Introduction to the conduct of Major General Garde QC and Jim Delany SC.
Now to demonstrate the reasons why Osborn and the Supreme Court of Victoria defrauded me.
In each of the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court appeal against the orders of the Magistrates orders referred to above the Council gave evidence;
That Buchanan had filed the 18 lot plan and the series of 2-lot plans on 12th February 1980.
That the Council had considered the 18 lot plan on 20th February 1980
That on 20th February 1980 the Council resolved to issue a Notice of Requirement in respect to that 18 lot plan
That on or about 20th February 1980 it had served that Notice of Requirement relating to the 18 lot plan.
That the Council subsequently processed that 18 lot plan in several parts or stages.
That the Council’s resolution of 20th February 1980 extended to and imposed a “Requirement” in respect of each of the 2-lot plans which were parts or stages of the 18 lot plan considered by the Council.
Notwithstanding that I was of the firm view that the Council had acted corruptly and had processed the 2-lot plans for the purpose of giving effect to Buchanan’s criminal intent to avoid section 9 of the Sale of Land Act I could not show that the fact or the mind of the Council was anything other than that which was said under oath by the Council so consequently my 1988 County Court proceeding was an action to recover monies had and received by the Council under mistake of law. During the course of the 1988 County Court proceeding the Council and Water Authority unequivocally and overtly restated the evidence given in the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court by discovering documents with handwritten notes which expressly asserted that the 18 lot plan had been processed in several parts and that an 18 lot plan had been sealed and the Council and Water Authority also made 8 separate admissions to the above reproduced paragraph 7.
As explained further below, because the 1988 proceeding was an action based in mistake of law I did not recover the damages which the Council’s conduct had caused me.
In August 2000 I discovered or more correctly became able to demonstrate that for the corrupt purpose of assisting Buchanan in his intention to avoid the Victorian Sale of Land Act, the facts were, and the mind of the Council was; that the Council;
had in fact abandoned that 18 lot plan and had not processed it further after 20th February 1980
had not served the Notice of Requirement related to that plan.
had in fact processed each of the further plans as discrete individual subdivisions and not as parts or stages of the 18 lot plan.
That the Council’s resolution of 20th February 1980 did not impose a “Requirement” on any one of the contrived plans which had in fact been processed discretely from one another and completely discrete from and unrelated to the 18 lot plan.
had committed perjury and had falsified documentary evidence to conceal its true and corrupt conduct from myself and the Courts and had falsified discovered documents and made eight separate false admissions to the above reproduced paragraph 7.
Because the Council had in fact processed each of the series of plans separately and discretely as separate subdivisions from one another and the Council had not resolved to make a requirement in respect to any one of them this meant that the Council had in fact sealed each of the separate and discrete plans of subdivision knowing full well or not caring that the services were not present and there was no lawful means to compel anyone to provide those services and it had in fact fraudulently called upon my bank guarantees.
This new discovery gave me a new cause of action and it was one which was manifestly concealed by demonstrable unequivocal fraud and possible criminal perjury and which perjury was intended to and did conceal the corrupt conduct of the Council which led to the Council sealing plans without services and without lawful means of compelling those services and also concealing its corrupt conduct in holding and calling upon my guarantees without authority of law. The Council knew well it was doing wrong. The Council also knew that it corruptly continued to conceal these things when terms of settlement were signed so the settlement of that 1988 proceeding where I did not recover loss and damage was also fraudulent.
My new 2005 proceeding alleged that the Council;
had abandoned the 18 lot plan and had omitted to serve the Notice of Requirement related to that plan and
had sealed each of the separate plans knowing full well or without caring that services were not present and there was no lawful means of compelling provision of those services.
The Council and Water Authority wished to strike out my proceeding without going to trial but the Council’s and Water Authority’s barristers, Jim Delany SC and Major General Garde QC respectively, could not legitimately make a strike out application let alone succeed in one because of the true facts which were explicitly set out in the Statement of Claim and my affidavits and were palpably known to them and which facts had demonstrably been concealed by the corrupt conduct of the Council and Water Authority by perjury and falsification of documents and multiple false admissions to paragraph 7 of the Statements of Claim in the 1988 proceedings.
So for the purpose of overcoming the facts and truth known to them, as thoroughly detailed at Chapter 3 below, Delany, Garde and Co devised and implemented an incredibly corrupt and sophisticated scheme to deceive the Master into believing;
unlawful sealing of unlawful plans which had been filed by a Kenneth Raymond Buchanan and contrived to avoid section 9 of the Victorian Sale of Land Act (“s.9”) constituted my “cause of action” and;
that I had concluded the plans were “unlawful plans” and they had been “unlawfully sealed” by perusing a copy of a complete plan which the council had discovered in an earlier proceeding and that I knew the sealing of such plans to be unlawful.
that by discovering this “complete plan” the council had openly disclosed the cause of action
That not only was there;
no fraudulent concealment of the cause of action
my knowledge of the “unlawful sealing” of the “unlawful plans” was set out in a document entitled “Book of Pleadings” which I had compiled in about 1991 during the 1988 County Court proceeding.
Consequently my 2005 proceeding was barred by the colloquially known statute of limitations.
Then by further sophisticated and corrupt scheme Delany, Garde and Co concealed their intended deception from myself and my lawyers during the lead up phases to the hearing before the Master and then during the hearing, by means of very sophisticated deception, they groomed the Master to be receptive and then they consummated their scheme in the dying moments of the hearing before the Master when at page 88 of the transcript of the second day Delany took the Master, out of context, to page 5 of the Book of Pleadings and read from my handwritten notes; (Delany read from the Book of Pleadings and intersperses his comment – for understanding I have emboldened what he read and italicised his interspersions
“if we go to page 5 and you weren’t taken to this handwritten note, this is very important”, notwithstanding it was illegal Buchanan had sold at least two of the allotments, Notices of Disposition opposite, “One might say why was it illegal?”, In order to avoid the provisions of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act. “Isn’t that interesting,” which at that time prevented the sale of allotments on subdivisions of more than two allotments. Buchanan then lodged “what did he do? He” lodged seven separate plans which were contrived, “written in the Plaintiffs own hand”, to create several subdivisions of two lots each.
After this piece of theatre Mr. Delay went on, with a flourish, to say;
“This is the critical piece of information you’re being told that this poor man didn’t find out until 2000 and didn’t realise he had this great case”
Delany then went on reading and commenting further from the “Book of Pleadings” and then an exchange took place between Master Efthim and Delany
MASTER: “He refers to it in his own writing”.
MR DELANY: “That’s right.”
MASTER: “You go back to his affidavit and say he must’ve known this – – -“
MR DELANY: “All the things he relies on now, which were outlined to you, not only did he know but he made notes about, and what’s more we’ve had a complaint about the giving of false evidence in the Magistrates’ Court at Bendigo.”
Then to the demonstrable exclusion of any knowledge of the true “cause of action” which was related to the “Requirements” the Master was well and truly impressed with and hooked by these carefully planned deceitful misrepresentations of Delany, Garde and Co regarding “unlawful sealing” of “unlawful plans” and squarely based his Reasons for Decision and subsequent Orders on these fraudulent misrepresentations.
At the time of making these representations, and at the time of obtaining wrongful judgment, each of Delany and Garde and their respective junior barristers and instructing solicitors knew their representations to be maliciously false and intended to deceive the Master and thereby pervert the course of justice and fraudulently obtain a wrongful judgment of the Supreme Court.
As I will shortly unequivocally and graphically demonstrate, the facts known to Delany, Garde and Co were that;
pages 3 to 8 of the Book of Pleadings, when read together in context graphically and expressly and unequivocally set out that s.9 cannot be avoided at all let alone with contrived 2-lot plans and;
page 5 of the Book of Pleadings graphically set out Buchanan’s criminal intent to avoid (a grossly mistaken view of) s.9.
the total extent of the unlawfulness of the plans, if unlawful at all, was that they did not show all of the roads or allotments intended to be set out and;
on page 8 of the Book of Pleadings my handwriting said “Although Buchanan thought he had exploited a loophole in the law he had in fact broken the law…...”
- at law there is no such thing as “unlawful sealing” of “unlawful plans”, as explained below section 569B(10) of the Local Government Act repaired, fixed,annulled any and all deficiencies.
As graphically and unequivocally set out in the Book of Pleadings the contrived plans referred to by Delany did not facilitate avoidance of s.9; they were nothing more than testament to Buchanan’s and his solicitor’s gross ignorance of the law and Buchanan’s criminal intent and by the end of the hearing before the Master these contrived plans were also testament to the conspiracy and fraud and corruption of Delany, Garde and Co and their corrupt intent.
Notwithstanding that the Book of Pleadings was explicit, out of context excerpts were capable of being misconstrued and fraudulently misrepresented and Delany, Garde and Co had very carefully and deceitfully excised page 5 and fraudulently misconstrued it to the Master for the purpose of perverting the course of justice and obtaining a wrongful judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria. (in identical sense as Osborn excised part of paragraph 20 and corruptly misrepresented it excepting of course that corrupt Osborn also fraudulently appended his own words)
After having the fact and the law and the Book of Pleadings powerfully and purposefully misrepresented to him by corrupt experts at obfuscation and deception the Master read and considered the explicit material before him with an indelibly planted preconception and a jaundiced eye and concluded exactly as intended by Delany, Garde and Co.
I sacked my negligent lawyers and appealed the Orders of Master Efthim. Flushed with the success of their fraud before the Master; Delany, Garde and Co repeated their overt misrepresentations before Osborn and by this time of course the cat was out of the bag so they were upfront with the misrepresentations which they had concealed from me and the Master until the dying minutes of that hearing.
At paragraph 82 of their Outline of submissions before Osborn, under the bold heading “No concealment of the cause of action: book of pleadings”, Delany and his Junior Greg Ahern and instructing solicitor Michelle Dixon say:
“The plaintiffs key contention in the current proceeding ….. is that the initial sealing of the plans of subdivision was unlawful or illegal and that the plans were sealed in such a way so as to avoid the operation of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic)“
Then at paragraph 83, as a continuing slant on the “true lies”, they falsely represent: (I explain “true lies” below)
“The plaintiffs contend that they only worked out that the initial sealing of the plans of subdivision was unlawful or illegal when Mr. Thompson opened the ‘black folder’ in August 2000 and reviewed the copy of the complete plans for the industrial allotments.“
Then at paragraph 84:
“However, what is clear from a book of pleadings annotated by Mr. Thompson … .. is that Mr. Thompson had formed the view prior to the settlement of the prior Tylden Rd proceeding in 1991 that the initial sealing of the plans was unlawful. The ‘new’ matters that the plaintiffs are now seeking to rely upon .. .. have been known to them since prior to 1991 …. “
Then at paragraph 85:
“The following extracts are quotations from Mr. Thompson’s handwriting in the book of pleadings
this is the critical new fact that the plaintiffs contend that they were unaware of until August 2000;
- ‘Notwithstanding it was illegal Buchanan had sold at least two of the allotments (notices of disposition opposite). In order to avoid the provisions of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act which at that time prevented the sale of allotments on subdivisions of more than two allotments (etc) Buchanan then lodged seven separate plans which were contrived to create several subdivisions of two lots each‘”
So precisely as they had corruptly done before the Master; Delany, Garde and Co very, very explicitly and in unequivocal and very careful manner deceitfully excised my words from page 5 of the Book of Pleadings and in their written outline to Osborn they made the identical fraudulent misrepresentation as they had used to pervert the course of justice before the Master excepting that by means of further sophisticated corrupt scheme which I completely detail below they had very carefully concealed their intended fraudulent misrepresentations from the Master and my lawyers and myself until executed in the dying moments of the hearing before the Master.
In addition at their subparagraph 85(i) Delany and Co say;
- “Mr. Thompson sets out the minutes of Council dated 21 May 1980. The sequence of plans 79305E to 79305K is clearly referred in the minutes as is the fact that plans have been submitted in 7 parts”.
This is in fact a reassertion of the false evidence to the Magistrates Court and Supreme Court that the Council had processed the 18 lot plan in several parts and that the 18 lot plan had NOT been abandoned. The footnote reference for subparagraph 85(i) is a reference to page C9 of the Book of Pleadings which sets out a copy of the Council minutes which assert that the 18 lot plan had been suubmitted in seven parts and that a Requirement had been served on the owner in respect of water and road construction..
In addition at their subparagraph 85(j) Delany and Co say;
- critically Mr. Thompson records:
- Mr. Buchanan had illegally sold 2 of the lots and had been able to do so as the Council was prepared to accept plans of subdivision contrived in such a manner as to appear to be “two lot subdivisions”
The footnote reference for Delany’s subparagraph 85(j) is a reference to page C12 of the Book of Pleadings which also sets out that Buchanan was unable to realise the funds from those illegal sales due to the operation of section 8A of the Sale of Land Act and subsections 569E(3)(d) and (e) of the Local Government Act which prevented the Registrar of Titles from approving plans of subdivision until such time as any “Requirement” had been either withdrawn or complied with. Pages C13 to C16 of the Book of Pleadings then go on to disclose several instances as to my belief that a “Requirement” had been imposed on Buchanan and the plans properly endorsed to that effect.
- At page C14;
- “…… the plans were sealed by Council on 21/5/80 with Requirements endorsed thereon.”
- At page C15;
- “…… although the Requirements were not complied with“
- At page C16;
- “….. Whereupon the Registrar of Titles approved the Plans and Mr. Buchanan was able to complete his ilegal sales”. (This was said in relation to a letter from the Council advising the Registrar of Titles that the “Requirements” had been complied with.)
Now the problem for these lawyers, and as now graphically demonstrated, also a problem for corrupt Judge Osborn, was that I had sacked my grossly negligent (or worse) lawyers and I was self represented and I was not bound by the corrupt code of silence and mutual protection which, as graphically demonstrated below, manifestly exists between lawyers and between lawyers and judges and between judges and in reply to Delany and Garde and Co’s misrepresentations I put the facts to Osborn. After I put those facts Osborn was fixed with knowledge that Delany, Garde and Co had misled the Master and that the Masters Reasons were squarely based on those misrepresentations and those self same misrepresentations had since been repeated before him.
The facts which I put to Osborn were essentially as set out at pages 3 and 8 of the Book of Pleadings;
- Page 3 of the Book of Pleadings contained a physical cut and paste of s.9 of the Sale of Land Act which says;
- “Where a notice of intention to subdivide land into three or more allotments in the form of the thirtieth schedule to the Local Government Act 1958 has been given or where in respect of any land such a notice is required to be given no person shall sell any such allotment unless …. … the allotment is an allotment on a plan of subdivision approved by the Registrar ….. “ (the bold underlined words were underlined by me in the Book of Pleadings.)
- Page 5 of the Book of Pleadings graphically sets out Buchanan’s criminal intent to avoid s.9.
- Page 8 of the Book of Pleadings contained a physical cut and paste of s569(1) of the Local Government Act which quite simply required a subdivider to give Notice of his Intention in the form of the thirtieth schedule to the Local Government Act and in this case it was Buchanan’s manifest intention was to do a single 18 lot residential subdivision and my explicit and unequivocal handwritten note said;
- “Although Buchanan thought he had exploited a loophole in the law he had in fact broken the law because as it was his clear intention to subdivide into 18 allotments he was bound to give one 30th Schedule Notice and one plan showing all allotments.”
In other words the law and my Book of Pleadings were explicit and not open to reasonable contention. s.9 applied in relation to “intention”, it was simply irrelevant that Buchanan had filed this series of silly little 2 lot plans which were contrived to avoid his grossly mistaken understanding of s.9 which was a well drafted piece of legislation; s.9 did not relate to plans or subdivisions or even the Notice of Intention actually given, the critical element which could not be fabricated or concealed by a dishonest developer was his intention; s.9 operated in respect to the Notice of Intention which was required to be given.
A further factor is that the allotments created pursuant to these contrived silly little plans were identical in all respected to the allotments which would have been created pursuant to the legitimate plan showing all 18 allotments, so in other words not only did these plans not facilitate avoidance of s.9 they were also absolutely incapable of causing any loss or damage whatsoever and therefore did not and could not ever form any basis for my cause of action or any conceivable cause of action. The plans were utterly benign.
In addition s569B(10) of the Local Government Act provided;
“The sealing of a plan of subdivision shall be conclusive evidence for all purposes that there has been compliance with this act with respect to such sealing and that all preliminary steps and proceedings required to be taken in connexion therewith have been duly and properly taken”. (My emphasis).
In plain simple English, at law, instantaneous with sealing, there was no such thing as “unlawful sealing” or “unlawful plans”. S,569B(10) fixed everything for all purposes.
The Reason for s.569B(10) is obvious; real property forms the very basis of our socio/economic system, properties are created in two stages; (a) by Council’s sealing plans and (b) relying on that seal the Registrar of Titles approves the plans and issues titles under the Torrens Title system. Those titles must be and are inviolable. People must have indefeasible title to real property otherwise our entire socio/economic system collapses.
In addition the “unlawful” nature of the plans was a function of Buchanan’s intention and not of the plans themselves. i.e. because it was Buchanan’s intention to carry out an 18 lot subdivision none of the contrived 2-lot plans showed all of the allotments or all of the roads intended by him to be laid out but the reality was that because they did not facilitate avoidance of s.9 each of the plans in fact represented a discrete and completely lawful subdivision and did show all of the roads and all of the allotments pertinent to each of those discrete lawful subdivisions.
So the fact is that from the law alone, as graphically and explicitly set out in the Book of Pleadings, the representations of Delany, Garde and Co were demonstrable overtly false and known by them to be false, it was a complete and utter scam; a sham. It is simply not credible that this team of very senior lawyers did not understand the exceedingly simple provisions of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act; as transcribed and explained by me above; a physical copy of which and clear explanation of which was in the very document they relied on to misrepresent it.
The facts manifestly known to Delany, Garde and Co were;
The contrived plans did not and could not facilitate avoidance of s.9.
The contrived plans were not unlawful and were not unlawfully sealed.
The contrived plans did not and could not cause loss or damage
Because they were lawful in all respects and could not and did not cause loss and damage the contrived plans and their sealing did not and could not form any part of the “cause of action”; the gravamen of the new 2005 proceeding and could not conceivably form any part of any conceivable “cause of action” at all.
The submissions put to the Master by Delany, Garde and Co were a complete and utter fabrication, a scam, a sham but, as I will graphically demonstrate at Chapter 2 below, they were also the culmination of a very carefully planned and executed conspiracy and scheme to pervert the course of justice and obtain a wrongful decision from the Supreme Court.
As I will also thoroughly demonstrate below, to the demonstrable exclusion of the things comprising the true “cause of action”, the Master completely based his Reasons on the above described fabrications of Delany, Garde and Co.
The Master may as well have found against me because I had eggs for breakfast, it was as relevant as the silly little 2-lot plans; or as I said to Osborn;
“the submissions made on the mistaken understanding of three Q’s C, three junior Counsel, an army of lawyers and on the mistaken view of the Master as to s.9 my true case was neither put, nor argued against by the Defendants or adjudicated by the Master. They may as well have argued about the price of fish”. (I was a little too kind in that part of my submission; the understanding was not mistaken, as I will demonstrate below the submissions of Delany, Garde and Co were maliciously fraudulent)
My submission to Osborn was forthright; I said;
“By the time I finish this submission it will be seen that the present applications by the Defendants are nothing more than concoctions, fabrications without any basis in either fact, logic or law. I will show that each of Mr. Delany, his junior and instructing solicitors, do not and cannot, hold a belief as to the truth of their submissions.”
My reply or defence to the misrepresentations of Delany and Co was forcefully to the effect of the most simple law and pages 3 and 8 of the Book of Pleadings and setting out the matters and things at the root of and comprising the true “cause of action” and after I had made my submissions Osborn was thoroughly aware that these silly little contrived plans were not only testament to Buchanan’s stupidity and criminal intent but they were now also testament to the fact that the representations of Delany and Co were carefully planned misrepresentations and as carefully planned and intended by them, they had successfully perverted the course of justice and obtained a wrongful judgment based on those overtly false misrepresentations and not on the true “cause of action”
Osborn was also squarely fixed with knowledge that at the above described paragraphs 82 to 85 of their Outline Delany, Garde and Co had repeated to himself the exact self same fraudulently and carefully selected misrepresentative excerpt from the Book of Pleadings to support the self same deceitful misrepresentations as had been used by them to successfully deceive the Master and pervert the course of justice and, as I will demonstrate below, Osborn was also thoroughly aware that to the demonstrable specific exclusion of the matters forming the true “cause of action” the Masters Reasons were squarely based on those overtly false misrepresentations of Delany and Co.
To compound the seriousness of these things, as thoroughly detailed in Chapters 2 and 3, Delany and Co had been successful in their corrupt scheme as a consequence of the incomprehensibly grievous neglect (or worse), of my barrister Mr. John Middleton QC, who by that time had become Justice Middleton of the Federal Court. Middleton also misrepresented just about everything and utterly failed to put my defence against Delany, Garde and Co’s fabrications and in relation to this I provided Osborn with unequivocal detail of Middleton’s neglect and I said to Osborn;
“I stand before you today, unrepresented, because at the hearing before the Master my ex-Counsel misrepresented the Plaintiffs’ case, the law and me personally. They failed to follow my written instructions, my affidavit and the present Amended Statement of Claim and even misrepresented the Law.”
After I had completed my submissions in reply to Delany, Osborn was fixed with knowledge that the submissions of Delany, Garde and Co before the Master and repeated before him were a scam and a sham and completely and utterly without substance and I had additionally shown that the root of the true “cause of action” was nothing to do with silly little plans but was rooted in the fact that the Council had abandoned the supposed “global plans of subdivision” and “There was no notice of requirement served or pursued in respect of the original proposal to subdivide the whole of the land” and, as completely detailed below, this root of the true “cause of action” had, with more than just a little help from corrupt lawyers, been fraudulently concealed by the Council and the Water Authority by perjury, falsification of documents, falsified discovery and false admissions to the above reproduced paragraph 7 of the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim.
On the unequivocal incontestable facts squarely before him Osborn had no legitimate choice other than to uphold my appeal and dismiss the application of the Council and Water Authority for summary dismissal of my proceeding and to award cost to me including my incidental costs and to be paid by Delany, Garde and Co who had overtly deceived the Master and by Middleton who’s grievous neglect (or worse) had, at least in part, facilitated the success of the well planned deception of Delany and Co. Osborn ought also have taken the lead and reported these corrupt lawyers to the police or Bar Council or whoever it is that deals with corrupt lawyers. (as we shall see no one does)
As I will demonstrate below; Osborn chose a different path; he chose to fabricate Reasons for Judgment which ignore deny and conceal the manifest fact that Major General Greg Garde QC and Jim Delany SC made these overtly false submissions and as I will also thoroughly demonstrate in Chapters 2 and 3 these submissions were the culmination of an extremely sophisticated corrupt scheme to pervert the course of justice.