Osborn Appoints Himself Surrogate Corrupt Advocate.
Osborn, grievously corruptly appointed himself corrupt surrogate advocate for the Council and Water Authority.
In 2005 I issued proceedings against Macedon Ranges Shire Council and Coliban Water.
Thereafter Garde and Delany and their co-conspirators fraudulently fabricated grounds for strike out which depended upon overt misrepresentations as to fact and law and overt misrepresentatons as to the cause of action in my proceeding.
The hearing of Garde and Delany’s applications came on before Master Efthim.
The proceeding before Master Efthim was the hearing of strike out applications by Garde and Delany premised on the overtly fraudulent misrepresentations by Garde and Delany as to the cause of action of my proceeding.
Incredibly Garde and Delany succeeded before the Master for two reasons;
The Master did not realise that Garde and Delany’s case was a fabrication which was impossible at law.
- My Barrister, John Middleton QC, with incredible and unimagineable neglect did not put the fact that Garde and Delany’s entire case was a fabrication and additionally Middleton ignored my written instructions to him and did not explain the true cause of action but instead fabricated a nonsense defence of his own making.
Middleton refused my request that he appear at my appeal and explain his overt negligence.
The hearing before Osborn was an appeal from the Orders of Master Efthim.
The hearing was by way of a rehearing “de novo” or anew. Garde, Delay and Co led off and repeated the misrepresentations, lies and deception which they had put to the Master.
In reply I exposed the fact of those misrepresentations and put the truth and specifically alleged that Garde, Delay and Co had misled the Master and did not and could not hold a belief as to their submissions.
Osborn had no option other than to find for me and to set aside the Masters Orders however implicit in such a finding would be that my allegations that Garde, Delay and Co had misled the Master would stand and that was a most serious issue.
When faced with the truth known to him that Garde, Delany and Co had fabricated a case and misled the Master and my further allegation that Garde was a serial offender who had also misled the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1988 and that Osborn could not find for Garde and Delany on their fabricated case Osborn chose a different path; he chose to ignore deny and conceal the facts of and the fact of the conduct before the Master and to very carefully fabricate purported Reasons for Judgment for the following corrupt purposes and effects;
Ignoring the fabricated case of Delany and Garde.
Fraudulently giving the appearance of finding in accord with and thereby upholding the fatally flawed Reasons of Master Efthim
Ignoring denying and concealing the fact that Garde and Delany conspired with one another to mislead Master Efthim and thereby pervert the course of justice and obtain a wrongful decision of the Supreme Court.
Ignoring denying and concealing that Garde and Delany successfully misled Master Efthim and had perverted the course of justice and obtained a wrongful judgment based squarely on their misrepresentations and to the specific exclusion of the matters comprising the true cause of action.
Denying and concealing the corrupt conduct of the Council and Water Authority,
- Introducing his own fabrications designed and intended to conceal and deny Garde’s 1988 conduct and the fact that Garde was a serial offender.
Himself corruptly perverting the course of justice by fraudulently fabricating Reasons for Judgment for each of the above purposes.
Manifestly Osborn could not do these things on the fraudulent garbage put to the Master and then repeated before him by Delany, Garde and Co
For his corrupt purpose Osborn needed to fraudulently fabricate/provide a method/reason to facilitate his corrupt intent to personally fabricate Reasons which ignore deny and conceal the conduct of Garde and Delany and which also provide verisimilitude to the Masters fatally flawed Reasons and Orders and to strike out the true “cause of action” which was not even suspected by the Master let alone known to and adjudicated on by him.
In other words Osborn needed to appoint himself corrupt advocate for the Council and Water Authority so that he could invent his frabricated Reasons against the true cause of action in my proceeding.
For this purpose Osborn wrote his incredible, logic and reason defying paragraphs 87 to 89 where he says;
87. In the present case the firstnamed plaintiff appeared on the appeal in person on the express basis that the claim was not correctly articulated by senior and junior counsel who appeared for the plaintiffs before the Master. Accordingly I am invited by the plaintiffs to adopt a different framework of analysis than that considered and decided upon by the Master.
88. Conversely the defendants contend that I should give weight to the Master’s decision and in particular the findings of fact made by him after extended argument and examination of the evidence over several days of hearing.
89. In the event, I have sought to deal with the matter on the basis now put to me by the firstnamed plaintiff. This basis was elaborated in very detailed written submissions of some 117 pages. The central propositions were further elaborated in argument. I propose to deal with the matter on the basis that the case so elaborated is the case to be considered rather than that previously argued by the legal representatives that the plaintiffs now disavow. That is not to say, however, that I have not found the Master’s reasons to be of assistance.
At his paragraph 87 Osborn deceitfully made the apparently benign assertion that I appeared personally “on the express basis that the claim was not correctly articulated” by my barrister Middleton.
Well the fact is it was Delany, Garde and Co who had fraudulently fabricated a case against their fraudulent misrepresentation as to my cause of action and with extreme neglect Middleton did not explain my true cause of action.
Osborn then preposterously asserts; “Accordingly I am invited by the plaintiffs to adopt a different framework of analysis than that considered and decided upon by the Master”
Osborn was in fact making the absurd assertion that I had invited him to “adopt a different” CLAIM (against me) “than that considered and decided by the Master”
In other words and more to the point; Osborn was asserting that I had invited him to “adopt a different” CLAIM against me than the corrupt claim put by his corrupt friends and which I had put a total defence to.
The fact known to Osborn was that I had put a total defence to Delany and Garde’s fabrications and he had no legitimate option other than to uphold my appeal and dismiss the corrupt application of the Council and Water Authority which had been corruptly brought and put by his corrupt friends and to award indemnity costs to me including all incidental costs and to be paid by the corrupt lawyers.
Osborn had a problem with the only legitimate option and that problem was that my allegations as against his corrupt friends would stand.
For the purpose of appointing himself corrupt surrogate advocate for the Council and Water Authority Osborn had manufactured this absurd, in your face preposterous, fabricated proposition at his paragraphs 87 to 89..
The purpose of paragraph 87 was to provide verisimilitude to his corrupt intent and purpose which was to invent his own “claim” or arguments against me and he then did exactly that.
Osborn’s paragraph 88 was written while knowing full well that the Master had adjudicated on the fraudulent fabrications of Garde and Delany and that “after extended argument and examination of the evidence” the Master did not realise that the fabrications of Garde and Deelany were impossible at the most simple law of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act and an relied on an overt misrepresentation of the cause of action clearly elucidated in my Statement of Claim.
In the face of his paragrph 88 the truth known to Osborn was that the hearing before the Master was nothing more than a corrupt sham and Osborn’s only legitimate option was to uphold my appeal.
Osborn’s paragraph 89 is mind snapping. Osborn says he proposes to deal with the matter on the basis now put by me rather than that previously argued by my legal representatives. Who is this imposter proposing to deceive by this corrupt and preposterous gibberish masquerading as judicial reason? Delany, Garde and Co had repeated (“put”) their corrupt case and I had put my different and complete defence “rather than that previously argued by the legal representatives that the plaintiffs now disavow” and with that different defence I had demolished the corrupt case brought before the Master by Delany, Garde and Co and which identical corrupt case had been repeated before him.
Osborn’s paragraph 89 is in fact mindless convoluted gibberish uttered by him for the purpose of providing verisimilitude to his own corrupt intent of appointing himself surrogate corrupt advocate and bringing his own purposely manufactured, fraudulent case against me.
Any competent Judge reading Osborn’s paragraphs 87 to 89 would smell a rat.