Letter to Victorian parliamentarians 28th April 2010

Example pdf copy [here]

(Note:- The references below to solicitors Palmer Stevens & Rennick “PS&R” do not reflect in any way on the present principals or employees of Palmer Stevens & Rennick. The involvement of PS&R was limited to conduct during the period 1979 to 1990, The solicitors involved at the time were Mr. Graeme Bolton and Mr. Jim Noy, Bolton retired in about 1983 and I understand Mr. Noy has no further association with PS&R. The website http://www.noy.com.au says that he is a consultant lawyer and chairman of Kyneton Bushland Resort Limited which is a direct descendant of Woodleigh Heights Resort Developments P/L which is referred to throughout this website and referred to by Max McDonald MLA in parliament. (See Hansard link below) Notably the council referred communication to Mr. J Noy during the conduct of the wider fraud, see top right corner of this document.)

Text of my letter to each Member of Parliament in Victoria. (Faxed 28th April 2010))

I put before you explicit detail of  the ongoing conduct of Macedon Ranges Shire Council and respectfully request that you initiate an inquiry into that conduct and its roots.

On 16th December 2009, as detailed below, each of Mr. Peter Johnson, and Ms Lisa Kennedy, the CEO and senior rates officer respectively of the Macedon Ranges Shire Council, and the council’s legal representatives made overt misrepresentations to the Magistrates Court in what could only be a carefully coordinated manner.

This was the most recent in a continuous and related series of such events since Max McDonald MLA, raised his concerns about the misconduct of the council and others in Parliament (See Hansard (Assembly) 21st November 1985 at pages 117 & 122) (copy herewith)..

The court proceeding of 16th December 2009 and the concerns of Max McDonald are directly related and had their genesis in the period 1979 to about 1983 when for the purpose of attracting development to Kyneton the council and Coliban Water (by their predecessors) bent the rules related to property development and water supply and thereby enabled at least one developer to avoid the law and planning constraints. The developer concerned and his solicitor’s, Palmer Stevens & Rennick (PS&R”) , were also involved in multiple illegal land transaction  PS&R were financiers to and exposed to the developer and at that time PS&R were also solicitors for the council.

When things went awry for the council Coliban, the developer and the solicitors as a consequence of these things they sought to protect themselves and each other by bald-faced lies and outright fraud. PS&R drew the Water Supply Agreement referred to by Max McDonald and when it became necessary to their collective purpose the council and Coliban put the Water Agreement to its intended use, namely, as described by Max McDonald, to prevent the sale of my land to any entity other than the developer or associated entities. The things raised by Max McDonald were only the tip of the iceberg of those lies and wider fraud. The events of 16th December 2009 were merely more of the same. The present council and Coliban Water have acted in their own right in respect to the ongoing fraud since they were constituted. They have done so by them and their lawyers misrepresenting the facts before courts as their predecessors did before them.

I last addressed these issues by letters dated 15th May 2009 addressed to each Member of Parliament however nothing happened. The most recent event is a direct consequence of that inaction. It is also a direct consequence of the abject failure of the 1985 inquiries to discover or realise or admit the facts squarely before them.

Recently Justice Peter Jacobsen of the Federal Court said to the effect “The courts could not work without the strict professional code that binds lawyers appearing before them to deal with their colleagues and the judges with scrupulous honesty”.

To take this notion a little further, where the courts do not work because of less than honest authority, lawyers and/or judicial officers then democracy itself does not work.

If such lawyers and/or authority can mislead courts with impunity then democracy does not exist.

This fraud has been characterised by both lawyers and authority that have misled courts and the relevant government departments since 1985. To date they have done so with impunity.

Background to the Magistrates Court proceeding of December 16th 2009.

(In the interest of saving paper and ease of communicating this letter I have posted copies of the supporting documents on a website. Access details are in a postscript to this letter.)

• In 1980 I purchased what I thought to be six industrial allotments. At the time of my purchase the plans of subdivision had been sealed by the council and lodged with the Registrar of Titles.

Because of the fraud, dishonesty, call it what you like, of the council, it had wrongful rates in its Rate Book dating back to 1983 when things first began to go awry as a consequence of its unlawful dealings.. The council had a choice, tell the truth or resort to further fraud, as it has consistently done since 1982 it chose the latter.

For those who hold the personal paradigm that council’s don’t commit fraud I point out that ex Justice Einfeld committed an initial transgressions and then resorted to larger and compounding transgressions in an attempt to conceal the first. The demonstrated fact is that the conduct of this council is essentially identical.

In knowledge of all of the above dot points the council developed a scheme to deceive the court. This scheme was to conceal/hide the fact of the double rating and disparate valuations and then represent:-

• That the parent title and the six allotments relate to the “same physical land”.
• That the rates for the entire period 1983 to the present were levied on the “same physical land”.
• That because they related to the “same physical land” the rates for the entire period 1983 until the present were due in relation to the land/property being the parent title.
• That the land being the parent title was previously known as the six allotments.
• That the description of the six allotments in the Rate Notices and Rate Books was a misdescription for the “physical land” described in the parent title.

The scheme depended upon the first point which is beguiling because it is true in a simplistic but irrelevant sense, of course the six allotments relate to the “same physical land” as the parent title in exactly the same sense as the lands collectively rated by the councils presently surrounding Melbourne relate to the “same physical land” as John Batman purported to purchase in 1835 but those councils know full well that they are not rating the same land where the word “land” includes the notion “property”.

However the certain fact known to the council, its officers and its lawyers is that the six discrete “properties”/ parcels of land described in the plans, individually or collectively, are not the same “property”/parcel of land as described in the parent title and even more relevant the six rateable properties (had they existed) being the six allotments, individually or collectively are not the same as and do not relate to the rateable property being the parent property. In addition because they were nothing more than marks on unlawful plans the six lots were not “rateable land”, “rateable properties” or “land” at all.

The fact is that the “land” (including the notion” property”) being the six properties simply did not and could not exist.

The scheme was simple. Beguile the magistrate with the simplistic but false notion of “the same land” to the exclusion of the notions of “property” and “rateable property” after which the remaining misrepresentations appear credible, if the simplistic notion that the six allotments are or comprise “the same land” as the parent title is accepted then:-

• all of the rates relate to “the same land” and that land is presently described in the parent title.
• “the same land” being the parent title was previously known as the six allotments.
• When “the same land” was known (described) as the six allotments that was a misdescription for what was always the parent land.

On the face of it, the fact however is that each of these representations was part of an extremely sophisticated scheme to fraudulently obtain a judgement by overly misleading the court, a further act of fraud.

In simple terms the scheme to mislead the court was to use the word “land” and the term “the same land” to the exclusion of the notions “property” and “rateable property” as well and truly understood by the council and its legal advisers.

Mr. Peter Johnson and Ms. Lisa Kennedy and their legal advisers could not have independently concluded these simplistic beguiling misrepresentations, and it is not credible that any one of them, let alone each of them, believed those representations to be true. They must have carefully colluded with one another to collectively put complimentary, identical misrepresentations to the court.

• In 2000 the council issued yet further proceedings. The complaint wrongly alleged that the rates claimed owed on property owned or occupied by me.

The unequivocal descriptions of the six supposed “properties” by lot number and lodged plan number expressly set out in the Rate Notices and the Rate Books for the period 1983 to 1991 were not a misdescription for the separate and discrete parent “property” expressly described subsequent to 1991 in the Rate Notices and Rate book by its own discrete and distinct lot and plan number and registered volume and folio under the Torrens Title system.

Manifestly the express descriptions and valuation set out in the Rate Notices and Rate Book for the period 1983 to 1991 were not a loose description or misdescription such as “Charlie’s paddock” as expressed by the Magistrate. They were an express, unique and unequivocal description and valuation of the six purported “properties” defined on their respective plans and which the council expressly purported to rate during that period.

In his prepared summing up, delivered on 3rd March 2010 the Magistrate Mr. B. Fitzgerald said:-

“The fact that the land was for some of the relevant years described by the plaintiff in its rate documents as being part of one or other subdivisions is to my mind  not to the point. The rated land remained the same actual land throughout. In my view the argument contained in the paragraph contained in the final defence to which I have referred is misconceived……….” (My emphasis)

The paragraph of my defence referred to by the Magistrate set out that the “land” being the six allotments never existed because the registrar had not approved the plans. (where the word “land” includes the common notions “property” and “rateable property” and thereby excludes John Batman’s land/property and all derivative land/properties subsequent to Batman’s and prior to the six lots) 

The Magistrate referred to the council’s assertions versus my assertions as “the misdescription argument”.

In exact accord with the misrepresentations purposefully made to him the Magistrate expressly precluded the notions “property”, “rateable property” and “rateable land” from his unequivocal purported reasoning.  

It is not credible that the learned Magistrate formed a reasoned judicial belief as to the things expressed by him. On the face of it he either accepted the overt misrepresentations of the council without caring or understanding if they were true or false or alternatively he chose to determine as he did rather than express or imply that the council and its lawyers had misrepresented the facts to the court as expressly alleged by me.

In my final submission to the court, after the decision was handed down and the Magistrate was considering an application for punishing costs against me, I said “In the fullness of time I think the reasons will come apparent why the council has succeeded today, apparently on the distinction between property and land, I think that they thoroughly understand the difference…..”

Manifestly the rates officer and CEO of the council and the “learned” lawyers understood the difference. This was a sophisticated, coordinated act of deceitful obfuscation of the worst kind, an attack on democracy itself.

That a barrister and solicitors would prepare, and put, such overt misrepresentations displays a contumelious disregard of all notion of justice and also a well founded sense of impunity apparently borne of confidence that neither the courts or colleagues will do anything to expose or punish such behaviour. The probability is that if restricted to truth at least half the lawyers, barristers and judges would be out of work. 

This case would not have been put by honest lawyers and would not have been put before a fearless court.

I say that the lawyers were confident that the Magistrate would necessarily rely on their advice and “help” exactly as alluded to by Justice Jacobsen and they dishonestly exploited that weak link in the system.

I also say that the lawyers must also have been confident that the court would do nothing even if their manifest misrepresentations were seen by the court for what they were.  This is fatal to all notions of justice and democracy.  The lawyers do lie with impunity and democracy itself is the victim.

On the face of it the scheme to deceive the court was conceived by the council and/or John Buman in about 2000 and then adopted and put to the court by Mr. Harris and Maddocks solicitors and the council.

Mr. Harris additionally misled the court on numerous other aspects as they arose during the proceeding including such things as the currency of legislation and the law related to amendment of Rate Books and my liability for indemnity costs. With the sole exception of the indemnity costs issue the magistrate adopted each and every one of these additional misrepresentations. 

With the exception of the double rating aspect all of the relevant plans, title details, Rate Notices and Rate Books were in evidence. These documents when considered with the correct and common notions of “property” and “rateable property” give the absolute lie to the representations of the council and its lawyers. They also render the decision of Mr. Fitzgerald incredible.

The foregoing would be serious enough if it were an isolated case however the fact is that in eleven separate proceedings before all strata of the courts the council and Coliban and their respective lawyers have overtly misled the courts in as blatant a manner as the foregoing. They have also misled the Government departments during the period 1985 to 1989 and apparently at various times since.

By way of further explicit example I set out the details of the first of these many instances where the council and its corrupt lawyers misled the courts.

The 1987 proceeding before Mr. Connelly S.M. in the Magistrates Court at Bendigo:

• In 1980 I purchased 15 allotments on a residential subdivision at Kyneton, in this case the council had explicitly and overtly misled the Registrar of Titles and notwithstanding the unlawful nature of the plans and other wrongful things the Titles to those allotments had issued.

• This particular development had gone awry because the developer had failed to complete the construction of the roads and due to the unlawful nature of the subdivision the council resorted to fraud to secure payment for their construction from me. It did so in 1982 by fraudulently representing that, as owner of 15 of the allotments, I was liable for construction.  Being unaware of the law and the facts I paid up pursuant to a Bank Guarantee which I had lodged pursuant to earlier misrepresentations by the council, Coliban and the dishonest developer.

• In 1987 the council issued proceedings against me to recover the overrun of those road making costs.  By this time I had become well aware of parts of the wider fraud and the law and I had refused to pay the balance.

• In that proceeding, for the purpose of fraudulently establishing my liability, the then CEO of the council and the council’s barrister falsely represented to the Court that I was the owner of the complete subdivision within the meaning of the Local Government Act.

• The facts known to the council and the council’s barrister and before the court were that the developer, Kenneth Raymond Buchanan, was the owner and that I had merely purchased a number of the allotments from Buchanan and I had provided a bank guarantee.

• There was zero evidence as to the council’s assertion and in addition the abundant evidence before the court, including council Minutes and Notices served on and filed by Buchanan, clearly showed that Buchanan was that owner.

• In addition I had summoned two of the other owners, who had purchased their allotments before me and those two individuals appeared and gave evidence on oath that they were also owners of allotments.

• In the complete absence of any evidence to support him and in the face of the law and the abundant evidence before him the Magistrate found that I was the owner and ordered that I pay the road making costs.

In this instance I appealed to the Supreme Court and Justice Kaye found that there was no evidence that I was the owner. When handing down his Judgment he said to the effect, “this matter should not have come to court in the first place, if I could I would order that the council not pay its lawyers”

However Justice Kaye did nothing about the manifest fact that the council and its lawyers had misled the Magistrate and repeated their misrepresentations before him. No doubt the council paid its fellow liars and they walked away, well paid and free to mislead future courts.

That the 1987 barristers and lawyers so blatantly misled courts again demonstrates clearly that they do so with a well founded sense of impunity borne of secure knowledge that their colleagues and judges, and to date the parliament, will do nothing. That they mislead the courts provides black folklore yet nothing is done.

In this extensive fraud which has now been conducted for some thirty years essentially in full view of the relevant government departments. A characterising aspect is that the council and Coliban Water and their respective lawyers mislead each and every court that they appeared in front of and on at least three of these occasions, including the two referred to above the judges must have been aware of the conduct of the council and/or its lawyers. On one occasion in the Supreme Court Justice Osborne was manifestly and demonstrably aware and he constructed his Reasons to ignore and deny that fact.  .

On the last occasion that I brought these things to the attention of each Member of Parliament by Letter Dated 15th May 2009 I was essentially fobbed off by letters informing me that my concerns had been referred to someone else but that someone else never gave any meaningful response.

The sole meaningful reply came by letter dated 11/6/09 from Mr. John Watson, Acting Executive Director, Local Government Victoria. (See postscript for copy of letter).

This letter from a department head dismissed or otherwise failed to address the issues squarely before him by stating:

• The dispute arose 20 to 30 years ago
• The dispute had been the subject of several court decisions.
• Decisions by Courts are not subject to alteration or review by the Minister
• (proceedings for) Offences under the Local Government Act may only be commenced within three years after the commission of the offence.

Assuming that Mr. Watson had considered the facts at all, at the time of writing his letter he would have been aware:

• The fraud, as distinct from dispute, has been continuous and ongoing for 30 years and was current at the time of his reply.
• The fraud arose and continues to this day as a consequence of overt and ongoing dishonesty by the council, Coliban Water, lawyers and the courts and the fact that the government departments refuse or fail to address the issues.
• Addressing the facts of the fraud and the misrepresentations by the council and Coliban in Court and the Conduct of the Courts does not constitute alteration or review of any decisions of the Court.  Those Judgments would remain as a fact at law.
• The conduct of the council and Coliban were not mere offences under the Local Government Act, they include acts of overt deceit and dishonesty which constitute fraud and this behaviour continues to this very day. .

I say that the position adopted by Mr. Watson, on purported behalf of his Minister, is merely more of a continuous chain of failure and refusal to address the facts and this is merely more of the reason why the council and Coliban have succeeded in their fraud and to date avoided and remained immune from the consequence of their actions.

Had Mr. Watson addressed the issues and facts squarely before him it is probable that this most recent act of deceit and continuing fraud by the council would not have occurred.

Had Mr. Watson’s predecessors recognised, admitted and addressed the issues and facts squarely before them the fraud would have been at an end twenty five years ago and this letter would not be necessary.

I respectfully submit that each Member of Parliament has a personal duty to this matter and its wider implications and I respectfully submit that these things are serious enough to warrant your personal attention and a properly constituted inquiry.

Yours Faithfully

Glenn Thompson.

PS.
Copies of relevant documents and the text of this letter have been posted on the website http://courtsontrial.com the documents are under the menu options “Magistrates” then “Documents”.  These documents are in PDF form and may be viewed, downloaded and printed.

The Double Rating.
The parent property referred to in this letter was in my name and was lot 1 of lodged Plan 134683 and which plan was for a 2 lot subdivision where the greater part of the land was situated on Trentham Rd at Kyneton and lot 1 (the present parent property) was about 4 acres in area

Dung the period about 1983 to 1987 the council rendered Rate Notices which described the subject property as being in my name and as being Lot 1 of Lodged Plan 124604 and being 4 acres situated on the Trentham Rd. This description was correct for the Parent property save for the 2nd and 5th digit of the plan reference number.

A Titles Office search revealed that lodged plan 124604 related to a subdivision of land situated in the Parish of Dumbalk, County of Buln Buln in Gippsland. (See website documents)

The certainty is that the Macedon Council was not rating properties in Gippsland and I was led to believe that the rated property was in fact the parent property referred to in this letter. 

****************