.

Upon further examination and close reading of the documents it became apparent that the Notice of Requirement which had been admitted into evidence in the Magistrates Court and in the Supreme Court Appeal and which was discovered in the County Court proceeding contained the reference number 79305/G which was sequentially similar to the numbers disclosed on the non clipped versions of the Industrial Plans. 

From this I was able to deduce that the Notice of Requirement tendered in evidence in fact related to one of the residential series of plans and not to the large Plan referred to in paragraph 53,c),i),(1) of this affidavit and which large plan showed the whole of the residential allotments and the whole of the road to be constructed.

As a result of perusing the documents in the black folder referred to in paragraph 26 of this affidavit and reviewing the documents tendered in the Magistrates Court and the evidence given by Wilson in that Court I came to a number of conclusions. Those conclusions were:-

As the residential series of plans were filed with the Council on or after the 4th March 1980 the Notice of Requirement given in evidence had been falsely dated 20th February 1980.

The plan of subdivision considered by the Council on 20th February 1980 had been abandoned by both the Council and Buchanan and not further processed. The seven plans comprising the residential series of plans were processed in substitution.

That the Notice of Requirement had in fact been fabricated and that Wilson’s  evidence in the Magistrates Court  could not be correct.

At the time of Wilson giving his evidence the Council was fully aware of  or recklessly indifferent to the existence of the following facts:-

That the large plan in evidence was not a plan of subdivision and was not the plan considered by the Council on 20th February 1980.

That the plans considered by the Council on 20th February 1980 had been abandoned by both the Council and Buchanan and not processed any further since 20th February 1980. The three plans comprising the Industrial series of plans and the seven plans comprising the residential series of plans were unlawfully processed in substitution for the plans considered by the Council on 20th February 1980.

That the Notice of requirement dated 20th February 1980 and given in evidence relates to the plan bearing the identifying number 79305/G and not to the plan considered by the Council on 20th February 1980.

That the plan of subdivision bearing the number 79305/G is in fact only a two lot plan of subdivision, that plan being one of the series of residential and which contains Lot G. and Lot 8. 

That the Industrial series of plans and the Residential series of plans bear the identifying number sequence 79305/B to 79305/K inclusive.

That the plan bearing the identifying number 79305/G showed only a very small portion of the road.

That the plans comprising the Industrial series of plans and the Residential series of plans were lodged with the Council on or after 4th March 1980 and not on 12th February 1980

That the copies of the plans given in evidence and comprising the Industrial series of plans and the Residential series of plans had all been clipped in copying so as to omit the abovementioned identifying numbers as described above.

That the clipped copies of the Residential series of plans prevented the Court and myself from becoming aware of the true fact that the Notice of Requirement did not relate to a plan showing creating 18 residential lots and 6 industrial lots and showing the complete road.

That each of the plans comprising the Industrial series of plans and the Residential series of plans each constitute a separate and distinct subdivision each requiring a separate Planning Permit before being lawfully approved.

That there never was any application for a planning permit nor was any planning permit issued permitting any one of the subdivisions created by each of the plans comprising the Industrial series of plans and the Residential series of plans.

Upon reaching the above conclusions it became apparent to me for the first time:-

that the Council had acted maliciously or recklessly by sealing the residential plans contrary to its lawful obligation to refuse to do so.

that Wilson’s evidence given to the Magistrates Court had the effect of concealing the Council’s true conduct from the Court and myself.

I further concluded that at the time of sealing the series of residential plans the Council was not only fully aware that no services existed but it was also fully aware that there was no lawful means of providing or compelling the provisions of those services.

In the face of Osborn’s corrupt assertions the simple fact known to Osborn is that if the series of plans had not been clipped so as to remove the identifying number 79305/G the Council could not have given the false evidence which it did and which evidence was that the Notice of Requirement was served pursuant to Council’s resolution of 20th February 1980 and in respect of the 18 lot plan considered by the Council on that day.

In addition to the foregoing and to further demonstrate Osborn’s fraudulent rendition of my words paragraphs 69(m) thru 69(ii) of part 1 of my written submission to him, in relevant part said; (full part 1 of submission here)

I then began reviewing all of the documents available to me, during this process I re-examined the contents of the Black Folder. 

Upon examining the Black Folder and observing incomplete and complete copies of the industrial plans in order it occurred to me for the first time that the plans of subdivision which were exhibited in the Magistrates and Supreme Court and discovered in the County Court may not be just incomplete copies which had been copied on a copier which was too small, for the first time it became apparent to me that they may well have been clipped for a purpose and it may have been that omitting or clipping of the identifying number was significant.

With this in mind I then reflected on the Magistrates Court proceeding.

My object was to discover as to whether or not I could advance my thought that the plans may have been clipped for a purpose.

In the Magistrates Court, a bundle of documents was tendered which contained the documents set out in paragraph 53(c)(i) of my first Affidavit and Wilson for the First Defendant gave evidence as set out in paragraph 53(c)(ii) of my first Affidavit.

The s.569E Notice which was in evidence in the Magistrates Court bore the plan reference 79305/G. From the time of the County Court proceeding I was aware that this reference number in fact related to one of the plans in the  series of plans however at the time this meant nothing as the Defendants had discovered a number of single documents as being representative of a number or sequence of similar documents and at the time of the previous Tylden Rd proceeding that was the concept in respect to this particular Notice of Requirement and the fact of a number or series of such notices was consistent with the notion that the single plan had been processed as a series of plans and it followed that the single s.569E Notice which had been issued had also been issued as a series.

At that time it was considered representative of the number of Notices purportedly issued including the Notice which related to the plan of 20th February 1980.  

I then discovered that on examining the complete versions of the plans that the alpha lot number or in other words the lot number in the alphabetic series “A”, “B”, “C” etc corresponded with the alpha portion of the plan reference numbers or in other words the plan bearing the number 79305/G was the plan having the allotment “G” on it.

Upon realising this I was in a position to demonstrate that at the time of giving his evidence Wilson was absolutely aware that the s.569E Notice which he had exhibited in the Magistrates Court in fact related to one of the series of plans and specifically not to the plan which the First Defendant had considered on 20th February 1980 as represented in evidence by Wilson.  The critical point here is not what I knew by the time of the County Court proceeding but is what Wilson and the First Defendant knew at the time of the Magistrates Court proceeding.

The significance of this was that the First Defendant was suing me in the Magistrates Court for overrun of road construction costs. Plan 79305/G does not show all of the road in respect to which I was being sued. Notices of Requirement by their specific terms relate to the road shown on the plan to which it relates. The plan of 20th February however showed the whole of the road so if no s.569E Notice existed in relation to the Plan of 20th February then the First Defendant, having brought a false action against me was left with no option other than to fabricate the documents by clipping the identifying numbers off and lying to the Court about the facts.

It followed therefore that if there existed a s.569E Notice which related to the plan of 20th February 1980 then it would have been exhibited and there would be no need to exhibit the wrong s.569E Notice and no need to exhibit incomplete or poorly copied plans or as I now conceptualised them to be, “clipped” plans.

It followed therefore that there was in fact no s.569E Notice in relation to the plan of 20th February 1980 and that each of the plans in the series of plans had been clipped to conceal this fact.

From this and now with the benefit of the things learned from discovery in the subsequent County Court proceeding and in particular that the series of plans had in fact been filed on 4th March 1980, it became obvious that the plan of 20th February 1980 had in fact been abandoned and the series of plans had been subsequently filed and accepted and processed in unlawful substitution for the plan of 20th February and that the evidence given by Wilson in both the Magistrates Court and Supreme Court was false and was known to be false at the time it was given.

It then followed that the series of s.569E Notices which purported to have been served, including the one with the reference number 79305/G were served without an enabling resolution of the First Defendant and were therefore without authority of law and were in fact fabricated.

Upon coming to these conclusions I had not only the demonstrable intent of Buchanan to avoid s.9 and the fact of his sales in breach of s.9 but I also had compelling evidence that the Defendants had knowingly and deliberately conspired with Buchanan to this effect in relation to Tylden Rd and the specific method was in accord with my new and holistic understanding of the law which was specifically to seal the contrived series of plans in full knowledge that services did not exist and in full knowledge that there was no lawful means to compel construction of those services.

Upon coming to these realisations in August 2000 I was possessed for the first time of the concepts now set out and which had been concealed from me and the Courts. I therefore for the first time had compelling evidence as to the intent and state of mind of the First Defendant at the time and that the state of mind was that it had abandoned the plan of 20th February 1980 and then accepted the filing of and processed the contrived series of plans in substitution and the evidence was that the intent and state of mind of the First Defendant was to aid and abet Buchanan in his clear intent to avoid s.9.

My unequivocal assertions are that the Council gave perjurous evidence and fabricated documents to conceal the fact that the 18 lot plan and associated resolution of 20th February 1980 had been abandoned and the series of silly little plans processed in unlawful substitution and without the benefit of the Council’s resolution of 20th February 1980.

It is impossible to construe Osborn’s fraudulent paragraph 129 from either my affidavit or my written submission

The only possible source of Osborn’s assertions at his paragraph 129 are his deliberate and purposeful fraudulent fabrications to suit the corrupt and fraudulent scheme of his Reasons.

The scheme of Osborn’s fabricated Reasons was to rely on the identical fraud and perjurous evidence of the Council and Water Authority and conceal and deny the fact that the Notices of Requirement served in respect of the contrived plans had no authorising resolution of the Council and corrupt little Osborn did that at his paragraphs 3 to 6 and then, in the face of s.569B(10), Osborn renders the requirements somehow illegitimate because the plans were somehow ulawful and I refer to his paragraphs 59(b), 115(b) and 138(b) where in the context of “invalid” Requirements Osborn specifically refers to the plans not showing all of the roads.

Contrary to Osborn’s assertion, the discovered documents in the black book did not disclose the fact of the Council’s perjury and falsification of documents and which deceit Osborn himself also employs and denies.

I fully describe the discovery of the Council’s perjury at Chapter 11 hereof.

Then at his pagaragraph 130 Osborn states;

Well of course dishonest little Osborn says this, at his paragraphs 5 and 6 Osborn denied and concealed the exact same thing as the Council concealed by its perjury and falsified documents in the Magistrates Court proceeding and subsequent Supreme Court proceeding and the self same thing as the Council and Water Authority concealed by the eight separate false admissions to paragraph 7 of the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim and concealed by their falsified discovery and in particular;

In discovery the Council and Water Authority discovered the identical plans, including the locality plan, and single Notice of Requirement as had been given in evidence in the Magistrates and Supreme Courts.

• At item 13 in their affidavit of documents the Council and Water Authority described the locality plan as:-  “Copy plan of subdivision of part crown portion 129 and 132 Parish of Lauriston, County of Dalhousie sealed the 21st May 1980”

Because of inadequate discovery I obtained orders forcing further discover and after three further Affidavits of Documents, of immediate significance or relevance, in response to my demand for discovery of the Notice of Intention related to the Shire Engineers Report and Council’s minute of 20th February 1980 ;

• At item 1 of their Supplementary Affidavit of Documents the Council and Water Authority discovered;

  • A contour plan of the 18 lot subdivision with the handwritten note “Original Sealed 21st May 1980” written on the top right hand corner.

  • A single Notice of Intention dated 12th February 1980.

  • One only Notice of Intention dated 4th March 1980 and that notice had the handwritten note “Note Plan submitted in 5 sections 30th Schedules all identical to this”.

At item 1 of the sworn Supplementary Affidavit of Documents these documents were described as;

• Copy of notices in or to the effect of the thirtieth schedule of the LGA submitted to Council in respect to crown portion …. ……. and in particular the Notices in or to the effect of the thirtieth schedule relating to the following plans of subdivision:-

  • Plan referred to in item 7(c) Shire of Kyneton’s Engineers Report dated 20th February 1980.

These discoveries together with the express descriptions in the Affidavits of Discovery and together with the handwritten notes made on the documents at the time of and for the purpose of discovery were overt repetitions of and emphasis of the evidence given in the Magistrates Court that the 18 lot plan of subdivision considered by the Council on 20th February 1980 was processed by the Council in several parts excepting that from this forced discovery it was apparent that the contrived plans had in fact been filed with the Council on 4th March 1980 and not on 12th February 1980 as had been asserted by the Council in its sworn evidence before the Magistrate and repeated before Justice Kaye and this fact had remained concealed by initial  discovery but on the then known facts this changed nothing and did not disprove the Council’s assertion that the fact was and the mind of the Council was that these plans were processed as parts of the 18 lot plan and accordingly the Council’s resolution of 20th February 1980 imposed legitimate “Requirements” on each of the contrived plans .

Osborn fraudulently denies and conceals the true root of the true “cause of action” and then fraudulently denies that the Council and Water Authority did not conceal the things which he fraudulently represents to be the “actions now complained of”

Osbon goes on:

Each of these things I have dealt with above.

Conclusion as to “fact”  ??????????

AGREED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ?????  

The corrupt little fraudster sat in his private place and concocted everything in the face of everything. 

I assume corrupt little Osborn means as agreed between self appointed corrupt advocate Osborn and corrupt Judge Osborn. 

This is the line from the Reasons which formed part of the fraudulently fabricated “Authenticated Orders”.

Osborn fabricated his reasons in the seclusion of wherever it is that he secludes himself and in the complete absence of submissions and evidence as to his corruptly fabricated Reasons.  He invented them to suit his purpose which was to ignore deny and conceal the fact that Major General Garde QC and Jim Delany SC and their respective junior barristers and instructing solicitors had conspired with one another in the manner now set out by me in Chapters 2 and 3.

“The Honourable” Justice Robert Osborn is overtly corrupt.

By constructing his fraudulent reasons in this manner he was able to ignore, deny, conceal and bypass the actual fraudulent concealment by the Council and Water Authority and to then appear to base his reasons on “unlawful plans” and thereby roughly accord with the Master and the corrupt submissions of Delany, Garde and Co, not forgetting Middleton.

Osborn is a straight out unadulterated fraudster of the most serious kind. His fraud is tantamount to sedition. It undermines the very fabric of society and democracy.  Osborn is far worse than any “criminal” sent to gaol by the self same court that provides his corrupt authority. His abject corruption far exceeds any common “criminal” he has pompously passed judgment and comment on. Osborn strikes at the very heart of democracy and ordered society. 

One wonders what judgments of this Court can be trusted; until the Government cleans out the corrupt the answer is none.  Any one of them may have been a consequence of the submissions of barristers of the ilk of Delany, Garde and Co and/or Middleton and then adjudicated by Judges of the ilk of Osborn.

These things, including the fraudulently fabricated “Authenticated Orders” were in the face of the Justices of the Court of Appeal and they saw nothing.  I say they averted their eyes.