Corrupt Supreme Court of Victoria.

Garde's epiphany and Osborn's prejudice.

At the hearing before Osborn my written submissions to him extensively set out the corrupt conduct before the Master, as I then understood it, they also set out the corrupt conduct of Garde at the Planning Appeals Tribunal (see Chapter 6).

Osborn adjourned the hearing to read my written submissions. Upon resumption of proceedings, I again faced Osborn acting as advocate for the Council and Water Authority and running his own little star chamber but to get to the presently relevant aspect after he had finished grilling me without success he called Delany to respond and after a further stream of nonsense issued forth from Delany’s pharynx Osborn called Garde and we then have a most fascinating little exchange and developments;

Garde’s very first words were “Your Honour we will start by just taking Your Honour back again to the amended further statement of claim in the Woodleigh Heights proceedings, and invite Your Honour to just spend a moment and I'll go through the pleading, but before I do that there are two - there are two of course, types of water supply that are under discussion in this pleading.”   (my emphasis)

Now these words completely falsify Delany and Co’s and Garde and Co’s submissions to Master Efthim and Garde’s earlier submission to Osborn and Delany’s Outline of Submissions to the effect that my knowledge of the 1982 demonstrated that I knew that the water supply had not been laid until 1982.  That maliciously deceptive submission was entirely dependent upon the maliciously false implied assertion by Garde and Delany that the 1979 supply and the 1982 supply were one and the same thing or that the 1982 supply was a legitimate substitute for the 1978/79 supply and that knowledge of the 1982 water supply constituted knowledge as to the 1979 water supply and that is exactly what Osborn had understood from Garde’s submission when he said “Well Mr Thompson, Mr Garde took me to a letter yesterday which appeared to me to demonstrate quite clearly that you did know the water wasn't connected at the time of these proceedings” (see my reference to transcript pages 112-113 a few paragraphs above) and that is exactly what the Master understood from Delany’s and Garde’s maliciously false submissions to the Master when at paragraph 88 of their Outline of Submissions Dixon, Delany and Ahern represented that this letter demonstrated that “Mr Thompson was aware from at least 1987 that the reticulated water supply was laid in 1982” and at paragraph 60 of his reasons the Master said  “ Mr. Thompson was ware from at least 1987 that the reticulation water supply was laid in 1982.”

Now of course the fact is that every one of these dishonest lawyers at all times knew full well that there were two distinct water supplies it was not possible to confuse one with the other and they knew full well that knowledge of the 1982 supply did not and could not disclose any matter, fact or thing about the 1979 private supply. Each and every one of them individually and collectively and as a consequence of conspiracy misled the Court and they knew that they had obtained false judgment as a consequence of their purposeful and malicious deception.

So here we have the incredible spectacle of Garde disclosing the fact of his own putrid lies. Now this did not happen by accident and it did not occur because Garde had suddenly had an epiphany or a most uncharacteristic pang of conscience. We shall now see what in fact occurred.

After disclosing and asserting that there was in fact two types of water supply Garde went on and this little exchange took place;

MR GARDE:  There is the water supply that was provided on the land, which was of course non-obtainable water – non-drinkable water, and then there was the prospect of water becoming available from the Kyneton Shire Water Works trust.  And one has to, in looking at the pleading and therefore looking at what was known at the time, identify the features of the two systems, one existing prior to 1982, and one which as we know potentially became available as and from 1982.  And with that in mind what I would invite Your Honour to do is just to look for a start at Paragraph 6, and in Paragraph 6 on p.3 of the amended further statement of claim of 17 March 1999, Your Honour will see the application referred to.  “By application dated 22 November 1978 the Buchanan’s applied to the Council to develop the Woodleigh Heights estate by subdividing it pursuant to the provisions of the Cluster Titles Act 1974, such subdivision consisting of 45 allotments” and so on “with substantial areas of common property and provision for the installation of a privately owned and operated water supply and reticulation system”.  Have I – this is Your Honour, I’m looking at Tab 16.   (my emphasis)

HIS HONOUR:  I’ve got it in front of me.

MR GARDE:  I’m sorry Your Honour I – so that was the application and Your Honour will see in the particulars that it contained – the application contained the following relevant documents, the application for the permit of 10 November1978 and the submission dated 3 November 1978 prepared by James A Harris & Associates.  And that then takes us to Paragraph 7.   (This is a Garde referring to the submission referred to in condition 8 of the Planning Permit and which, as detailed above, Osborn corruptly misrepresented as not having to be complied with)

HIS HONOUR:  Does that submission make clear what the character of this system was in terms of your distinction between non-potable and potable?

MR GARDE:  It does Your Honour, yes as Paragraph 7 itself illuminates.  So that - - -

Now this little exchange between Osborn and Garde is most significant, firstly of Course it gives the total lie to Garde’s earlier submission to Osborn and of course as previously indicated by me the total lie to the submissions before the Master in respect to Woodleigh Heights.  Garde and Osborn are now relying on the distinction between the two water supplies. Osborn’s question “Does that submission...... .. . potable?” was a question in relation to the submission defined in condition 8 of the planning permit and not a question in relation to Garde’s oral submission.

However the most significant point, as the reader will soon see, is in what Osborn said, now the fact is that Garde had not made a distinction between potable and non potable water, he had merely mentioned “non-obtainable water” and from the start of his submission it is not possible to conclude that Garde was going to go on and make any submission at all about potable versus non-potable water, he didn’t even  know the correct words to use. But on the face of it Osborn knew well where Garde was about to head and he prompted him and even provided the correct words so that Garde could and would “make clear what the character of this system was in terms of your distinction between non-potable and potable.”

I immediately understood the implications of Garde’s sudden epiphany that there were two distinct water supplies, I also knew that Osborn was thoroughly aware because I had extensively explained the distinction and the deception of Garde’s submissions to the Master in both my oral and written submissions.  So when Osborn prompted Garde as to this potable business and the way it came up and that Osborn already had the correct document to hand, my thought was, and the reader will excuse me, “These rotten Bastards have been on the phone to each other at lunch while they read my submissions”,  and I will bet London to a Brick that these two school and work chums phone records demonstrate just that.

Anyway Garde then went on and on and on and on at $20.00 a minute, reading the Water Supply Agreement and setting out his newfound enlightenment that the planning permit defined this private “reticulated water supply” which could not be confused with the 1982 water supply and all sorts of time consuming garbage all of which exposed him as the dishonest liar I knew him to be until time came for Osborn to shut up shop for the day.  (notably Garde purported to be entirely aware of all of this when, as I will demonstrate below, he lied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1988. Had he had his epiphany back then there would have been no need for his subsequent lies, but then again he is certainly a lot richer, the Courts order large payments to be made to Garde by the victims of his deceit)

Once Garde had finished his inane submissions at the apparent behest of Osborn, Osborn wasn’t going to give me an opportunity to respond to this new garbage so he said:

HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  In this matter I propose to reserve my decision and we’ll adjourn sine die.

Well, this guardian of justice, democracy and impartiality had closed the shop without allowing me a response to this and I knew that these two chums were up to something and I needed to put my twopence worth in so I stood up and the following exchange took place;

MR THOMPSON:  Your Honour, may I address one issue just raised by Mr Garde?  He raised the issue of potable water.  It’s simply irrelevant.  The question was simply with regard to a reticulated water supply potable or not.  It has zero to do with potable or not

HIS HONOUR:  Well, I don’t accept that, Mr Thompson.

MR THOMPSON: and the relevant material is found at J24 where the Shire of Kyneton sets out in respect to a question specifically related to whether tank or bore or septic sewerage would be available.  The council simply says it’s conditional upon reticulated water.  Zero to do with potable.  That’s simply obfuscation, sir.

HIS HONOUR:  That’s precisely what Mr Garde put to me and I understand it.  In compliance with – the permit had nothing to do with potable water.  Having said that we’ll adjourn sine die.

“His Honour” had hoisted his colours, he had made his determination and all that was left was to fabricate reasons, but I suspected that well before this petulant little display. It was now GT versus the Court and Osborn was well and truly with the corrupt friends of the Court. Sir Gerrard Brennan’s fine notions were out the window.

Garde did not compromise himself and the rest of this deceptive little bunch of co-conspirators of his own volition, Osborn wanted this submission and he got it. 

So I did get my twopence worth in, clear in the transcript but not reflected in Osborn’s reasons of course, but as demonstrate above and below it certainly reflects on as distinct from in his reasons.

This little exchange also firmly fixes Osborn with clear knowledge as to the fact of the two distinct water supplies and the distinction between them.

This imposter constituting a court had squarely acted as advocate for the Council and Water Authority and had extracted a semblance of the submission he required to fabricate Reasons against me but did not get quite what he was after so he resorted to the comical and amusing, if they weren’t so serious, fabrications which I have described above in menu option Part 4 "Osborn on Planning Permits" in relation to the Woodleigh Heights planning permit and condition 8.