Fabricated

Fraudulently fabricated Orders and sealed “Authenticated Order” documents of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

You may view the above video or read the following text.

Justice Robert Osborn — Fraudulently Fabricated Orders and Authenticated Orders.

Outright fraud by the Supreme Court – Fraudulently Fabricated orders and “Authenticated Order” documents.

Now this is an astonishing little episode where one thing leads to another in much the same way as it just may have been that a butterfly in Brazil which tripped the sequence which led to hurricane Katrina which devastated New Orleans.

This graphically corrupt episode had its genesis in a race between myself and a storm front.

The day came for Osborn to hand down his Judgment, I knew which way it was going to go, Osborn’s mindset was palpable on the days of the hearing before him where I demonstrated the fact that that Major General Greg Garde and Jim Dleany QC had conspired with one another and their respective juniors and instructing solicitors to deceive Master Efthim.

On the morning of the appointed day when I was flying from Orange to Melbourne the flight became a race between myself and a violent southerly weather front, I was literally only about six or seven minutes from landing at Essendon when the front beat me to Essendon Airport, I had no option other than to turn around and land at Mangalore. I landed at Mangalore and telephoned my Melbourne agent, Mr. Daniel Isakow and asked if he would urgently attend at court and offer my apologies and reason for absence. 

Daniel attended Court for me and I just sat on the ground at Mangalore to await the predictable outcome. Daniel telephoned me and told me that it had gone against me and my appeal had been dismissed, Daniel also told me that Osborn had then adjourned the matter so as to enable me to make submissions as to costs, Daniel said that he would fax me a copy of the Reasons so I took off and flew back home to Orange.

From my discussion with Daniel I formed the view that Orders had been made disposing of my proceeding and that all that remained were Orders as to costs and I was to be provided the opportunity to make submissions in that regard.  On reading the Reasons I was outraged, they were a fabrication from top to bottom, from front to back and inside and out, I formed the view that Osborn was merely a major crook protecting his mates, far worse than any common criminal that may come before him. This man was a danger to the very fabric of our society; he; a vice regally appointed guardian of democracy was using his exalted position and power for ulterior perverse purpose and striking fatal blows at my democratic rights and serious wounds to democracy itself. It is difficult to conceive a more serious issue.  His equally corrupt but less exalted friends, Delany, Garde and Co had struck the initial blows. Osborn thought he was delivering the coup de grâce.

The Costs hearing was set down for 7th December 2006, trying to make head and tail of his alphabet soup of fabrications and  mentally assimilating that a guardian of democracy would do such things was mind snapping, I hurriedly prepared a submission and flew to Melbourne for the day of reckoning; not for me; for Osborn.  This time I got there. 

In full knowledge that Osborn had fabricated his Reasons Garde of course sprouted in his usual manner and sought indemnity costs as the fruit of his corrupt conduct.

In reply my submission did not beat around the bush, I thought Osborn was a crook and I implicitly said so; my written submission started off;

• On 29th November 2006 your Honour delivered Judgement in the appeal in this matter. Judgement was against the Plaintiffs. (my emphasis  —  this implied that I believed Judgment/Orders had been made on 29th)

My submission consisted of 10 pages, which set out in no uncertain manner some of the manifest wrongs of Osborn’s Reasons as I then understood them and in this regard I say to my readers that the task of coming to grips with the scheme of his alphabet soup of outright fabrications was a difficult task, anyway Osborn was under no misapprehension, I was onto him, and he, the man, Osborn, had and was deserving of my contempt and the contempt of all decent people and he knew it. Amongst other things I particularly pointed out to him the falsity of his above described fabrications in relation to the Planning Permit for Woodleigh Heights. (See Chapt 1 Part 4)

My submission included the words;

“… …. …. as with most of your reasons is completely wrong and misleading and your Honour has no possible basis at all for the matters set out in that paragraph. Your Honour should consider resigning.”; 

At the last minute, while sitting at the Bar Table before time for my submission I greyed out, as distinct from Blacked out the words “Your Honour should consider resigning” so that they remained readable. At that moment I have to admit to some human motivation, I did not want him to resign quietly and fade away, I wanted to expose him and bring him down, I had stood alone for more than 20 years to that point against the fraud of the Council and the Water Authority and their endless chain of corrupt lawyers and I would stand alone against this imposter as well. I detailed and attached exhibits demonstrating the manifest falsity of some of his supposed Reasons which were clearly concoctions including specifically the falsity of his Reasons in relation to condition 8 of the permit as detailed in chapter 1 part 4 hereof.

At paragraph 17 of my submission I said;

• “The plaintiffs place on record that they are seriously concerned and disturbed by your Honour’s reasons for judgment and the facts and circumstances surrounding that judgment and the circumstances of the conduct of the hearing of the appeal by your Honour”.

I had told my friends and family that I may well get locked up for contempt of Court but I doubted it because that would make Osborn open to scrutiny at that time, I was very nervous but resolute in my determination to have my say to the face of this imposter in a Courtroom, as distinct from a Judge constituting a Court, of the Supreme Court; but imposter or not he was possessed of the power and the authority of a vice regally appointed “Honourable” judge and I was at his whim.

Osborn adjourned the hearing so that he could read my written submission; naturally enough Delany and Co and Garde and Co also read them during that adjournment. 

Then Osborne reconvened and made orders, these orders were;

• • … firstly that the appeal be dismissed.
  • … secondly that there be judgment for the defendants.
  • … thirdly that the plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of the proceeding including the costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis.

I was rather surprised by this; as implied in my written submission to Osborn I had thought that Orders and Judgment dismissing my appeal had been made on 29th November 2006, the day when I could not attend due to the weather and the date of the Orders is important because an appeal is against the Orders, not against the reasons, so just to be sure I ordered a copy of the transcript of 29th November  2006 and sure enough, no Orders at all were made on that day, the court was merely adjourned until 7th December, so this meant I had 14 days from 7th December to lodge my Notice of Appeal and not from 29th November as originally thought by me. (full transcript for 29th November here)

I filed and served my Notice of Appeal on the 14th day from 7th November 2006 and shortly after that I received summonses from both the Council and Water Authority seeking orders that I file security for costs in the Appeal, after all one of the primary objects of the Court and its system is to ensure that the lawyers and Barristers in particular get paid and all else, including justice comes, second.

Time grinds slowly in the Court of Appeal and eventually a directions hearing for the actual appeal was set down for 28 may 2007.

Then out of the blue I received a letter dated 7th May 2007 from Steven Mark Edward, this letter asserted that my Appeal had been filed out of time in relation to the Orders made on 29th November 2006; well this was incredible; no Orders at all had been made on that day. 

Enclosed with Edward’s letter were two documents which purported to be “Authenticated Orders” of the Supreme Court of Victoria.  One of these documents squarely but falsely certified that Orders disposing of my matter had been made on 29th November 2006. The other squarely but falsely omitted the first two Orders which had been made on 7th December 2009 and to the exclusion of the first two Orders falsely represented and certified that only the third Order of 7th December 2006; the Order as to indemnity costs, had been made on that day.

In other words; the first of these documents was fraudulent by addition in that it falsely asserted that orders disposing of my matter had been made on 29th November 2006 whereas the fact was that no such orders or any orders at all were made on that day they were in fact all made on 7th December 2006.

The second of these documents was fraudulent by omission in that it omitted the first two orders which had in fact been made on 7th December 2006 and to the exclusion of the first two orders it only set out the third Order of 7th December 2006.

• The first supposed “Authenticated Order” document represented that on the 29th November 2006 Justice Osborn ordered:

  “1. The appeal should be dismissed and there be judgment for the Defendants“

  “2. The further hearing of this matter with respect to costs is adjourned to 7 December 2006 at 9.30 am“

• The second supposed “Authenticated Order” document represented that on the 7th December 2006 Justice Osborn ordered:

  “1. The Plaintiffs pay the Defendants’ costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis“

• Both of these “Authenticated Order” documents are false and contain complementary fabrications, one of addition and one of omission without which neither purported “Authenticated Order” document could purport to stand.

• • The fabricated “Authenticated Order” document relating to supposed Orders of 29th November 2006 contains a fabrication of addition as the fact is that no orders at all let alone orders disposing of the matter were made on that day. The words “The appeal should be dismissed” are a verbatim truncation of the last line of paragraph 184 of Osborn’s Reasons for Judgment  and simply do not and cannot be mistaken for or construed as constituting an Order or any part of an Order, in addition, “should be” is plainly just that, something which has not yet happened; being lifted from the Reasons these words did not exist in the transcript,  the second part of that fabricated order, namely the words “there be judgment for the defendants” is lifted verbatim from the second Order made on the 7th December, not the 29th November and then these two fundamentally different, absolutely disparate, verbatim,  parts were fraudulently combined and fraudulently represented to be a true and correct transcript of a single order made on 29th November but obviously this purported order is still not an Order, the “should be” component lifted from the Reasons of 29th November reduces those words to constitute a possibility which simply does not, and cannot be construed to, constitute an order dismissing my appeal. It remains a “should be”; i.e. something which may occur but not yet done.

• • In other words the first fabricated order “1. The appeal should be dismissed and there be judgment for the Defendants” consisted of the verbatim merging of the disparately occurring words “The appeal should be dismissed” from paragraph 184 of the written Reasons for Judgment of 29th November and the words of the actual 2nd  Order from the 7th December which were “that there be judgment for the Defendants”.  This verbatim merging of disparate things and utterances did not and could not occur by accident or error or omission or slip and when combined they do not form an Order; merely an expression of possible intention or likelihood.

• • The second supposed Order of the 29th of November, the adjournment until 7th December, just, well, sort of, added a bit of verisimilitude and in any event was done with, over, complete.

• • The fabricated “Authenticated Order” document of 7th December omits the first two orders which were in fact made on that day and only contains the costs order which was also made on that day.

• • The fraudulent/wrong/false, merged, addition to the first “Authenticated Order” document could not stand without the fraudulent/wrong/false omissions of the second “Authenticated Order” document and vice versa. 

On the face of it; it can only be that these two “Authenticated Orders” documents were concurrently fraudulently fabricated by the Supreme Court of Victoria for the purpose of having my appeal disallowed by making my appeal, on the “Authenticated Orders” of the Court, filed out of time.  The beneficiaries of such fraud, had it worked, were Osborn and his corrupt mates.  The benefit being that there would be no chance of my allegations coming before an honest Judge. As it turned out there was no need for that concern, as alluded to above but particularised below, on the face of it the conduct or progress of my appeal came on before like minded “friends” in the Court of Appeal.

In simple terms both of these supposed “Authenticated Orders” documents were fabricated for the purpose of having my appeal disallowed because on those supposed orders I had filed my appeal out of time. End of story; out the window. 

The Supreme Court of Victoria, as a matter of demonstrable fact, fraudulently fabricated those supposed “Authenticated Orders” documents for fraudulent purpose, namely to have my damning appeal disallowed. These documents did not and could not occur or appear by accident or slip or error or serendipitously for those that would have preferred I did not have a forum for the above, and below, facts.

Now, Edward is a fox terrier of a lawyer, he terrorises and snaps at the heels and terrorises the opposition on every little point he can think of and he had issued summonses seeking security for costs in the intervening period, he knew damn well no such orders had been made on 29th November 2007 yet with the apparent connivance of Osborn and Garde and the Court itself he was trying to pull this outrageous stunt one me.

So, I was prepared, I was ready, I could see this little stunt coming a mile off, at the direction hearing on 28th May 2007, sure enough, Edward and Burchell made a half hearted submission which they knew well to be outrageously false in that it was based on manifestly falsified documents; their submission to the Master was that on the “Authenticated Orders” my Appeal was invalid because it was filed out of time. In reply, I was ready, I had Osborn’s Reasons and the relevant transcripts on hand and I did some serious jumping up and down and put the Reasons and the transcripts before the Master. The Master had no realistic option other than to accept the Reasons and transcripts as prima facie evidence that the supposed “Authenticated Orders” documents were, to put it politely, in grievous error. The Master adjourned the hearing for the purpose of investigating the manifest conflict between the transcripts and the supposed “Authenticated Orders” documents.

Under the heading “other matter”; Master Cain’s orders of the day said;

• Enquiries will be made of the Court as to whether the orders made by the Honourable Justice Osborn on 29 November 2006 and 7 December 2006 can be amended pursuant to the “slip rule” under Order 36.07 or whether the appellant must make an application for enlargement of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal made under Order 64.02; and;

• The first and second respondents will be applying for security for costs after the appeal has been regularised.

• The directions hearing is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

I now divide the rest of my discussion of these fraudulently fabricated documents into two parts;

1. The dishonest and corrupt uttering of those documents in court.

2. The further fraud of the Court in fraudulently fabricating further “Authenticate Order” documents purportedly corrected and issued under the “slip rule”

Chapter 1 – Part 5B

The corrupt uttering of the fraudulent “Authenticated Order” document.

This fraudulent attempt by the Court itself and Edward and Co to dispose of my appeal may well have worked with another self represented litigant but I had become well used to the outright crookery of this damn Supreme Court and its dishonest friends, its and Edward’s attempt at fraudulent disposal of my appeal did not work.

You can be sure that if I was not ready or if this fraud bypassed me Edward and the other lawyers and the Court would have dismissed my Appeal on those fraudulent Orders.  Notably on Master Cain’s Orders it was my Appeal which had to be “regularised”, not the fraudulent “Authenticated Orders”.

So let me hypothesise for a moment;

• From my costs submission to him Osborn was aware that I believed that Judgment (orders) had been made on 29th November 2009.

• From my forthright costs submission Osborn knew that I was well aware he had fabricated his Reasons and I was intending to appeal on those grounds.

• Osborn was also well aware that he had done exactly as I put to him, he had fraudulently fabricated his Reasons for Judgment.

• Osborn knew that I was not one to wilt and fade away.

• Osborne was plainly aware of the fact that I had filed Notice of Appeal.

• Each of the lawyers including Edward and Burchell were aware that I was aware of and making allegations as to their corrupt conduct.

• In the premise that there is at least one courageous and honest Judge in the Court of Appeal Osborn and his corrupt friends were at risk.

Someone in the Supreme Court of Victoria, most probably Justice Osborn himself, very carefully and deliberately and fraudulently fabricated those “Authenticated Orders” documents and provided them to Garde or his instructing solicitor for the apparent specific purpose of having my appeal disallowed.

These documents were fraudulently fabricated and uttered for corrupt purpose there is no other conceivable reason or purpose for their fabrication.

Edward, with the connivance of, and probably at the behest of the fabricator, made a valiant effort to have my appeal disallowed while Edward knew full well that the supposed “Authenticated Orders” documents were falsified and no such Orders had been made, had he held a belief as to the orders set out in those documents his much earlier application for security for costs would simply have been one to have the Appeal disallowed as out of time. I cannot say who actually instigated this little fraud. The initial idea could have been Osborn’s, Garde’s, Edward’s, I just don’t know who, but someone did instigate knowing the others players would take part in the scheme and not recoil from it and blow the whistle.  These complimentary fabrications did not appear by accident or “slip” and without purpose and the fabrication of them and then the uttering of them for the purpose of having my appeal disallowed was a conspiracy between those people and the Supreme Court of Victoria itself as presently, at least in part, constituted and possibly including the Victorian Court of Appeal, as presently, at least in part, constituted.

One thing is for certain Edward did not contact the Court and request copies of these “Authenticated Orders”, he knew full well that no orders at all had been made on 29th November and Edward is no slouch, the probability is that someone in the Court proffered them to Garde or Edward for the purpose of a try at fraudulent dismissal of my appeal. But maybe, just maybe the system is so corrupt that the suggestion came from without the court.

At the time of uttering them for the purpose of having my appeal disallowed Edward knew that they had been fabricated.

Crooks! They are far worse than any ordinary criminal which comes before them.  Theirs is an attack, an assault, a strike at the very heart of democracy itself.  

Chapter 1 – Part 5C

Further fraudulently fabricated “Authenticated Orders”

Sure enough; the Court came back with a new “Authenticated Orders” document supposedly issued under something called the “slip rule”, lesser people who come before these self same judges would get locked up for “slips” like that. It appears that the Court does not have a “fraudulently fabricated” rule which applies to itself, at least not in published hard copy.  The “fraudulently fabricated” rule which these self same, pious and self righteous judges apply harshly to ordinary people is found in the criminal statutes.

These new “Authenticated Orders” were themselves a further fraudulent fabrication.

Rule 36.07 of the Supreme Court provides:-

• 36.07 Amendment of judgment or order
  • The Court may at any time correct a clerical mistake in a judgment or order or an error arising in a judgment or order from any accidental slip or omission.

The relevant immutable facts are:-

• The Orders which were made on the 7th December 2006 were carefully and intentionally made and were agreed to by Major General Garde and were faithfully and accurately recorded in the transcript of that day.

• • The replacement “Authenticated Orders” documents fraudulently assert that they are “Correction of Orders made 29th November 2006 and 7 December 2006”. 

Despite and in the face of the new “Authenticated Orders” documents the immutable fact is that there were no orders at all made on 29th November 2006. There were none available to be corrected. The only place such orders appeared was in the initial fraudulently fabricated “Authenticated Orders” documents which fraudulently represented that such orders existed and this new fabricated order asserts correction of those orders which only existed in the fraud of one of the initial fabricated “Authenticated Order” documents.

• Under the heading “Other Matters” these replacement “Authenticated Orders” documents fraudulently assert;

• 1. On 29 November 2006 the Court;

     1. Gave Reasons for judgment that the appeal from Master Efthim should be dismissed and that there shall be Judgment for the Defendants; and  

     2. Adjourned the proceeding for argument concerning costs until 7 December 2006

  2. On 7 December 2006 after argument, the Court made final orders
  3. Authenticated Orders prepared after the hearings on 29 November 2006 and 7 December 2006 are by this order corrected under the slip rule

• Under the heading “The Court Orders That:” the replacement “Authenticated Orders” document says;
  1. The Appeal is dismissed
  2. There is Judgment for the Defendants
  3. The plaintiffs pay the Defendants, costs of the proceeding including the costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis.

These replacement “Authenticated Orders” documents are themselves a fraudulent fabrication in that

• The words emboldened and underlined by me at item 1)a) were not uttered or written at all, either in the Reasons or in the transcript of 29th November 2006 and there was nothing said or written on 29 November 2006 that could possibly be construed as such or as any form of order or other utterance at all disposing of the matter at all. These words which these replacement “Authenticated Orders” documents falsely assert were said/made on 29th November 2006 are, except for the word “shall”, a verbatim copy of the second true and correct order of 7th December 2006 and which was not available to be corrected under the so called “slip rule” as constituting a component of utterances or erroneous orders of the 29th as expressly, but falsely, asserted.

• At item 1)a), the words “Gave Reasons for judgment that the appeal from the Master should be dismissed” are misleading and intentionally deceptive in that the correct assertion would be; Gave Reasons for Judgment which at paragraph 184 included the words “In all the circumstances the appeal from the Master should be dismissed”.   i.e. these words were at paragraph 184 of the Reasons and were an integral part of the reasons and printed in the Reasons for Judgment document and being in and integral to the Reasons they were not and cannot be construed or implied to be any part of anything even resembling or implied to be an order of 29th November capable of being corrected by the so called “slip rule”. In addition the Reasons merely asserted “….  ….  should be dismissed”, i.e. something not yet done and the word “shall” along with the other words emboldened above just do not appear in either the Reasons or in the transcript of 29th November 2006.  They are a fabrication designed and intended to dishonestly provide verisimilitude to both the original and the replacement fabricated “Authenticated Orders” documents.

• Item 2 of “Other Matters”  is a careful and deceptive misrepresentation of the fact that on the 7th December Osborn made the exact three orders which he intended to make on that day; the second of which was, except for  the word “shall”, verbatim, the words which I have emboldened in item 1)a); and each of the three orders set out below that are in fact verbatim transcriptions of the orders actually made on 7th December 2006 free of any correction at all.

• Item 3 of “Other Matters” assert that “Authenticated Orders” were prepared after the hearing of 29 November and further “Authenticated Orders” were prepared after the hearing of 7 December and that these separately and disparately  prepared “Authenticated Orders” were corrected under the slip rule whereas the fact is that both of the initial fraudulent “Authenticated Orders” were very carefully and fraudulently concurrently prepared and Authenticated on or about 11th April 2007 to fraudulently complement one another and provide fraudulent verisimilitude to the interdependent fraudulent misrepresentations of one another. There were no orders made on 29 November and no “Authenticated Order” prepared after the 29 November and no “Authenticated Orders” separately prepared after the 7th December hearings as deceptively asserted and the initial fraudulent “Authenticated Orders” documents were just that, fraudulent documents, they did not arise as a consequence of any one or more of “clerical mistake in a judgment or order or an error arising in a judgment or order from any accidental slip or omission.” as provided by rule 36.07 and therefore could not be corrected under that rule. Item 3 is a simply more bald faced lies of a thoroughly corrupt Court.

• Despite and in the face of item 3 “Other Matters” the initial fraudulent “Authenticated Order” documents do not constitute either orders or judgments, they are merely documents which contain and purport to certify or authenticate the alleged transcripts of orders and these mere documents do not and cannot impinge upon the correctness and inviolability of the  orders which they fraudulently misrepresent and accordingly so called “Authenticated Orders” documents are not available for correction under the “slip rule”. The initial fraudulent “Authenticated Order” documents remain as inviolable testament to and evidence of fraud of and by the Court itself.

• Item 3 of “other matters” provides further verisimilitude to the verisimilitude provided by the carefully manufactured words at item 1(a) and is a further misstatement or misrepresentation which conceals and denies the fact that the fraudulently fabricated “Authenticated Orders” were very carefully and fraudulently concurrently prepared to compliment and facilitate the fraudulent misrepresentations of one another.  

• The fraudulent replacement “Authenticated Order” document falsely implies;

In the face of the express and implied assertion of that fraudulent replacement “Authenticated Order” document the simple unimpeachable fact is that the orders transcribed into it are exact true and correct verbatim transcripts of the actual uncorrected orders carefully made and faithfully recorded on 7th December 2006.

Each one of these three purported “Authenticated Orders” was prepared and uttered by fraudsters for fraudulent purpose and the corrupt acts of each of those fraudsters is far more serious than any ordinary fraudster ever convicted by the corrupt court and court officers which fabricated and uttered those three carefully complimentary fraudulent “Authenticated Order” documents.

I ask my readers;  on the assertions of the replacement “Authenticated Orders” document – what day were the Orders set out in that document made?

Notably the new “Authenticated Order” merely purports to correct the initial fraudulent “Authenticated Orders”; it does not purport to correct or alter in any way the Orders which were in fact made on 7th December 2006 and which remain free of error and faithfully recorded and untouched and unviolated by any of the now three fraudulently fabricated “Authenticated Orders” documents. From the document it is impossible to conclude what day the orders were made.

The answer to the above question is that despite what the document says and/or implies the orders set out in that document were made on the 7th December 2006; the Orders transcribed into the new fraudulent ‘Authenticated Order” reflect and transcribe verbatim the Orders which were made on the 7th December 2006 so the fact is that despite and in the face of the fraudulent misrepresentations made in the body of the new fraudulent “Authenticated Orders” there was no correction made to the orders which were carefully and intentionally made and faithfully recorded on 7th December 2006. As stated above they did not avail themselves of “correction” under the “slip rule” or the “fraudulently fabricated” rule and they were not corrected.

The initial fraudulent “Authenticated Orders” documents were fraudulently produced and tendered and uttered for fraudulent corrupt purpose and the replacement fraudulent “Authenticated Order” is nothing more than a fraudulent fabrication carefully and deceitfully worded to corruptly ignore deny and conceal the fact of the fraud of the initial two corruptly produced and uttered “Authenticated Orders” documents.

The new fraudulent “Authenticated Order” document has the identical relationship to the initial corrupt and fraudulent “Authenticated Orders” documents as Osborn’s fraudulently fabricated Reasons for Judgment have to the corrupt conduct before Efthim as repeated before him.  Both the new fraudulent “Authenticated Orders” document and the fraudulent Reasons for Judgment were fabricated for the corrupt purpose of ignoring denying and concealing preceding corruption of and within and by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

In the face of the assertions of the new “Authenticated Order” document the initial fraudulent “Authenticated Order” documents were not corrected by or under the “slip rule”.

Both the initial and new fabricated “Authenticated Order” documents stand, inviolable and not correctable by or under the “slip rule”, they stand as testament to the corruption of and within the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. They are hard evidence of fraud and corruption within, of and by the Supreme Court of Victoria if not the Court of Appeal.

Osborn had the motivation; he had fraudulently and corruptly fabricated his Reasons and he knew I was on to him. Any number of other corrupt court officials, judicial and non judicial may also have had sufficient motivation in a desire to protect Osborn or Garde or Delany or all or any of them together with the facade of their corrupt empire.

Interestingly, if I had beaten the storm to Essendon Osborn would have made his Orders on the 29th November 2006 and I would not have had the opportunity to digest his reasons and then tell him to his face what I thought of him and his Reasons and corroborating evidence of fraud and corruption of and by the Court provided by these fraudulently fabricated “Authenticated Orders” could not and would not have arisen. I don’t believe in fate but cause and effect is most fascinating.   One wonders; if Cleopatra had…. … ….  or if the butterfly in Brazil ……….