I fully describe the conduct of the Court of Appeal elsewhere in this website but for the moment a brief outline; I appealed Osborn’s Orders to the Victorian Court of Appeal, the Grounds for my appeal were essentially identical to the grounds of my appeal to Osborn but with the additional ground that Osborn had fabricated his Reasons for Judgment. The stakes for the “Justice System” were even higher than before Osborn.
In the Court of Appeal Delany, Garde and Co corruptly relied upon the Reasons of Master Efthim and of Justice Osborn while in full knowledge that the Reasons of the Master had been obtained by them in fraud and that the Reasons of Osborn had been fabricated to conceal the fact of their fraud before Efthim and as repeated before Osborn. This is fraud upon fraud; they use the fruit of their fraud to support their fraud; they formed a corrupt incestuous circle of deceit to conceal and deny and provide verisimilitude to their deceit. I was gobsmacked; astonished, here in the supposed purported pinnacle of “Justice” these corrupt little men were standing there bold as brass asserting the putrid fruit of their fraud with a manifestly obvious well founded knowledge and sense of immunity and impunity. The subsequent conduct of the Court of Appeal and yet more corrupt lawyers which I fully detail at Chapter 5 led me to conclude that the Court of Appeal was also corrupt so I abandoned my appeal rather than throw away more money and told the Court that I would publicly expose its corruption.
Subsequently the corrupt lawyers made application to the Court for orders that I pay punishing indemnity costs because my allegations were baseless. The application by Garde, Burchell and Burchell came on before “Justices” Neave and Mandy. Subsequently the application by Delany, Ahern and Dixon came on before “Justices” Beach and Redlich. Adequate of the foregoing and the fact of the overtly fabricated “Authenticated Orders” was before each of these “Honourable” Justices.
At paragraph 10 of their Reasons for their costs order against me Justices Redlich and Beach 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 conclusion we have reached. It is sufficient to observe that while it appears that Mr. Thompson genuinely holds to these 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.
At paragraph 31 of their Reasons Neave and Mandy say.
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)
Implicit in the assertion of Beach and Redlich as to “No Material …….. “ and in the assertion of Neave and Mandy as to “Unfounded and Scandalous …… “ are assertions that they examined the material and concluded their respective assertions.
To this I say and conclude that the Court of Appeal must be corrupt, the Justices of the Court of Appeal had copies of the submissions made by Delany, Garde and Co, they had my allegations and the relevant legislation and they had the above reproduced documents and Efthim’s and Osborn’s Reasons and all of the material which drove Osborn to falsify and fabricate his Reasons for Judgment and drove someone to fraudulently fabricate “Authenticated Orders”; I will thoroughly and explicitly detail those motivating matters and things below.
To demonstrate the sufficiency of the facts which were before Osborn and subsequently before each relevant Justice of the Court of Appeal.
In relation to Tylden Rd they each had the abovementioned paragraphs 82 to 85 of Delany and Garde and Co’s Outline of Submissions (see menu option Chapter 1 Part 2), they also had the legislation and in particular section 9 of the Sale of Land Act and s,569(1) of the Local Government Act which I refer to above. Nothing else was necessary to know and understand that those submissions of Delany, Garde and Co were false. They also had the fabricated “Authenticated Orders”. Those “Authenticated Order” documents stand alone, they assert their own corruption when read with the final page of transcript for each of 29th November 2006 and 7th December 2006 and the facts and circumstances surrounding them (see menu option “Fraudulent Authenticated Orders”). They also had paragraph 87 to 89 of Osborn’s Reasons (see menu option Part 3) not to mention the in your face fabrications of Osborn’s.
But just in case these Justices of the Court of Appeal did not read and/or understand that legislation it was graphically set out at page 3 and 8 of the Book of Pleadings and which pages were also manifestly known to Delany and Co when they made their fraudulent submissions before the Master and then repeated them before Osborn. They were also known to Osborn when he read and transcribed the Book of Pleadings and then fabricated his Reasons for the purpose of ignoring, denying and concealing the fact that the Master had been misled and had published fatally flawed Reasons as a consequence of having been misled. They were then known to the abovementioned Court of Appeal Justices including Redlich and Beach and Neave and Mandy when they made the above incredible assertion.
From the law alone, without my express and graphic explanation at pages 3 and 8 of the Book of Pleadings, the submissions of Delany and Co to the Master and as repeated at paragraphs 82 to 85 of their Outline before Osborn were manifestly false. These things were expressly put by me to Osborn and then I put those things and the irrefutable fact of the forgoing conduct of Osborn to the Court of Appeal including to Beach and Redlich and they then made the above incredible assertion about my “misunderstanding”.
I do not have a “serious misunderstanding of the evidence and its legal implications” as asserted by Appeal Court Justices Redlich and Beach, the above matters and things are explicit and do not require esoteric concepts to understand, uphold or dismiss. The assertion by Redlich and Beach is not credible, they had all of the above material before them together with my express allegations, their assertion is demonstrably false and has the effect of ignoring, denying and concealing the facts squarely before them that Delany & Co and Garde & Co had misled both the Master and Osborn and then in knowledge of that Osborn had fabricated his Reasons for the exact same purpose as Redlich and Beach appear to have made their subsequent specious assertion, namely to ignore deny and conceal corruption within the superior courts of Victoria. In addition, someone, probably Osborn or one of his like minded friends fraudulently fabricated three separate and fraudulently complimentary “Authenticated Orders”. It is also possible that two or more court officers, perhaps including Osborn, conspired with one another to produce and utter these counterfeit “Authenticated Orders” documents.
On the face of it the Justices of the Court of Appeal are corruptly protecting Osborn as well as Middleton, Delany and Garde and Co in exactly the same way as Osborn did for Middleton and Delany, Garde and Co.
On the face of it there is a corrupt code of silence which protects and engenders corrupt practices such as lawyers deceiving the Courts and the fact that lawyers do deceive the courts is known fact and folklore in Australia and that code of silence is now demonstrated to extend to and includes at least some of the Justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal and they have demonstrated that they will sacrifice justice and democracy itself to that code.
There is of course one other possibility, the Justices of the Court of Appeal may well have been so biased and so prejudiced that they did not even bother to look in which case the assertions of Justices Beach and Redlich are outright fabrications uttered without caring whether they were true or false, in either case it is corrupt.
Upon reflection, there may be a third option which is that the corruption which I detail in this book is so culturally accepted and ingrained that it is the norm within the legal fraternity and is therefore not perceived as corruption from within the brotherhood. They are corrupted to the extent that they don’t perceive corruption.
If, as I suspect, this code of silence is so culturally ingrained as to be an accepted but corrupt cultural norm that it actually encourages as well as protects the corrupt practices which I will explicitly set out in this book then I say to each and every one of Justices, Osborn, Buchanan, Beach, Redlich, Neave and Mandy that the people, from whom you derive your power will not tolerate lying lawyers any longer and I for one stand against you.
I now invite my readers to read page 8 of the Book of Pleadings in isolation. In isolation from page 3 it can be read and misconstrued that my handwriting asserts that the Buchanan broke the law because the plans did not show all of the allotments as required by s569A(1)(a) and for the purpose of providing verisimilitude to his fraudulent case that is exactly as Delany misrepresented it; immediately after misrepresenting page 5 of the Book of Pleadings and hooking the Master as described above and in continuation of that deception at page 89 of the transcript Delany took the Master to page 8 of the Book of Pleadings and said;
“I should have read at the top of p.8, “Mr Buchanan thought he’d exploited … (reads) … one plan showing each allotment”. That’s at the top of p.8. The bottom of the note says, I think you were taken to 569A by Mr Middleton, his clients note that not one of the plans submitted comply. So he knew that when he made that note”
So Delany overtly misrepresented this page as demonstrating my awareness that the plans were unlawful whereas having regard to page 3, page 8 unequivocally asserts that Buchanan was required to give Notice of His intention and while he thought he had exploited a loophole in the law he had in fact squarely breached s.9 which operates in relation to Notice of Intention required to be given, not plans. Quite separately the bottom part of page 8 points out the irrelevant and benign fact that the plans are in technical breach of s,569A(1)(a).
The Master was truly deceived but Osborn and the Justices of the Court of Appeal were not. Osborn and the Justices of the Court of Appeal had my allegations and the foregoing and following facts and the law squarely before them.
Osborn was well aware of the truth of my allegations against Delany and Co and he fabricated his reasons for the purpose of ignoring, denying and concealing that fact, similarly, despite and in the face of their assertions, the Justices of the Court of Appeal are fixed with sufficient knowledge of sufficient material to give rise to a belief that my allegations about Delany and Garde and Co and about Osborn were true and correct or at least not without foundation. The assertions of Justices Redlich and Beach and Mandy and Neave are manifestly not credible.
Little wonder it is folklore in Australia that lawyers lie to the courts, they are demonstrably assured of immunity and impunity by the supposed guardians of justice and democracy and their apparent transcending code of silence.
There was nothing, zero, zilch, zip, honest in the conduct outlined above and which I will fully detail below. It was totally corrupt.
The Courts are afflicted with denizens who do a little too much genuflecting to one another.