As discussed elsewhere on this website, Justice Robert Osborn fabricated purported reasons for judgement that were contrived by him to deny and conceal the fact that my then barrister, John Middleton, and each of the barristers for the Council and Water Authority, Jim Delany and Greg Garde, and their respective junior barristers and instructing solicitors, brought and put fabricated cases in the 2005 hearing before the then Master Efthim and that Master Efthim published purported reasons for judgement that were squarely founded on those fabricated cases.
Upon reading Osborn’s fabrications, I found it difficult to believe or accept that my lifelong, ingrained, absolute belief, confidence and pride in the integrity of the justice system was wrong and that a Supreme Court judge would fabricate purported reasons for judgement to conceal and deny the conduct of Middleton, Delany and Garde.
To ensure that I was not mistaken in my understanding that Osborn had fabricated his purported reasons for judgement, I asked my then Victorian agent, the solicitor Daniel Isakow, to find me a barrister whom I could consult privately and directly without an instructing solicitor.
Daniel found me the junior barrister Louie Hawas,
I summarised the things now substantially set out in my Open memo to all judges, barristers, and Victorian Members of Parliament, 3rd February 2014, and in my letter to all Supreme Court & Court of Appeal judges 5th August 2015
I told Louie that I wasn’t after a written opinion; I only wanted his man-to-man comment. Louie Hawas agreed with my conclusion that Osborn’s purported reasons flew in the face of the facts and the law and had been fabricated.
With or without Louie’s agreement, I would have continued; however, bolstered by Louie’s agreement with me, I formulated and filed my Notice of Appeal.
After I filed my Notice of Appeal, several things were relevant.
- Osborn and the Court produced the Fabricated Authenticated Court Orders. that were fabricated for the purpose of preventing me from putting my allegations to the Court of Appeal,
- Garde & Delany sought orders that I pay security for costs. At that hearing,
- Justice Buchanan and Redlich said that there was nothing to my allegations about the, in fact, clearly and purposefully fabricated authenticated orders.
- While fixed with knowledge of evidence that Osborn had fabricated his reasons and in knowledge that the fabricated authenticated orders indicated Osborn’s, and the court’s knowledge of Osborn’s guilt Justices Buchanan and Redlich ordered that I pay $60,000 in security for costs, and in default of that payment, my appeal would be struck out.
- I paid the $60,000 in cash.
- In my written set of allegations dated 8/12/2006, I told Osborn that in my inevitable appeal, Practice Note No. 2 of 1995 required Garde and Delany to prepare a summary of issues and facts, and the summary would expose the falsity of his reasons.
- The court rules required me to prepare a so-called “Appeal Book” which was a bound and indexed copy of all documents relevant to the appeal.
- At a directions hearing before Master Lansdowne I submitted that Garde and Delany prepare the summary of issues and facts and that the content of the appeal book should then be limited to documents relevant to those things.
- In her orders of 3/12/2007 Master Lansdowne declined to order that the summary of issues and facts be prepared prior to me producing the Appeal Book.
- In knowledge of evidence, and my assertion, that the summary of issues and facts would expose the misconduct of Garde and Delany and the fabrication of Osborn’s reasons, in her orders of 14th February 2008 Master Lansdowne dispensed with the requirement that Garde & Delany prepare the summary of issues and facts and ordered the onerous task that I produce an appeal book consisting of about thirty thousand pages, 99% of which would be entirely irrelevant.
In view of the foregoing relevant things, I formed the opinion that the court was more inclined to take notice of barristers rather than a mere layperson such as myself. And I may be more successful if I have barristers appear for me for the balance of my appeal.
I asked Danial Isakow to find me a senior barrister who would be prepared to work with Louie Hawas to put the facts and my allegations in respect to Osborn’s fabrications.
Significantly, Daniel Iskow would not discuss the issues with me; he literally said, “I have to work in this town.”
Daniel found Ian Waller QC.
One of the conditions of Ian Waller’s retention was that he was not required to provide a written opinion.
Unlike when I initially consulted Louie, at this time Waller and Louie had my Notice of Appeal, and they had copies of the Fabricated Authenticated Court Orders that demonstrated Osborn’s and the Court’s knowledge of their guilt of the things alleged by me. They also had knowledge of the abovementioned dot points.
Immediately below is a copy of a letter dated 2nd October 2008 that I sent to Daniel Isakow after Waller & Hawas rendered their bill.
I make further comment below that letter.
***************
2nd October 2008
Mr. Daniel Isakow
Isakow Lawyers.
Level 2
200 Queen St
Melbourne 3000
Dear Daniel.
Barristers Fees.
Daniel, I am deeply troubled, I both like and respect you and it troubles me that I must write this letter. I trust that we can resolve the following amicably.
I am deeply concerned at the account of the barristers.
As I have said to you on several occasions, I took the advice of Ian with a grain of salt and as I said to you his advice was significant, not for what he said but for what he did not say and in this regard I said that he did not address the issues of the conduct of John Middleton or Osborn..
I was prepared to throw away the $20,000 which I gave you however I am not prepared to throw away $53,000 which is now requested.
My problem was not that I had lost but was that I had two false (for want of better description) Judgments against me. The first false Judgment was due to the fact that Master Efthim was misled by the other side, and John Middleton carelessly or negligently failed to put my case. The second false Judgment was based on Reasons for Judgment so completely and manifestly wrong that I say there are grounds for a belief that Osborn contrived his reasons without regard for and in the face of truth, fact and the law, the effect (and perhaps purpose) of which was to negate or give the lie to my allegations in relation to the conduct of the hearing before Efthim and particularly the conduct of Middleton etc,.
It was in respect to these specific issues which I mounted the appeal and my Notice of Appeal was most graphic in this regard.
As a consequence of the neglect of Middleton and the Judgment by Osborn I was burdened, firstly and most importantly with two false judgments and secondly with some $600,000 to $700,000 in thrown away costs, thrown away because I did not have a Judgment on the true facts and issues.
I initially intended to represent myself and shortly after Osborn’s Judgment I consulted Louie who agreed that there was something to my allegations in respect to the Judgment of Osborn.
I subsequently decided that it would be better if I engaged barristers to represent me however, due to the nature of the appeal which was specifically the wrongness as distinct from error of the previous judgments, I specifically required courageous barristers who would be prepared to put the neglect of Middleton and the misconduct of Osborne to the Court.
The issue was not winning or losing per se, on the issues of the proceeding but was to right the wrongs of the previous judgments and to have the previous Judgments set aside and the matter decided, either for or against me, on the true facts and issues. In relation to this, in my written submission to the Court of Appeal at the time of the application for security for costs I said “if the court must ultimately find against me then it must do so on the facts and the issues”.
It was in relation to these things that I required “courageous” barristers prepared to put these issues and this was my specific and explicit request and requirement when Ian and Louie were engaged to represent me. They were not engaged for the purpose of giving opinion on the issues of the proceeding. Had I needed or required opinion on the issues of the proceeding I would have engaged a single barrister for that purpose.
As I said to you at that time, if they were not prepared to put my case regarding the false Judgments including the conduct of Middleton I would go it alone and represent myself.
Having engaged Ian and Louie for the specific purpose of putting the wrongness of the false judgments I set several threshold questions or points in relation to the Judgment of Osborn. While I do not have a copy of the letter to hand because my copy is at Orange, I recollect that one of these threshold questions was in specific regard to paragraph 57 of Osborn’s Reasons. The specific purpose of setting these threshold questions was so as to limit costs to the cost of considering those threshold questions, perhaps a couple of thousand dollars, should they not see eye to eye with me on the issue of the false Judgments or should they be not prepared to put my case in relation to the false judgments.
We then had two meetings. At the time of the first meeting to be attended by both Ian and Louie I fully believed it was for the purpose of briefing them on the case to be put in relation to the false judgments and the arguments to be put in relation to the issues in the proceeding. There was no other reason to have both present. Neither of these things occurred. The meeting opened with Ian expressing the opinion that I could not win in relation to Tylden Rd and the reason given was that notwithstanding the perjury and the false admissions the facts were, with diligence, ascertainable from discovered documents. Ian did however say that it was possible to win in relation to Woodleigh Heights. At that meeting despite several attempts by me to turn the discussion towards the neglect of Middleton and the false Judgments neither Ian nor Louie expressed any opinions in relation to these things.
Before the second meeting I sent you a letter which set out that in the absence of specific authority I rejected the opinion of Ian and Louie in relation to Tylden Rd.
At the time of the second meeting, again attended by both Ian and Louie, I continued to believe that the meeting would attend to the reasons why they were engaged, namely to put the case in relation to the false Judgments however again this did not happen. There was discussion in relation to Woodleigh Heights and Ian put his opinion that I would not win in relation to Woodleigh Heights because I had failed to exhibit the reticulation plan which showed that the reticulation mains were laid in 1982 and not 1979.
During the course of the second meeting a number of things occurred;
1/ Neither Ian or Louie would be drawn to express an opinion in relation to the conduct of the barristers for the other side in the earlier proceedings and thereby avoided expressing opinion as to whether or not they had misled Efthim and initially Osborn.
2/ Neither Ian or Louie expressed an opinion as to the conduct of Middleton excepting that Ian expressly said that I had probably not briefed Middleton correctly and thereby Ian specifically avoided giving opinion on the culpability or neglect of Middleton and instead shifted blame.
3/ Having regard to Ian’s opinions, that for the reasons said by him, I would lose on the issues in the proceeding Ian expressly said of the previous Judgment(s) “the Judgment(s) were right but for the wrong reasons” and thereby specifically avoided giving opinion in relation to the wrongness of both previous Judgments.
4/ Ian and Louie expressly said that while some less scrupulous barristers would act for me they would not.
5/ No opinions were given on the threshold issues.
6/ Ian and Louie advised that the Court of Appeal would be prejudiced against me and that the practice in the Court of Appeal is to come in with the Judgments pre-written.
As with Ian’s advice in relation to Tylden Rd I specifically reject the advice in relation to Woodleigh Heights as unsound for the reason that the other side had admitted to all allegations including that the water mains had been laid in 1982 and not 1979. There was no need to exhibit the plan to prove that which had been admitted.
During the course of the second meeting, and with the benefit of hindsight of the first meeting, I formed several views, including;
1/ It was clear that despite my repeated attempts to address the issues of the false judgments neither Ian nor Louie would express any opinion, adverse or otherwise, in relation to the conduct of Middleton or the hearing before Efthim at all and they would not express any opinions on the conduct of Osborn or his Reasons for Judgment.. The closest we got was when Ian shifted blame from Middleton by saying that I probably had not briefed him well enough.
2/ Ian’s statement to the effect that the previous judgment(s) were right but for the wrong reasons offended me. A wrong Judgment is a wrong Judgment, full stop, and cannot be vindicated or made right.
3/ The opinions in relation to both Tylden Rd and Woodleigh Heights were wrong and not fatal as represented by Ian. The Limitation of Actions Act was not intended to benefit someone who had concealed things with perjury, false admissions and clipped documents as had occurred in relation to Tylden Rd. In relation to Woodleigh Heights the facts evinced by the reticulation plan had been admitted and relied upon by the other side. My task was to demonstrate concealment, not that which had been admitted. In my view a competent barrister could successfully put these arguments.
4/ I had already experienced what Osborn did after Middleton’s stuff up. I had also seen the Court of Appeal effectively give judgment without trial when Justice Buchanan said “In my view there is nothing in these contentions” in relation to my allegations about Osborn and now neither Ian nor Louie would say anything in relation to the conduct of the other side’s barristers, Middleton or Osborn.
5/ Ian’s advice that the Court of Appeal would be prejudiced struck a chord with me.
In view of all of these things I concluded that the probability was that the Court of Appeal would act substantially as Ian and Louie had. I concluded it would not address the issues of the conduct of the previous proceedings, it would find against me on some point and then say it was not necessary to consider the circumstances of the previous hearings and judgments.
Ian and Louie had refused to act and specifically said to the effect that less honourable barristers might but they would not.
I abandoned the Appeal, not on the strength of Ian’s opinions which I simply consider to be wrong but on the issue of prejudice of the Court and my experience to date.
At that time I told you that I “took Ian’s opinions with a grain of salt” and that the significance was not what he said but what he did not say. I told you that I suspected there was some sort of boys club in operation.
As to the advice on the issues, in relation to Tylden Rd you will recollect that substantial conversation on the analogy of the counterfeiter and in relation to Woodleigh heights the substantial conversation which included that at least a notice to produce should have been issued by my legal team.
I elected to cut my losses and to go public. I considered the $20,000 which I gave you to be thrown away and I was prepared to simply walk away from that and not cause either you, Ian or Louie any embarrassment.
After abandoning the Appeal Steven Edward sought an order for indemnity costs based on the assertion that my allegations in respect to the fraud of the Council and Water Board and my allegations in respect to the conduct of the proceedings including the conduct of Middleton were unfounded.
Your advice at that time was that I engage Ian to appear and submit to the effect that I had been a good boy and had abandoned the Appeal after getting advice. I rejected this advice because it was not true. My intention was to defend that application on the grounds that each and every one of my allegations was founded in fact. I provided you with the opportunity to stay as solicitor on the record or not as you wished. You indicated that you wished to withdraw so to save you embarrassment and the need to seek the Courts permission I dismissed you.
I prepared a relatively brief Affidavit and submission which demonstrated beyond any possible dispute that my allegations were founded on fact sufficient to give rise to a belief as to the truth of my allegations.
It was only after the costs hearing that I was advised by you that the costs had run to $53,000, substantially over the $20,000 which you had been put in funds.
I was prepared to walk away from the $20,000, I am not prepared to walk away from the $53,000 now required.
Summary.
1/ I engaged Ian and Louie to act for me to put my case in respect to the false judgments, not to provide opinion on the issues of the proceeding.
2/ Had I required advice I would have engaged a single barrister for that purpose.
3/ Ian and Louie did not provide any opinions or comment at all as to the central issues, namely the false judgments and reasons therefore.
4/ The opinion given in relation to Tylden Rd was set out in the reasons of both Efthim and Osborn and could have been concluded/ascertained at minimal cost from reading those reasons.
5/ The opinions given in relation to Woodleigh Heights was contained in the reasons of Osborn and could have been concluded/ascertained at minimal cost from a reading of those reasons.
6/ Assuming the opinions in relation to Tylden Rd and Woodleigh Heights were fatal as held by Ian and supported by Louie then those things were ascertainable from the Reasons for Judgment and were or ought to have been known to them before the first meeting and at minimal cost.
7/ Ian and Louie advised that due to the opinions held by them in relation to Tylden Rd and Woodleigh Heights I would definitely lose and they would not act for me but less scrupulous barristers might. As these things were available from the Reasons for Judgment then they should have known that they would not represent me long before the first meeting and all of the additional time spent including my time and money in preparing for and attending the meetings was wasted.
As the things giving rise to the opinions forming the grounds were available from a reading of the Reasons for Judgment I think that these things could have been concluded/ascertained by a single barrister in minimal time and as Ian and Louie refused to act for those reasons, it is my view that the opinions reached could have been reached for just a few thousand dollars and the decision not to act made at that time.
I would be pleased if you would have Ian and Louie extensively review the account. I suggest that, in the circumstances, even the $20,000 is excessive and there ought be some refund.
Daniel, I reassert that I both like and respect you, I have no complaint against you whatsoever, I trust that we can resolve this issue.
I enclose herewith a copy of the affidavit and submission of Steven Edward and co and my affidavit and submission in reply. I also include the reasons for Judgment. As you will see my conclusion in respect to the prejudice of the Court of Appeal has been shown to be correct. I have not included my exhibits, if you would like them let me know.
I am including these things for your personal interest only. My affidavit and submission contains what I say to be graphic grounds for a belief of misconduct by Osborn. I am as a matter of certainty going to make all of these things most public. In my view Osborn is unfit.
In addition I am preparing a number of complaints to the Legal Services Commissioner including against Middleton.
Yours Faithfully,
Glenn Thompson.
******************
Further comment.
- Ian Waller & Louie Hawas never had any intention of representing me to put my allegations/case in respect of Osborn’s fabrications.
- In retrospect I saw that Louie was a say-nothing “yes-man” to Waller.
- In the circumstances set by them, there was no need for both Waller and Hawas to be present at our meetings
- Waller and Hawas fraudulently milked my wallet.