Conduct of and in the Court of Appeal

My appeal to the Court of Appeal was not an appeal in the ordinary sense where one appeals some esoteric point of law or question of fact which had honestly but erroneously been concluded in the lower Court, my appeal was not in the matter of Thompson v Macedon Ranges Shire Council.

My appeal was Glenn Thompson v The Corrupt Supreme Court of Victoria and the grounds of my appeal, namely the dishonest conduct of the lawyers and the conduct of Justice Osborn as set out above made this absolutely clear to the Justices of the Court of Appeal. The grounds for my appeal were the manifest deceitful conduct of the Court itself and its officers. It was not the fundamentals of my case. I had been denied my democratic rights to a fair, honest and open trial by the Court itself.

The stakes had now increased a thousand fold, we now had not only a bunch of crooked lawyers who had fraudulently obtained a wrongful judgment but we now we had an “Honourable” Justice of the Supreme Court who had corruptly fabricated Reasons for Judgment for an ulterior purpose. The situation was now very serious indeed.

My Notice of Appeal was forthright. It alleged that Osborn had made his Orders of 7th December 2006; “in full knowledge that his reasons for Judgment were substantially wrong and not in accord with the evidence before him.”

This was clearly not an ordinary appeal, it was straight out; GT v The Court and the allegations were ones which American’s call “High Crimes and Misdemeanours”, I cannot find an Australian equivalent. At the time I came before Osborn I knew I needed a strong, courageous and above all honest judge but the gravity was now a thousand times what it had been. I needed a seriously courageous and honest judge, in my persistent naivety I still had a little forlorn hope and confidence.

Shortly after I filed my appeal the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority filed an application that I be required to file security for costs of the appeal.

After this the fraudulently fabricated “Authenticated Orders” of the Supreme Court appeared. (details here)

The hearing of the Security for Costs application was heard on 5th September 2007 before Justice Buchanan and Redlich. At this hearing Delany and Co and Garde and Co made submissions to the effect that the Appeal was hopeless and they based those assertions on asserting the validity of the Reasons of both Master Efthim and Osborn and at the time of making those submissions all of Delany and Co and Garde and Co were aware of all of the matters, facts and things done by them as detailed above and that they thereby dishonestly obtained the Judgments upon which they then sought to rely as if those Judgments were honestly and fairly obtained which they were not and in the case of Osborn’s judgment not even honestly made.

That these lawyers rely on the fruit of their own fraud in the Court of Appeal itself is sufficient testament to the well developed and well based sense of impunity and immunity. They are among like minded friends.

In reply, in a 43 page written submission I set out adequate of the foregoing facts regarding the conduct of Delany and Co and Garde and Co and the facts and circumstances surrounding the reasons of each of Master Efthim and Osborn such that the Court of Appeal had before it sufficient evidence and the allegations to conclude that maybe, just maybe, there may be some substance to my submissions to the Court of Appeal and the Court itself was, well, a bit more than a little wanting in integrity.

In Delany’s submission he said’

“In this regard I accept the conclusions of Master Efthim at paragraphs 53 and 54 of his decision” – and they are – “It is clear from Mr Thompson’s first affidavit that critical documents in the black folder which led to this matter being further litigated are the complete version of the plans of the industrial allotments of the Tylden Road subdivision.” (Page 16 of Transcript) (see my reply to the Master’s paragraphs 53 and 54 in Chapter 3 Part 6 above)
“So both Justice Osborn and Master Efthim found that the documents in the black folder which led to, which documents then led to this proceeding before the Court of Appeal had been discovered by the Council in the prior Tylden Road proceeding; therefore, there had been no concealment”. (Pages 16 & 17 of transcript)

In making these submissions Delany knew full well he was deliberately and maliciously deceiving the Court of Appeal because the fact known to Delany and Garde was that Master Efthim did not conclude what Delany asserted, Master Efthim in fact accepted as truth the maliciously and deceitfully based pseudo “cause of action” and the malicious and deceitful “true lies” which each of Delany and Co and Garde and Co had conspired to deceive the Master into believing for the malicious and deceitful purpose of perverting the course of justice and obtaining a false decision from the Master and the Master, relying on their fraud, delivered the Reasons they conspired to secure. Garde stood by and enjoyed the fruits of Delany’s deception before the Court of Appeal and which deception he was a choreographed party to at the time of conception and inception and execution and culmination of the conspiracy to deceive Master Efthim.

It must be of Course that Delany made these submissions knowing full well that the Court of Appeal would protect him from the fact of his corruption. And in the final analysis, having regard to the true conduct of Delany and Co, and Garde and Co and of Osborn it appears to me that these corrupt lawyers must be assured of the corrupt protection of the Court including the Court of Appeal because they were standing there asserting the fruits of their deception before the Master as true and properly concluded reasons of the Master and they were asserting the unimpeachable correctness of Osborn’s corrupt reasons while knowing full well that Osborn had assumed corrupt advocate role on their behalf and to protect them . They were bald faced, bold as brass, deceiving the Court of Appeal. But maybe the Court of Appeal was well aware and it was a joint, probably repetitiously practiced, charade for public consumption.

In reply, by written submission dated 22nd August 2007 I set out sufficient of the foregoing to make the Court aware of the foregoing matters and things including full detail on the fabricated “Authenticated Orders”. After submissions the Court adjourned to formulate its orders, then on resumption the transcript resumes with further discussion after which the transcript ends with the words “Ruling Follows” after the ruling Justice Buchanan said to the effect; “There is nothing in your allegations about the Authenticated Orders”; this does not appear in the transcript.

I do not believe that was an expression of their true opinion; it is manifestly obvious that those “Authenticated Orders” were fabricated and this fact must have been apparent to Justices Buchanan and Redlich. (see Chapter 1 – Part 5)

The Court of Appeal ordered that I provide $60,000 security for costs. I provided that security in cash.

So then we actually get about the business of getting to the appeal, I had a little ace up my sleeve, the Court of Appeal Practice Note no 2 of 1995 required that where an appellant was a litigant in person, and I was, the respondents lawyers were required to compile a summary of facts for the Court and to serve me with a copy. Well these little turkeys had a major problem and I has set out that problem at the time of the costs hearing before Osborn, in my costs submission to Osborn (the submission where I basically told him he was a crook – see Chapter 1 – Part 5)) I said;

Interestingly because I will be an appellant in person it is the Defendants which are required by practice note number 2 of 1995 to compile for the Court a summary of proceedings and a summary of facts. The summary of fact will necessarily be at odds with the facts set out in your Honour’s reasons for Judgement.

Also manifestly this summary of facts which Delany & Co and Garde and Co were required to prepare would have been most interesting because there is no way that they could prepare such a summary without either exposing their earlier deception or continuing, but more overtly, to mislead the Court and I was of the view that one way or the other they would have great difficulty and it would be far easier for me to expose their crookery.

I also set out this aspect in my submission at the time of the Security for Costs hearing.

Also under the rules I was required to prepare an “Appeal Book”. The Appeal Book is all the documents relevant to the appeal bound into a book. The Appeal Book proposed by the Council and Water Authority consisted of in excess of 3000 pages bound into 11 volumes of some 300 pages each and I was required to prepare 11 copies of this Appeal Book amounting to some 35,000 pages the vast majority of which were entirely irrelevant padding for the Book of Pleadings.

A directions hearing was held on 3 December 2007 before Master Lansdowne to settle the content and extent of the Appeal Book, at this hearing I made application to her that the Appeal Book be limited to documents relevant to the “causes of action” set out in the Statement of Claim and that the lawyers be required to complete the summary of proceedings and facts before settling the content of the Appeal Book and to limit the size of the Appeal Book to relevant documents.

The lawyers then represented to Master Lansdowne that they could not agree with me as to what constituted the “facts”. Little wonder they could not agree with me! They had completely misrepresented the facts and “causes of action” to Master Efthim and obtained a false Judgment. Then they had also misrepresented the “causes of action” and the facts to Justice Osborn and effectively admitted that they did not even know what the “causes of action” were. The lawyers did not tell Master Lansdowne that they were relying on misrepresenting the facts. They represented me, a non-lawyer representing himself, to be well… a serial litigant; a troublemaker who did not know what was what.

Master Lansdowne had adequate detail of the foregoing before her, including all of the Court papers and my submission to Osborn, to know that there was or may be substance to my allegations which were tantamount to allegations of corruption within the Court and she refused my application to settle such a fundamental point as the facts and “causes of action” before settling the content and extent of the Appeal Books, and she also indicated that she would dispense with the requirement that Delany ad Co and Garde and Co prepare a summary of facts as required by the rules. Her Authenticated Orders say;

The Court is not persuaded that the parties will be able to reach agreement on a summary of facts and it is the Master’s intention to dispense with that requirement at the appropriate time.

Now the fact is that the Practice Note did not require any agreement between the parties and after all a fact is a fact is a fact and such things do not require agreement. Because I was a self represented litigant the practice note simply required Edward and Dixon and Co to make a summary of facts and serve it on me, full stop, trouble is they could not without exposing their fraud and deception and the Courts own fraud and deception.

On 14th February 2008 I again submitted that the Lawyers be required to prepare a summary of facts but they represented that they could not agree with me as to the facts and they represented me as being essentially a vexatious litigant. I put that the summary should at least set out the cause of action. The problem of course was that they could not set out those facts even if limited to the “cause of action” or in their case the pseudo “cause of action” without exposing themselves.

In her subsequent Authenticated Orders Master Lansdowne said; “The Respondents do not agree the matters asserted by the Appellants as being capable of agreement” and then she ordered;

The renewed application by the appellants that the respondents prepare an agreed summary of facts is declined, and a summary of facts is dispensed with”

Master Lansdowne inserted the word “agreed”, I was a self represented litigant and the practice note did not even require the lawyers to consult with me, the practice note did not require an agreed summary and nor did I, I was intending to use it to demonstrate their deceit because the fact is that they could not make such a summary without exposing themselves and Osborn.

Master Lansdowne’s reason for dispensing with that requirement was specious and consistent with the conduct of the Court suppressing the facts of the corruption. An opportunity to more easily expose the corruption was lost.

To make a self evident point; manifestly all appeals arise as a consequence of lack of agreement on the issue which forms the grounds for appeal. Lansdowne’s implied assertion that there must be agreement as to the facts is on the face of it an absolute nonsense. If both parties agreed to all of the facts there would be no appeal. Facts pertinent to the summary of facts include the fact of disagreement on issues to be decided at appeal. Lansdowne’s Reasons are transparently specious.

One of the facts could well have been that there was disagreement between the parties as to what constituted the cause of action and Delany and Garde would then be required to set down their corrupt pseudo “cause of action” as fact (a) then as fact (b) that I knew about their pseudo “cause of action” because it was set out at page 5 of the “Book of Pleadings” and upon which Master Efthim relied. The fact is that their submissions to Master Lansdowne were also bald faced corrupt and overtly dishonest.

The inescapable fact is that the lawyers could not set out the facts without exposing their corruption and Master Lansdowne accommodated them with transparently fallacious and specious reasons for dispensing with that requirement.

As a consequence the Appeal Book(s) remained at a total of about 35,000 pages. If a lawyer had prepared this document at $1.50 a page instead of me doing it myself the lucky lawyers reward would amount to $52,500 for photocopying alone. (the lawyers should go to their local chemist shop or newsagent, copies are only 30 or 40 cents there) or do it on their own photocopiers like I did at a little more than 1c a page.

Now the reality is that exceedingly few self represented litigants would have the ability to produce and index and bind and page number each page of such a mammoth task and surprise, surprise, if you don’t produce the Appeal Books at all or don’t prepare the Appeal Books exactly according to the Court of Appeal’s finicky specification your appeal is out the window, dismissed, gone; so where the fraudulently fabricated “Authenticated Orders” had failed here was another golden opportunity to be rid of me.

Much to their surprise and disappointment I’m sure, I did produce their Appeal Books at a little more than about 1.5c a page and to their specifications and my appeal remained on foot and thanks to the accommodating Master Lansdowne these dishonest little lawyers did not have to set out the facts which would have exposed them one way or the other.

Anyway after this little round; Crooks and injustice 785 – Justice and GT Nil.

In this episode I was again faced with what to me was this incredible spectacle of these “Officers of the Court” standing there as bold a brass and flagrantly deceiving the Court obviously secure in a well grounded knowledge of and sense of impunity and then in the face of all notion of justice and desire for truth the Court accommodating them. I had no hope.

It then appeared to me that if I were to have any chance at all I needed an honest and courageous QC or SC to put the facts to the Court including the facts of the conduct of Middleton and of course Delany and Co and Garde and Co and also the facts regarding the manifestly fabricated Reasons of Osborn and the facts and circumstances surrounding the Reasons of Master Efthim, to this end I engaged Daniel Isakow of Isakow Lawyers and his specific brief was to find me such a QC or SC.

Daniel had been the Melbourne agent for my solicitors before I sacked those solicitors after the Master Efthim debacle and Daniel continued as my Melbourne Agent after I had sacked my crew.

Shortly after Osborne handed down his fabricated reasons I asked Daniel to recommend a courageous barrister with whom I could discuss my perception of Osborn’s Reasons and the conduct of the lawyers and in particular Middleton. Daniel refused to discuss these things with me but recommended Louie Hawas and after discussion Louie agreed that on the face of it Osborn could not have held a belief as to those of the reasons. His concurrence heartened me because, and I hope my readers will understand this, when I was faced with the spectre of what my eyes and intellect were telling me, my soul and my conscience were telling me that I must be crazy, this could not be true, I went through a similar period when I first began to learn and appreciate the reality of what the Council and Water Board were doing, I had grown up in what was then a small dairy farming community and dishonesty did not exist, I saluted the flag at school and promised to obey and respect my parents teachers and the law and I did, I had absolute faith in our great country and the integrity of the men who ran it and who worked the farms, I genuinely believed that crooks had guns and had scars and wore masks or frequented the docks and dockside pubs, like most of our small community we did not even have a back door key, let alone a front door key at home and in that community no-one had no need for such things. I became much wiser as I grew up of course and apart from shock I had no difficulty accepting that Buchanan was a suited crook, the same with his lawyers but the Council, that was a major leap that caused me to have self doubt for a substantial period of time until I assimilated the reality of what was happening but a Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria, that place is suppose to be the very bastion against what my eyes and intellect were perceiving of the Court and that imposter of a Judge. After speaking with this junior barrister my self doubt diminished somewhat however even as I write this Book my heart and soul still have trouble and they cannot assimilate what my eyes and intellect insist is there. My inner being still insists that this cannot be so.

Anyway, back to reality, After Lansdowne I wished to engage a Barrister who had the courage and the integrity to stand before the Court of Appeal and explain to the Court in legalese and with the authority of wig and silk exactly what Middleton and Delany and Garde and their respective hangers on had done and to also explain in no uncertain manner what Osborn had done.

I have no difficulty at all at losing fair and square but in this case both I and democracy itself had been raped by dishonest lawyers and a dishonest judge and thus far the Court of Appeal was acting rather shabbily. I was entitled to recover the several hundreds of thousands of dollars thrown away at corrupt hearings and paid to those crooks and ordered to be paid by a deceived Master and a dishonest judge but most of all I was entitled to either win or lose in front of an honest court and thus far I had been denied that most fundamental democratic right including by the Court of Appeal which was choosing to avert its eyes and ignore and deny the facts which I put before it and doing its best to make life difficult and cause me to go away.

I was already troubled by Daniel’s refusal to even acknowledge let alone comment on the conduct of Middleton. His expressed Reason for not commenting was that while he didn’t know him closely he knew him and had casual contact from the fact that they occupied offices in the same Queen street Melbourne building however he did agree to find me a QC or SC for my purpose and because of my previous contact with him I asked that Louis Hawas be retained as junior. Daniel “found” Ian Waller SC for me and I was astonished by what then occurred, I provided them with all the information, as I then understood it, as to the misconduct of the lawyers, including Middleton, before Master Efthim and I also provided them with details, as I then understood them of the fabricated Reasons of Osborn, my astonishment was that Louis Hawas had become a yes man for Ian Waller and despite the fact that they were specifically retained to represent me in Court and put the facts of the conduct of Delany and Garde etc al and Middleton before Master Efthim and then the conduct of Osborn but they failed and refused to even make obtuse reference to those facts and things. My case was clearly one of GT v The Court and that was the sole reason that they were both engaged. I did not engage both of them for opinion, the Fact is that on the scam that Senior Barristers run they will not appear in court without a junior barrister.

They refused to even obtusely acknowledge the GT v The Court aspects and instead wrongfully and very carefully insisted on only having regard to the Thompson v Macedon Ranges Shire Council aspect and they dreamt up a thousand reasons why I would lose that case before the Court of Appeal and they refused to act, ostensibly their refusal was in relation to the Macedon Ranges case but the stark reality is that these paragons did not have the integrity to even obtusely open their mouth to me in relation to the true facts squarely before them and in respect of which they were specifically engaged which was that Middleton, Delany, Garde and Co had grievously misled the Court and Osborn had fabricated his Reasons and to put the real case, GT v The Court, to the court; they instead recommended that I abandon my appeal because at least that way I would recover a substantial proportion of the $60,000 which I had lodged with the Court as security for costs.

By way of example of the specific garbage put to me by Ian Waller on the issue of diligence in discovering a cause of action. And this is Waller’s specific assertion. Assume you purchase a gold bullion bar from the Perth Mint complete with essay stamp, serial number and certificate and as one does with gold bullion it is locked in a safe. Then ten years later you decide to give half to your daughter so you have it cut in half and find that the core is in fact a core of lead. – On Waller’s specific assertion on this specific point you have no claim against the mint because you weren’t diligent enough to cut it half and discover the fraud within six years, Louie nodded at whatever hourly rate he was charging for his slavish agreement and nodding. I simply formed the view that Waller and his yes man were corrupt by their silence and his and his puppet’s so called advice was well and truly tainted.

With their abject glaring failure and refusal to even obtusely mention let alone act in relation to the corruption which I had expressly engaged them for and placed explicitly before them it became clear to me that I had no hope in a conventional manner; the corrupt code of silence was all pervasive so I decided to abandon my Appeal, not because of their supposed advice which I considered to be polluted but because of their conduct which was simply more of the same, they were paid up members of the club who would not speak out against the corruption which I placed squarely before them, they were part of the reason why Delany and Co held a well founded sense of impunity and why the corruption detailed above flourishes. It was at this time that I decided on an unconventional approach to attack the now apparent cultural corruption of this bewigged and begowned brigade who had trampled and trashed my previous deep seated pride and confidence in the great institutions of this otherwise, but for them, great democracy. I decided that somehow I would get the truth of these matters and the conduct of this corrupt Court and its equally corrupt vocal and selectively silent hangers on to the people, the source of the Court’s Authority.

Although they had done nothing and refused to act I received a bill for about $50,000 which I refused to pay, the sequel is a small part at the end of the Chapter 7 which is an astonishing section on a crooked rates claim where the Council rated properties which did not exist, yes, you read correctly, the Council rated properties which never did exist and then resorted to further fraud and perjury and even more dishonest lawyers to claim those supposed rates which I first refused to pay in about 1984.

At the time of abandoning my appeal I advised the Court of Appeal that I had abandoned the appeal “to save money because it was plain that Dixon et al continued to deceive the Court.”

The reality of course was that the Court of Appeal was not deceived, it knew full well what was occurring, Dixon et al were amongst friends, the Brotherhood, this was a charade for public consumption.

After abandoning my appeal Garde and Co applied to the Court for orders that I pay punishing indemnity costs. The ground for that application were set out in an Affidavit sworn by Steven Mark Edward and in an Outline of Submissions authored by Greg Garde and Sharron Burchell.

These grounds were that I had vilified these fine upstanding, pure as the driven snow, representative “Officers of the Court” and Middleton by falsely alleging that they had misled Master Efthim and Justice Osborn and the further grounds were that my allegations of fraud as against the Council and Water Authority were baseless.

My defence was of course adequate detail and evidence of the foregoing matters and things relating to the hearing before Master Efthim and the conduct of Osborn and I exhibited all supporting documents and for completeness I provide a list of and links to those documents. The document numbers match the footnote references of my defence. (i.e. GlennAT Tab 12 = doc 12 below)

Neave & Mandy.
- Exhibits GlennAT
- Ehibits from Appeal Book

Now the first and most outstanding aspect of this claim by Edward and Garde and Co is that they were manifestly aware of their very carefully planned and executed dishonest deceitful conduct before Master Efthim and yet here they were coming to this supposedly reputable Court and asserting that my allegations as to the fact of those things were false and constituted unfounded vilification. Now on the face of it there are only two possibilities, they are as brazen as hell and believe that they can tough it out by yet more lies and deceit to the Court or alternatively they are confident that the Court will protect them and they can simply lie and bring false claims to the Courts, including the Court of Appeal, with impunity. As we shall see the latter is the demonstrated case.

So let’s now analyse how the Court of Appeal and in particular Justices Neave and Mandy dealt with this.

Now the first point to make is that on the material squarely before them Neave and Mandy were well aware that my Appeal was in fact a case of Glenn Thompson v The Supreme Court of Victoria and not Thompson v Macedon Ranges Shire Council, and the further thing they must have been well aware of was that my substantial written submission and exhibits to them did contain prima facé evidence of and material and exhibits as to the truth of my various allegations and the corruption which had occurred in the lower courts and also the falsity of the then present claim of Edward and Garde.

An adequate précis of pertinent parts of the foregoing material of this book, was set out before them and allegations as to those things with supporting exhibits were before them. These things were also set out in numerous previous submissions previously prepared by me and were in the Court papers and additionally again I adequately set them out in my document entitled “Appellant’ Affidavit and Submission in reply to the Second Respondent’s Application for Indemnity Costs” which Justices Neave and Mandy supposedly considered before making their Reasons. Granted I had not yet completed the analysis which I have now set out in this Book but more than adequate was set out and before them. On that day Neave and Mandy also had the fabricated “Authenticated Orders” before them and my allegations as to them. These “Orders” were deliberately and carefully fabricated, it is not possible that they occurred by “slip”.

So the first thing that Neave and Mandy did was to appear to avert their eyes and then do an Osborn, for specious reasons they declines to consider the grounds for the application and my substantial defence and instead determined to award indemnity costs on their own, in the circumstances, specious, grounds. In their Reasons for Judgment, authored by Mandy and agreed with by Neave, these Reasons say:-

In my opinion, it is inappropriate for this Court on a costs application to determine whether or not the said allegations of fraud were unfounded or not, subject to two important qualifications.
The first qualification is that if the Judge, in the decision appealed from, found that some allegations of fraud were unfounded, that is a matter that this Court might take into account on the costs application. The appellants, having abandoned their appeal from his judgment, are not entitled to agitate issues either of fact or law that were determined by the Judge. Once the appeal has been abandoned, it is inappropriate for the Court of Appeal to investigate the validity of matters that were raised by the appellants in their appeal.
The second qualification is that the Court may, not must, have regard to any unfounded allegations of a scandalous nature made in relation to the Court itself. (my emphasis)
….. …. …..
In my opinion an order for indemnity costs is called for in the present matter simply because the appeal must be regarded as having been hopeless. As the judgment appealed from demonstrates, the claims made by the appellants in the proceeding were the subject of full and complete releases …. .. …… the appellants cannot seek to contradict the Judicial determinations that led to summary judgment in the Trial Division.
I find it unnecessary to consider whether, as the Authority submits, indemnity costs should be ordered because of the allegations as to fraud made by the appellants that were held by the Judge to be unfounded. Nor is it necessary to take into account any unfounded and scandalous allegations made in relation to the Court itself. It is sufficient to determine the application upon the basis that the appeal was hopeless. (my emphasis)

In respect to these Reasons the fact is that I was not seeking to agitate issues of fact or law that were “determined by the Judge”, I was legitimately defending the claim brought against me and my defence included the conduct of Delany and Co and also of Osborn, and were not “issues of either fact or law” which “were determined by the Judge” they were straight out allegations as to the corrupt conduct of the Court and whether or not my Appeal had been abandoned; the Court, including Neave and Mandy, upon being aware of these allegation as to misconduct of the Court itself and the evidence as to those allegations had a duty to ascertain the truth or not of those allegations.

They instead relied on the Reasons of Osborn either knowing full well that they had been fabricated or alternatively not caring whether they had been fabricated or not while the evidence before them contained abundant prima facé evidence and my specific allegation that they had been fabricated. In relation to this it is interesting to note that they purport to decline to adjudicate on the question as to whether or not my allegations as to the fraud of the Council and Water Authority were true but their reasons contain the express assertion that my allegations in respect to the Court were unfounded and they made this express assertion either knowing full well my assertions were not unfounded or without knowing or caring as to whether they were unfounded or not and while in possession of substantial part of the above material that, if considered, should give rise to a belief by them that my allegations as to the conduct of the Court were not unfounded. It may well be that they did consider them and did not like the answer they found.

The Reasons of Neave and Mandy are most significant, not for the Reasons put forward, but for the things ignored and not put forward. They also confirm and illustrate the reasons why the ilk if Edward, Garde and Co are possessed of well grounded sense and knowledge of impunity and come before them and blatantly lie.

Neave and Mandy did award indemnity costs against me and handsomely rewarded Edward, Garde and Burchell who had misled every Court including the Court of Neave and Mandy and Neave and Mandy were well possessed of the evidence of that at the time they handsomely rewarded them. The currency of the Court is lies and cash and protection for the lying lawyers and on that point, during the hearing of the application for security for costs Buchanan JA said:

BUCHANAN, JA.: Mr Thompson, although the debate in this Court has been largely concerned with the prospects of success of the appeals, of course, that is a relevant factor, but first and foremost the special circumstances which can justify the grant of an order for security for costs concern the appellants’ financial position, and where appellants do appear to be impecunious so that they won’t be able to meet the costs of the successful respondent to an appeal the prospects of success assume really a secondary importance.

This is a bald statement by a Justice of the Court of Appeal that Justice is “really a secondary importance” to cash for the lawyers. (under the guise of not being a cost to the other litigant)

And on this point a little comment and a little analogy, if one was faced with a shark infested stream and one had to cross it or risk personal ruin or save oneself from personal ruin one would pay a simple oarsman perhaps $8,000 to take one across, it is not the particular skill of the oarsman that commands the price, it is the mere fact that at those critical moments he can navigate the shark infested river, the exact same thing is true of the Courts, they are infested with lying lawyers who delude themselves that they are worth $8,000 dollars a day but the reality is; it is not their skill that commands the price; it is the lawyer infested courts of which they are an integral part and which they are adept at both navigating and maintaining which attracts the price, if the conduct outlined and demonstrated in this book were harshly dealt with by the Government and the lawyers were forced to deal in truth then half of the cases and all of the corrupt lawyers would disappear and the navigators value would also decline and justice might become more of a reality and more accessible. As it stands now no one can say justice was done in any proceeding which has been before the Supreme Court of Victoria, it is populated by lying lawyers who are both shark and navigator and ex sharks who are vice regally appointed like minded harbourmaster and they rely on each other to maintain the circumstance which commands the price. I now, reasonably intimately, know a lot of Barrister and I have to say that on balance they are as pedestrian as any other section of society, it is the pond they swim in and contribute to and carefully maintain which provides their ability to extort those unfortunate enough to become momentarily trapped in a ruinous eddy in their self polluted pox ridden pond.

These people, the barristers, have zero liability and zero responsibility, Middleton walked away with $86,000 and denied the truth of his abject grievous neglect and when I asked him to assist in rectifying what had he had done he walked away, thumbed his nose and with impunity effectively said “up ya jumper”; however if a wheel nut fell of his car he would sue the mechanic and take his house from under his children and sure as eggs is eggs, before he became an “Honourable” Judge, he would have acted as Barrister, at $8,000 per day, for someone seeking to sue such a mechanic and as Judge he would no doubt readily find against such a mechanic and add to the penalty if the mechanic had denied his liability. The probability however is that, unlike Middleton and the Courts themselves, a mechanic would admit his error and do his damndest to fix any damage done.

If anybody doubts that the Court is a legitimised extortion machine which the lawyers wallow in one only has to sit in the Taxing Masters counting house, (sorry Court) oops, Taxing Associate Justice’s Court for a few minutes to see that he awards tens of thousands of dollars for photocopying and printing at $1.50 a page and then he and the lucky lawyer call it “costs” whereas each one of them knows full well that the “cost” is in the order of a couple of cents a page plus a lowly paid secretary’s time, the balance is court approved and awarded extortionate profit. You see, under the Court rules a lawyer may charge up to $1.50 a page and they all charge that and get awarded that even though they and the Taxing Associate Justice know full well that they printed them on their high speed printer/photocopier at one point five cents a page. This is Court organised, sanctioned and ordered racketeering, it is as corrupt as the rest of the conduct set out in this book. My photocopier auto feeds and prints at 35 pages a minute, at court awarded rates that’s $3,150 per hour less consumables, paper and ink at about 1.5c a page leaves $3,118 profit per hour out of which they pay a secretary at the rate of $18 an hour, if the Hells Angels cornered the copying market and charged that they would be locked up for extortion. The Court and the lawyers have no less cornered the law related copying market and they do as a matter of fact extort and they will take your house and chuck your kids into the street if you don’t pay their extortionate $1.50 a page and a solicitor/barrister come Judge who once profiteered from that extortion will make the order seizing your house.

Now, the final distasteful little episode in the Court of Appeal. Garde and Co had had been handsomely rewarded for the fruit of their lies by Neave and Mandy so Dixon, Delany and Co thought they would get in for their extra bite at the spoils of their dishonestly and they made an application for indemnity costs on the grounds that my appeal was hopeless and they relied on the Judgments of both the Master and Osborn to demonstrate that my appeal was hopeless, the Outline of Submissions was prepared by Greg Ahern who was integral to the deception before both the Master and Before Osborn. The application was heard by Redlich JA and Beach AJA. The application was refused but an analysis remains very pertinent.

The grounds on which Dixon et al relied were in the Outline of Submissions authored by G. J. Aherm, Ahern was party to the deception to the deception before Master Efthim and then repeated before Osborn, at his paragraph 1.3 Ahern states:-

The appeal was from the decision of Justice Osborn handed down on 29 November 2008. Justice Osborn found (as has Associate Justice Efthim below) that the appellants’ claims (as plaintiffs) against the Council were statute barred and further that the claims made had been the subject of releases given in earlier proceedings between the parties. The ground upon which the Council seeks an order for indemnity costs in this application is that based on the findings of Justice Osborn, the appellants’ appeal must have been regarded as hopeless

At the time of writing his outline and at the time of making his submissions before the Court of Appeal Ahern and his instructing solicitors knew full well that they were each party to and integral to the manifestly false and misleading submissions which they conspired to make before Master Efthim for the purpose of misleading and deceiving him and that they did successfully mislead and deceive him and obtain a false judgment squarely based on their malicious deception. They were also fully aware that they had repeated their malicious deception before Osborn and that Osborn had not based his purported Reasons on anything submitted by them but he instead fabricated Reasons for Judgment which had the effect of ignoring denying and concealing the fact, known to him, that Dixon et al had deceived the Master and then repeated their deception before him. In his fabricated Reasons Osborn squarely and overtly misrepresented the gravamen of the 1995 Supreme Court proceeding and he also overtly misrepresented the gravamen of the 1988 County Court proceeding (see Chapter 1) and accordingly any supposed finding by him that the releases in those proceedings effected the cause of action in the 2005 proceeding is simply false and that falsity was known to Ahern and his instructing solicitors at the time of writing their outline and delivering their submissions. In the costs claim and In addition the release in each of the earlier proceeding had been obtained in the fraudulent circumstances described in this book.

Now to the Reasons of Redlich and Beach, as with Neave and Mandy, Redlich and Beach were well aware that the matter before them was GT v The Court and not Thompson v Macedon Ranges Shire Council etc. One thing that judges are most adept at is writing plausible Reasons and their position as Judges of the Supreme Court having the undeserved blind confidence of the people provides sufficient verisimilitude for anything they may say and in this case these Reason, to a causal trusting reader, are most plausible, they refer to the Reasons of Master Efthim and they provide verisimilitude to those reasons by asserting that I was “then represented by solicitors and Senior Counsel” whereas on the facts demonstrably before Redlich and Beach they knew full well that I and my case and my “cause of action” was thoroughly MISREPRESENTED by their, by then, brother Judge, Justice Middleton, and they also had before them sufficient material and the specific allegations that Ahern and Co had also thoroughly misled the Master and that the Reasons of the Master, upon which they explicitly relied, were fatally flawed. These aspects alone are adequate to completely impugn the Reasons of Redlich and Beach and Beach and Redlich themselves but they go on; they also say of me:-

He makes a number of serious allegations concerning the trial judge and the legal representatives involved in the proceeding which need not be repeated given the reasons we have reached. It is sufficient to observe that while it appears that Mr. Thompson Genuinely holds to those beliefs, they involve a serious misunderstanding of the evidence and its legal implications. No material has been advanced by written or oral submissions which might on any view support these allegations. (my emphasis)

From this I must conclude that the Court of Appeal is Corrupt. The fact is that in addition to my numerous earlier submissions my outline of submissions dated 24th June 2009 explicitly and unequivocally set out a representative proportion of the foregoing material of this book as I then understood it and was demonstrably before Justice’s Redlich and Beach including express description of the misrepresentations of Middleton and paragraph 14)a) of my Outline of 24th June provided unequivocal detail of Osborn’s manifestly false rendition of the gravamen of the 1995 Supreme Court proceeding and now described in the first chapters and the footnotes of this Book and Osborn’s false rendition of the Gravamen of the 1988 County Court proceeding wherein he overtly misrepresented it by misrepresenting paragraph 20 of the the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim and as now extensively set out in footnote A of this book. In addition, by the time of the hearing before Redlich and Beach I had managed a little forensic examination of the fraud of Dixon and co so my outline to Redlich and Beach also set out adequate details of the pseudo “cause of action”, true lies and use of euphemisms conspiracy which I have detailed in Chapter 3. By way of example of the material that was before Redlich and Beach, at paragraphs 3 though 5 of my submission of 24th June 2009 I said, with emphases;

In relation to Tylden Rd, at paragraphs 82 to 85 of their Outline of Submissions dated 30th October 2006 Dixon et al represented that 2-lot plans of subdivision facilitate avoidance of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (“s.9”) and that a document, compiled by me and entitled “Book of Pleadings”, contained evidence that at the time if compiling that document I was aware that s.9 had been avoided by means of these 2-lot plans of subdivision. (at para T7 the Amended SOC arefully alleged avoidance of the EFFECT of s.9, not avoidance of s.9)
At paragraphs 74 to 80 of that Outline Dixon et al represented that I had concluded these things from a “complete plan” of subdivision provided by the Council and that the Council had therefore openly disclosed that s.9 had been avoided by means of these 2-lot plans and thereby openly disclosed the cause of action.
These representations were false. (a) 2 lot plans did not and could not facilitate avoidance of s.9 or its EFFECT. (b)The “book of pleadings” expressly said that s.9 had not been avoided, it had been broken. (c) it was not possible to avoid s.9 at all. (d) no document capable of existing, much less the “complete plans”, can disclose that 2-lot plans facilitate avoidance of s.9 (e) Unlawful plans per se did not and could not comprise any part of the cause of action. (f) they rely upon ignore of the words “effect of” at para 7 of the Amended SOC. As outlined below Dixon et al fabricated their complete case and concealed it to the last minute.

And at paragraphs 8 and 9 I set out Middleton’s misrepresentations before the Master where I said;

At the time of the hearing before Master Efthim I was represented by Mr. John Middleton QC (now Justice Middleton of the Federal Court) and Neil Adams of Counsel. For reasons best known to them Middleton represented (a) that 2-lot plans facilitate avoidance of s.9 (b) that unlawful sealing per se constituted the cause of action (c) that I was unaware of these things until 2000.
These submissions by Middleton were carelessly false and misleading. They flew in the face of the law, the facts, my affidavit, the Amended Statement of Claim, his own Outline of Submissions and my specific written instructions to him. Three days before the hearing I specifically advised him and Adams in writing that I knew about the unlawful plans in 1985 and that they were irrelevant. Four months before Judgment I wrote a very strongly worded letter to Middleton advising him of his abject neglect and demanded refund of the $86,000 paid to him. I also correctly forecast that on the submissions made Master Efthim must come down against me.

I then set out some of the details of the conduct of Osborn;

Justice Osborn was squarely faced with the fact of, and my allegations that, (a) the representations made by a number of “friends of the court”, one of whom by that time was a Judge of the Federal Court were false and did not address the true causes of action. (b) Master Efthim had made his decision squarely based upon the misrepresentations made before him, (c) Greg Garde, an apparent close “friend of the court” had squarely and consistently misrepresented the legal status of the Water Supply Agreement and the 1982 water supply.
Justice Osborn could not dismiss my appeal on the misrepresentations of Dixon et al, he instead acted as advocate for the Council and Coliban and introduced his own false arguments and then fabricated Reasons for Judgment which fly in the face of the law and the facts known to him. By way of non limiting example;
- Justice Osborn misrepresented the gravamen of both the previous Tylden Rd proceeding and the previous Woodleigh Heights proceeding. (a) In relation to the previous Tylden Rd proceeding, at his paragraph 104 and elsewhere he says the previous County Court proceeding specifically alleged that the Council did not serve any or any proper Notice of Requirement whereas the facts before Justice Osborn were that paragraph 7 of that Amended Statement of Claim specifically and unequivocally alleged that such notice, for roads and water, was served. Notably at table item (ii) at page 6 of her affidavit of 23rd September 2005 Dixon swore that paragraph 7 of that previous Amended Statement of Claim alleged that such a notice was served (b) In relation to the previous Woodleigh Heights proceeding, at his paragraph 148 Justice Osborn said; (1) it was the 1982 water supply to which the plaintiffs were denied access and (2) this denial formed the gravamen of the previous Woodleigh Heights proceeding. Whereas the facts before Justice Osborn were that the 1982 water supply was not lawfully provided and the gravamen in that proceeding was that I/my land had entitlement to the 1979 water supply and the Council and Coliban concealed that entitlement.
- At his paragraph 160 Justice Osborn said of Planning Permit 2191, “…Condition 8 does not impose a requirement which must be met prior to the sealing of the plans of subdivision” whereas on the facts known to Justice Osborn the plans and submissions referred to in condition 8 contained all of the details of the cluster subdivision including number of allotments, size of allotments, common property details, roads etc. These details were not defined anywhere else. Compliance was fundamental and required by law, Justice Osborn knew it. His assertion was false. This false assertion was necessary to his false assertions as to the 1982 water supply at his paragraph 148 and elsewhere and his not holding the 1982 water supply unlawful.
- At his paragraph 117 Justice Osborn purports to transcribe relevant extracts from the “Book of Pleadings” and asserts that these extracts support his assertions at his paragraph 118 whereas these extracts do no such thing. Justice Osborn omitted to transcribe the numerous extracts which contradict his assertion. For example at the page numbered 9 of the “Book of Pleadings” I say “…. a ‘Notice of Requirement’ had been served…..”. He knew the truth and that non service of the Notice of Requirement had been concealed.
Justice Osborn’s reasons (a) as to the releases depend on his misrepresentations as to the gravamen of each of the previous proceedings. (b) as to service of the Notice of Requirement depend on misrepresenting the previous Amended Statement of Claim and the “Book of Pleadings” and omitting relevant paragraphs from each. (c) as to the Water Supply depended upon misrepresenting need to comply with the planning permit and not holding that the 1982 Water Supply Agreement was unlawful. Justice Osborn’s Reasons were overtly wrong in a carefully coordinated and calculated manner, he did not and could not hold either a reasoned or judicial belief as to his reasons, they ignore deny and conceal the fact known to him, that “friends of the court” misled the court.

Having set out adequate material for Redlich and Beach to be aware of the matters set out in this Book; at paragraphs 22 to 24 of my submission I said;

Dixon et al brought false strike out proceedings founded in deceit. Justice Osborn was aware of this fact but he protected them from that fact and the consequences of my specific allegations as to that fact. Subsequently Justice Neave and Mandie were on notice as to these things but they chose to avert their eyes. Any court where lawyers can and do mislead it with impunity because the court protects them and/or looks away is a sham. On the conduct of this matter to date the Supreme Court is a demonstrated sham, a kangaroo court. The present application could only be made in surety of impunity and immunity, the facts must be known to the deponent Ms Jacqueline Partridge; she was privy to the conduct of the proceeding and was present in Court. The Council’s outline of 15th June 2009 is signed by Ahern and Maddocks; they each knew that outline to be further deceit.
With due respect to this Honourable Court as presently constituted the Supreme Court per se is now on further notice as to the deceit of Dixon et al and the conduct of itself to date and in particular Justice Osborn.
Dixon et al exploited the trust of the Court of Master Efthim, which ought be entitled to believe silk, and won. The Supreme Court, via Justice Osborn, concealed that fact and dishonestly delivered Judgment to them. So far Dixon et al have been REWARDED and paid half a million dollars for their deceit. They have a further third of a million pending. They ought not to be awarded more. This present Court ought (A) Recommend independent inquiry into the conduct of this matter. (B) Reject the present application. (C) Refuse to tax outstanding costs until that inquiry is complete; AND (C) Make such other orders commensurate with the fact that Dixon et al carefully cooperated to deceive the Court of Master Efthim AND that the Supreme Court has been aware of, and accessory to, that fact since Justice Osborn became well aware of it. The Court is presently well compromised.

My submission contained footnote references to all relevant source documents and the documents were exhibited.

Then in the face of these things squarely before and known to them; Redlich and Beach say of my beliefs; “those beliefs, they involve a serious misunderstanding of the evidence and its legal implications”, that Redlich and Beach assert this implies that they did in fact consider my material and my allegations adequately for them to purportedly conclude that assertion. They cannot plead ignorance.

And also in the face of these things Redlich and Beach assert; “No material has been advanced by written or oral submissions which might on any view support these allegations”.

To this I say that in view of the foregoing material in this book, adequate of which was before them in my written submission to then and the documents before them, the assertion of Redlich and Beach are flat out dishonestly false and I further say that the evidence indicates that like Osborn before them they knew it to be false at the time that they wrote it and like Osborn before them it was done for purpose of ignoring, denying and concealing the facts known to them that Dixon et al, and Edward et al conspired to pervert the course of justice and subsequently their brother Judge, Osborn, did exactly as they were now doing, falsified Reasons for Judgment to ignore, deny and conceal these things and to them punish me for having the temerity to stand before them and put the truth, known to them, that their temple of justice is in fact a den of iniquity and they are contributing cohabiting denizens.

Justices Redlich and Beach had sufficient before them to conclude that my allegations had substance. They chose not only to ignore that material but to represent that material as providing no support for my allegations. Justices Redlich and Beach were adequately informed of the relevant foregoing material in this book. They, Justices of the Court of Appeal, in adequate knowledge of the things set out above, provided succour and further haven for Dixon, Delany and Co and the rest of their fellow lying lawyers and on this occasion also for Osborn.

It is not possible that Justices Redlich and Beach held the view expressed by them; “No Material has been advanced by written or oral submissions which might on any view support these allegations”

Contrary to their assertions, each of Neave and Mandy and Redlich and Beach were possessed of sufficient material to give rise to a belief by them as to a substantial number of the relevant matters set out in this book, adequate for them to be thoroughly aware of the apparently cultural corruption of their Court and its officers. My paragraphs 14 a), b) and c) as transcribed above are explicit and are not capable of being refuted

The Reasons of each of these Judges specifically rely upon the fruit of the fraud of the Court itself, namely the fraudulently obtained Reasons of Master Efthim and the fraudulently fabricated Reasons of Osborn to hold that my allegations as to those frauds were baseless. This is perverse. They were forming a circle of deceit. They knowingly and purposefully relied on the putrid fruit of the deceit to falsify my allegations as to that deceit.

Their bald faced false assertion set out in their reasons rely upon their very positions as Court of Appeal judges to provide verisimilitude to those bald faced false assertions and their reasons and also the fatally flawed reasons of Efthim and Osborn below. Let them say why there is nothing in the fabricated “Authenticated Orders” or that Middleton did not mislead the Court or that the matters set out in my chapters above are wrong and exactly what else of the matters in this book are wrong or that Osborn was correct and learned in his profoundly absurd pronouncement that condition 8 of the permit did not have to be complied with before the Council sealed the Woodleigh Heights plans etc, let them say how it is that the remainder of Osborn’s reasons are soundly based.

If Beach and Redlich cannot say these things they are not merely culpable, they are complicit and I say that on the evidence they cannot and are complicit.

On the evidence before me and set out above, because of their more exalted positions, Justices, Neave, Mandy, Redlich and Beach are more complicit and even more culpable than Dixon, Delany and Co, Edward, Garde and Co and their brother Judge Osborn. To a lesser degree I think that Lansdowne is also complicit, the 35,000 page Appeal Book consisted of more than 30,000 pages of packing to hide the “Book of Pleadings” she knew I was out the window if I could not produce those 35,000 pages and to the finicky specifications and with specious reason she disposed of the requirement for the summary of facts. Truth and fact and reason and justice have no place in their Court. Whoever, within the court, fabricated and proffered the fraudulently fabricated “Authenticated Orders” is also seriously complicit.

I am an exceedingly simple person, I know right from wrong. What happened in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal is wrong.

These little crooks stole my democratic rights and years of enjoyment of my life, they also stole from my children and my former wife and my partner. They are a threat to democracy itself. They ought be dealt with to the full extent of the law, but in which Court?

It may be that the corruption which I have set out above is so much the norm in the Courts of Victoria, and perhaps Australia, that the corruption is not endemic and not system, it is cultural and is so culturally accepted by the ilk of Osborn and Beach and Redlich and Neave and Mandy and Garde and Middleton and Delany and the lesser lawyers that they see no wrong in it. It is time for the people to stand up.

An interesting aside; On 6th August 2008 our esteemed, pure as driven snow, Greg Garde made a submission to the Law Reform Commission Inquiry into vexatious litigants, in that submission he said;

“To give you one experience of a vexatious litigant, having had a mediator successfully achieve an outcome in a mediation, because of the issues associated with a vexatious litigant a day or two later the mediation result was disowned by the vexatious litigant. It then necessarily went to the court. The court said the mediation agreement ought to be specifically performed and enforced. Some time later the vexatious litigant issued fresh proceedings in the court, in any event. They were subsequently dismissed by a Master. They were taken on appeal to the court, they were dismissed again. They were taken to the court of appeal. “

This was a specific reference to me, what Garde failed to tell the committee is that at the time of the mediation he was barrister for the water authority and it was a water authority plan which was concealed in the 1995 proceeding he also did not tell the committee that, as detailed above, that he had conspired with Delany and the rest to pervert the course of justice and deceive the Master and that the subsequent appeals, as detailed above were predicated on the fact that he had conspired with the Dixon and Co to deceive the Master for the purpose of perverting the course of justice and obtaining a false judgment. In addition he did not mention that he had misled the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and if he had not done so, a substantial part, if not all, of the subsequent event may not have occurred. He also did not mention that the whole show started as a consequence of fraud which included the corrupt lawyers, PS&R; he was aware. — deceitful, pompous, little man! He himself is now a judge of the Supreme Court which he conspired to mislead and chairman of VCAT which he also misled and that is the next topic.