Osborn Dissected – Woodleigh Heights

Osborn’s Reasons dissected – Woodleigh Heights.

In relation to Woodleigh Heights Osborn had two problems;

1. Delany, Garde and Co had misled Master Efthim.

2. Osborn’s law school chum, Major General Garde QC, now Justice Greg Garde had misled the Victorian Administrative Appeals Tribunal as it then was, it is now the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal “VCAT” and Garde is now president of the VCAT. (See Chapter 6)

For the purpose of fraudulently ignoring denying and concealing the conduct of his friends Osborn;

1.  Fraudulently held/represented that the 1982 water supply was a lawful water supply

2. Fraudulently held/represented that the 1979 private reticulated water supply was not a conditon of the planning permit

3. Fraudulently misrepresented the “gravemen”, the “cause of action” in the 1995 Supreme Court proceeding

As detailed below he also fraudulently misrepresented numerous other matters and things for his corrupt purpose.

Woodleigh Heights Background.

Woodleigh Heights is a Rural Residential Cluster Subdivision, registered with the Titles Office as Cluster Subdivision CS1134, it was registered on 9th August 1979.

Buchanan applied to the Council for a planning permit in 1978, at that time the land was in an area where council’s planning policy was a minimum lot size of 6 acres without a reticulated water supply and a minimum of three acres with a reticulated water supply. (see page 6 of Council’s written submission to the Planning Appeals Tribunal – full submission here)

At that time the Woodleigh Heights land was substantially outside the Kyneton Waterworks District and could not be supplied with water from the Kyneton Water Board/Trust without the approval of the Governor in Council and in any event there were no water mains extending to that area.

The subdivision proposed by Buchanan had an average of one allotment per three acres including common property area and in order to meet the Council’s planning policy the proposal put to the Council by Buchanan provided for a private “Reticulated Water Supply” consisting of a six acre lake, large high ground header tanks and a reticulation system. (see page 6 Council’s written submission to Planning Appeals Tribunal – Full submission here)

Subsection 569B(2)(ac) of the Local Government Act required the Council to refer any plans of subdivision to the local water authority if the proposed subdivision was within the “District” of that authority.

Specifically because the proposed Woodleigh Heights subdivision was substantially outside the “District” of the Kyneton Water Board/Trust the Council did not refer the plans to the Water Board/Trust and was not required to do so. (see paragraph 11 of the 1995 Statement of Claim and paragraph 11 of the Council’s Defence)

The Council approved the application by Buchanan and issued planning permit no 2191.

Conditon 8 of Planning Permit 2191 required the “development” to be completed in accord with the plans and submission which formed part of the application.

The submission referred to in condition 8 of planning permit 2191 defined the private “Reticulated Water Supply” which was required to accord with the Council’s planning policy for the area and lot sizes proposed.

At that time the clause 2(b) of the Shire of Kyneton Interim Development Order (“IDO”) prohiited subdivision of any land except in accord with a planning permit.

s.569B(7)(d) of the Local Government Act required the Council to refuse to seal the plans if an IDO was in force unless the subdivision and use of the land was permitted by the IDO and a planning permit had been approved.

The Council sealed the Plans and the Registrar of Titles registered the Cluster Subdivision on 9th August 1979.

The Application for Subdivision was an application to subdivide the land and use it  for a “Detached house on each allotments”, in other words for residential purposes.

The planning permit which issued had an error of omission, it did not specifiy “residential use”.  This error was repaired upon registration of the Plan by the Registrar of Titles. The Ninth Schedule which was registered by the Registrar of Titles was amended and signed by the Council to include and permit “residential use”.

I purchased 10 Allotments by Vendor Terms contract dated 1st November 1979 in the belief that the allotments were usable for residential purposes.

When I purchased I believed that a private “reticulated water supply” was present but had no need to and did not consider it’s status at law.

Subsequently all those things described in Chapter 8 occurred.

While the things described in Chapter 8 were occurring I could not demonstrate that the private “reticulated water supply” had any standing at law and during that period, for the purposes of their fraud, the Council and Water Authority concealed the fact that the private “reticulated water supply” had been approved by the Council and did constitute a “reticulated water supply” for the purposes of the Council’s planning policy.

In August 1995, in the circumstances described in Chapter 8 part 6, I discovered the submission referred to in clause 8 of Planning Permit 2191 and which submission and the fact of and facts of and surrounding the private “Reticulated Water Supply” approved by the Council had been concealed by  the Council and Water Authority for the purposes of the corrupt and fraudulent conduct detailed in Chapter 8.

The gravamen, the “cause of action” in that 1995 Supreme Court proceeding was that the Council had approved the “reticulated water supply” defined to in the submission referred to in clause 8 of planning permit 2191 and that the it was present in 1979 as required by law and I/my land had entitlement to that “reticulated water supply” and the Council and Water Authority had fraudulently concealed that entitlement.  

Settlement of that 1995 proceeding occurred in the most unsatisfactory circumstances described in Chapter 8 part 6. During the subsequent proceeding in the Practice Court as discussed in Chapter 8 part 6A the solcitors for the Council and Water Authority disclosed a reticulation plan which demonstrated and disclosed that the reticulation system, the water mains had not been laid as required by law in 1979 but were instead laid in 1982 by WHRD.  This important and most discoverable document had been concealed by the Council and Water Authority and their lawyers for the entire period in which the 1995 proceeding remained in foot.

Had that reticulation plan been discovered during the currency of the 1995 proceeding the then Statement of Claim could have been amended to plead and allege the “cause of action” defined in the new 2005 proceeding.

Settlement of that 1995 proceeding occurred while the Council and Water Authority continued to conceal the fact that the 1979 water supply and reticulation system had not been completed as required by law in that the reticulation system had not been installed.

The new 2005 procceding

The cause of action in the new 2005 proceeding was the total antithesis of that of the 1995 proceeding.

The 2005 proceeding alleged that the reticulated water supply defined in the submission referred to in clause 8 of planning permit 2191 had not been completed as required by law and that the Council had sealed the plans of cluster subdivision in breach of s569B(7)(a)(iii) and the allotments created were unusable and there was no lawful means of making them usable.

This cause of action had been concealed by the Council and Water Authority during the period when the Council and Water Authority fraudulently represented that I/my land was not entitled to a reticulated water supply and then when I discovered the submission referred to in clause 8 of planning permit 2191 and mounted the 1995 proceeding the Council and Water Authority contiinued to conceal the fact that the 1979 reticulation system had not been completed as required by law and this fact was concealed during the entire period in which the 1995 proceeding remained on foot and until the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority showed me the reticulation plan at the time of the Practice Court hearing after settlement of the 1995 proceeding. The Council and Water Authority and their lawyers had concealed and not discovered this most central and discoverable document during the 1995 proceeding. (see Chapter 8 part 6).

The Cunning Deceptive Obfuscation of Delany, Garde and Co.

Delany, Garde and Co were thoroughly aware of the distinction between the 1979 private reticulated water supply and the unlawful 1982 water supply and they were thoroughly aware that the reason why the 1979 supply was not present was because the 1979 reticulation system had not been laid. 

Knowing full well the distinction between the two supplies and that the question related to the reticulation main and not the water supply Delany and Garde’s written submissions to Master Efthim were that I was aware since 1987 that “the reticulated water supply had been laid in 1982 and not 1979“.  The cunning obfuscation being that water is supplied, reticulation pipes are “laid“.  They knew full well that knowledge of the illegal 1982 water supply imparted no knowledge at all of the 1979 supply and particularly not of the reticulation system and could not because all knowledge of the fact and facts of the 1979 water supply and reticulation system were concealed from me until 1995 and the fact that the reticulation system had not beein “laid” was further concealed until 1999.

In reply Middleton’s submissions in respect to Woodleigh Heights were less than moronicall negligent (or worse).  Middleton’s written submission is at his paragraph 3.2 said nothing and his substantive oral submission in respect of Woodleigh Heights is found at page 43 of the transcript of 15th November 2005 where, with incompehensibly grievous neglect, he said;

“Yes, thank you.  Now with the Woodleigh Heights land, it arises because there’s a cluster of subdivision or subdivision planning permit, which required a reticulated water supply to be installed .. .. … …   It’s going back to the same issue that at a root and branch attack upon the subdivision as sealed.  Same point but with a different statutory content.  That’s the cause of action“

So on the submissions of Delany, Garde and Co and of Middleton the Master thought the question was with regard to “A” water supply, any undefined water supply, and plainly I knew one was provided in 1982

Master Efthim relied on this deception and at his paragraph 60 he transcribed Delany’s Outline. Master Efthim had no inkling that that the question was nothing to do with water supplies per se and he did not understand that the two supplies were not interchangeable.

So the Master had been thoroughly misled by the combination of Delany, Garde and Co’s misrepresentations and Middletons’ abject neglect. 

Delany, Garde and Co repeated the identical submission before Osborn.

The Scheme of Osborn’s carruptly fabricated Reasons – Woodleigh Heights

In reply to Delany and Co’s submissions in respect to Woodleigh Heights I explained the distinction between the two reticulated water supplies, the unlawful nature of the 1982 supply and the stages of concealment of the fact of and facts of the 1979 supply and reticulation system including that the reticulation plan had not been discovered during the 1995 proceeding and was concealed until after the deed of settlement was signed in the 1995 proceeding. 

I also set out that Delany had admiited to the Reticulation Plan and that the reticulation system had been constructed in 1982 and not 1979

I also explained Garde’s serious misrepresentations before the Planning Appeals Tribunal that the 1982 Water Supply Agreement was a lawful and enforceable agreement. (see Chapter 6.)

The scheme of Osborn’s Reasons was to;

• fraudulently misrepresent that gravamen of the 1995 proceeding.

• hold/treat the manifestly unlawful 1982 Water Supply Agreement and water supply as lawful and that it constituted a legitimate supply to the Woodleigh Heights land and to

• hold that the 1979 private reticulated water supply was not required by law and

• that there was no evidence that the 1979 reticulation system had not been installed.

Each of these things were manifeslty in the face of the facts and the law known to him.

By these means he ignored, denied and concealed the fact of the misrepresentations of Delany, Garde and Co and of the grievous neglect of Middleton and the facts of Garde’s misrepresentations before the Planning Appeals Tribunal. 

I have already substantially dealt with part of Osborn’s overtly fabricated misrepresentations in respect of Woodleigh Heights at Chapter 1 part 4.

Osborn’s corruptly fabricated Reasons – Woodleigh Heights.

The following are true copies of extracts from Osborn’s reasons.

I have substantially dealt with part of Osborn’s Reasons in respect of Woodleigh Heights at Chapter 1 part 4.

From his first relevant paragraph Osborn begins setting the groundwork for his scheme;

At his paragraph 17 Osborn recites thatt I purchased the Woodleigh Heights land.

Then;

It was not “the subdivider” that purported to withhold the 1982 water supply; it was the Water Authority in criminal conspiracy with WHRD.

The 1982 water supply from the Water Board was not “withheld”; it was not lawfully provided. One cannot withhold that which cannot be lawfully provided.

The water was not supplied “to this subdivision in 1982″; it was supplied to the private company Woodleigh Heights Resort Devlopments P/L”

That water supply was never withheld from me; I at all times knew and asserted that it was an unlawful water supply provided in purported pursuance of a manifestly unlawful Water Supply Agreement and I never requested access to it.

The fraudulent representations of the Council and Water Authority, in conspiracy with WHRD, were that I/my land did not have access to or entitlement to a water supply .

Here Osborn implies that the gravamen of the 1995 proceeding was that the Council and Water Authority made fraudulent misrepresentations as to my “lack of entitlement” to the 1982 supply referred to in his paragraph 17 whereas I was “in truth entitled to access to” the 1982 water supply referred to in his paragraph 17.

At his paragraph 148 Osborn specifically asserts that this was the gravamen of the 1995 proceeding and I reproduce paragraph 148 out of order for the present purpose.

The misrepresentations here are consistent with his misrepresentations at paragraph 18.

Flat out dishonest fraudulent lie. I cover what Osborn knew the truth to be shortly.

These things said by Osborn at his paragraphs 18, 19 and 148 and elsewhere were flat out false fabrications by Osborn and he knew well they were maliciously fabricated and false at the time he wrote them.  Now I have also copied Osborn’s paragraph 165 out of sequence for two reasons; firstly because he states that he has analysed the Amended Statement of Claim but interestingly in the above reproduced paragraphs and elsewhere Osborn asserts that fraudulent representations as to my entitlement to the 1982 water supply constituted the gravamen of the 1995 proceeding yet at his paragraph 165 he says that the Amended Statement of claim merely “adverts” to the 1982 water supply agreement pursuant to which the 1982 water supply was purportedly provided.

So let’s see now what Osborn really knew;

• Firstly paragraphs 27 to 30 of my Affidavit 18th October 2005 upon which Osborn relies for conveniently deceptive extracts but glaringly does not rely on what does not suit his corrupt purpose. These paragraphs clearly and precisely and unequivocally describe the “private” “reticulated water supply as forming the gravamen of the 1995 proceeding.

• Secondly paragraphs 6 to 14 of the 1995 Amended Statement of Claim clearly precisely and uneqivocally describe the “private reticulated water supply” and my entitlement to that supply and that the representations of the Council and Water Authority to the effect that I/my land was not entited to a reticulated water supply were false and untrue.

• Thirdly the 1995 Amended Statement of Claim “adverts” to the fraudulent 1982 water supply and water supply agreement for twenty six pages and extensively describes and alleges all of the dishonest and fraudulent conduct of the Council and the Water Authority and Woodleigh Heights Resort Developments P/L in repect to that water supply and Water Supply Agreement and specifically details all of the reasons why the Water Authorities representations that the 1982 water supply and water agreement were lawful were in fact fraudulent misrepresentations and that the Council and Water Authorities representations to the effect that I/my land was not entitled to a “reticulated water supply” were false and untrue and these representations were fraudulent and false and untrue because of the matters and things set out at paragraphs 7 to 14 of that 1995 Amended Statement of Claim, namely that I/my land had entitlement to and access to that private reticulated water supply described at paragraphs 7 to 14..

• The twenty six pages over which the 1995 Amended Statement of Claim “adverts” to “the fact of a water agreement between WHRD and the Water Board” the Amended Statement of Claim describes extensively the corrupt and fraudulent conduct of the Council and Water Authority and now described in Chapter 8 hereof and in particular Chapter 8 part 5 hereof.  The 1995 Amended Statement of Claim extremely extensively “adverts” to the said water agreement if that is not an oxymoron.  (complete 1995 Amended Statement of Claim available here)

• Fourthly an extensive letter authored by me and dated 24th August 1987 is selectively quoted by Osborn at his paragraph 169. The paragraphs he fails to quote extensively set out the unlawful nature of the 1982 Water Supply Agreement and Water supply. I will deal with this aspect and make the letter available when I discuss Osborn’s paragraph 169 below.

• Osborn knew that with or without an agreement the Water Authority could not supply the Woodleigh Heights land except with the approval of the Governor in Council and that approval had not been either sought nor obtained.

• As a consequence of the matters and things set out in the 1995 Amended Statement of Claim and the law there was no possible grounds for alleging entitlement to a water supply from the Water Authority or of alleging wrongful refusal of supply.

In these foregoing paragraphs Osborn overtly misrepresented the gravamen of the 1995 proceeding. 

Then;

Like the 1988 Tylden Rd proceding the 1995 proceeding was settled in fraudulent circumstances now described in Chapter 8 Parts 6 and 6A however I will attend to that detail below.

The 1995 procceding described by Osborn, i.e. a proceeding with his fraudulent representations as to the gravamen was not settled, it did not exist except in Osborn’s corrupt representations.

Yes that is my contention excepting that the reason that the private water supply had not been provided was that the “reticulation system”, the water mains had not been laid..  The fact is the “water supply” required by condition 8 of the permit was present, that supply was the lake.

It was the water mains which were not present.

The phraseology of Osborn’s paragraph 21 is a carefuly misleading rendition which asserts “water supply”, this diverts attention from the true root of the 2005 gravamen in respect to Woodleigh Heights which was that the water mains were not laid in 1979 as required by law.

The foregoing astounding misrepresentations were under Osborn’s heading “Factual Background”

Next Osborn attend to a little legislation which I have included because of the relevance. 

The plans referred to in condition 8 of the planning permit set aside easements for the purpose of the private reticulated water supply.

569B(2)(ac) of the Local Government Act only required this if the subject land was in the district of the Authority and in the case of the Woodleigh Heights subdivision it was not within the said district and could not be supplied by the Water Authority so the Council did not refer the plans and was not required to refer them. (see paragraph 11 of the 1995 Statement of Claim and paragraph 11 of the Council’s Defence)  (see also Chapter 8 part 5 for alteration to Water Districts). 

Irrelevant. The Woodleigh Heights land was not within the district of the Water Authority, the Water Authority could neither consent or refuse to consent. .

Only if requested to do so by the Water Authority and in this case not only were the plans not referred to the Authority but the Authority could not require the Council to make such a requirement because the land was outside the Authority’s district.

This is another flat out false misrepresentation. There was no wrongful refusal of water supply and it is not possible to construe “wrongful refusal” into the Amended Statement of Claim.

Osborn’s reference to “wrongful refusal of water supply” is a reference by him to hiis corrupt rendition of refusal of the fraudulent 1982 water supply.

The fact known to Osborn is that the Council and Water Authority could not refuse me access to the private “reticulated water supply”.

The fact known to Osborn was that the 1995 proceeding was based entirely on the fact that the Council and Water Authority had fraudulently concealed the status of and my entitlement to the 1979 private “reticulated water supply”.

Yes – in respect of the 1979 private reticulated water supply — not the 1982 water supply as corruptly represented by Osborn.

The claim described by Osborn was not settled, it did not exist except in Osborn’s corrupt rendition.

The proceeding was settled in the fraudulent circumstances now set out at Chapter 8 parts 6 and 6A and further discussed below and in particular that the Council and Water Authority concealed the fact that the water mains had not been laid in 1979 as required by law and they had concealed this fact during the entire period in which the 1995 remained on foot and concealed it at the time of settlement.

Yes and in the face of Osborn’s assertons the Amended Statement of Claim explicitly alleged entitlement to that private reticulated water supply and extensively detailed the unlawful nature of the 1982 water supply.  

Yes and and for the purpose of the fraud of the Council and Water Authority as described in Chapter 8 this submission was concealed by the Council until  discovered by me in 1995.

Yes and as alleged at (e) potable water was by means of roof rainwater tanks which were also defined in the proposal and approved by the Council and are almost universal in rural areas where water authorities cannot provide water..

Yes – and as relevant was the fact that I had eggs for breakfast —  but we shall see where Osborn is headed with his corrupt little scheme. To this point we have seen that Osborn absolutely misrepresented the gravamen of the 1995 proceeding as being related to denial of this 1982 supply of “potable” water from the Water Authority.

Here Osborn says that the “permit application” did not contemplate a supply of water from the Water Authority.

Yes, that was condition 8 of Planning Permit 2191.

No; it was not alleged that “the council then approved…. …. .. “.   This implies approved subsequent to and separately from the planning permit.

The specific allegation was that the council approved the application for permit to subdivide and had approved the application on the conditions set out in the planning permit and condition 8 required compliance with the plans and submission which defined the private reticulated water supply”

In other words the allegation was that approval of the private reticulated water supply was inherent in the terms of condition 8 of of the planning permit.

Subparagraphs (c) and (e) demonstrate my belief that that water mains had been laid in 1979.

The following is Osborn’s footnote to his paragraph 71.

And as I say; I had eggs for breakfast. The submission referred to in condition 8 of the planning permit provided for roof rainwater tanks for potable water.   The Water Authority could not lawfully provide water, potable or not.    

Poor corrupt little Osborn gets himself tied up in such a knot of deceit — this is what happens when a Judge appoints himself advocate and locks himself away and concocts Reasons in the complete and total absence of submissions on the matter,  The planning permit which issued had an error of omission, it did not specifiy “residential use”.  This error was corrected upon registration of the Plan by the Registrar of Titles. The Ninth Schedule which was registered by the Registrar of Titles was amended and signed by the Council to include and permit “residential use”.

Osborn remained ignorant of this fact because he was his own advocate with no adversary. He determined all these things wherever it is that he secludes himself.

Osborn’s reference to the fact that the connections to individual lots was intended to be installed as part of the works described in the submission is standard even in city areas, connection from the dwelling to the mains is made after consstruction of a dwelling.

Just another damn flat out lie.  

At pages 113 and 114 of the transcript of 1st November 2006 the following exchange took place between Osborn and myself;

MR THOMPSON: … ….. ….So in the submission dated 3/11/78, which is referred to in Paragraph W2 of the amended statement of claim, the then subdivider, Ken Buchanan, made a very substantial submission which pointed out the fact that there was no water supply out there.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

MR THOMPSON:  And that as a consequence of the then planning scheme, he proposed a private reticulation system which was to be present at the time that the plans were sealed.  That is fully described in that submission including the plans which show the reticulation, the lake, the header tanks and so on.  That was the basis that it was sealed on in 1978 and then what happened was – and just to put you in the picture, that was – the subdivision was initially I forget now, some 30 or 40 odd blocks of three acres each. 

A little bit later on, what happened was it was re-subdivided because they wanted to build a time share resort there.  At that point in time, on my understanding later was that it was necessary to augment the supply that was out there initially.  The supply that was provided by the Kyneton Water Board by the second defendant cannot be confused with the supply that should have been there in 1978.  Sorry, 1979 at the time of the sealing.  The one, the one is contained entirely in the subdivision and is the property of the body corporate and should have been (indistinct) in 1979.  The one that was bought in 1982 was bought pursuant I might say to an unlawful water supply agreement.  Nobody in fact could establish as it was some – the defendants’ allegations at the moment say that at that particular point in time when I knew of the second water supply that my right of action accrued from then.  Well it didn’t because it was an unlawful water supply and no right to that water supply existed.  Nobody had a right to it, it was simply unlawful.

Contrary to Osborn’s fabrications and supporting footnote I did not even imply as asserted by him and in any event the Council could not approve a subdivision, cluster or otherwise, subject to an unlawful water supply agreement which purports to give control of an essential service to a private company/entity.  The notion is absurd.

Additionally the Water Authority could not lawfully provide water, the Council knew this and as discussed above the Council did not even refer the plans to the Water Authority and could not approve the plans subbject to a water supply which could not be lawfully provided.  

The planning permit for resubdivision issued on 21st November 1980 and an initial approach for a supply from the Water Authority was not made until 5th March 1981,   Notably the application was made by / on behalf of the Body Corporate and not WHRD which was not yet incorporated..

Of particular note is the fact that the Agreement actually entered into was between the Water Authority and WHRD and not the Body Corporate and the Water Authority then did not seek let alone obtain the Governor in Council’s approval and nor did it seek or get the Ministers approval to lay the water main along Edgcombe Rd to the boundary of Woodleigh Heights. .  

Here Osborn falsely represents that I purchased my land subsequent to the foregoing things, .i..e subsequent to the 1982, water supply agreement and subsequent to redevelopment. These subtle but important misrepresentations add verisimilitude to Osborn’s scheme and misrepresentations.

The further misrepresentation in this paragraph is that Osborn asserts that WHRD wished to “compell the plaintiffs to complete the sale of land by the plaintiffs BACK to it“.   There are two strongly implied misrepresentations here;

• “compel ….. .. to complete the sale”  implies that I was refusing to complete a sale to WHRD

• “by the plaintiffs BACK to it”  implies that I had purchased from WHRD in the first place.  

The facts known to Osborn were;

I had purchased my land in 1979 at which time the private reticulated water supply was the only water supply and almost two years prior to the incorporation of WHRD..  On Osborn’s corrupt rendition I purchased after the 1982 water supply agreement and water supply was in place.  

By April 1984 WHRD had entered into contracts of sale to purchase my land and had defaulted on those contracts and with the connivance of the Council and Water Authority had declared that water would be denied to my land and it would be rendered valueless if I tried to sell to anyone other than WHRD.  I therefore issued proceedings out of the Supreme Court seeking orders for specific performance of the contracts and then all those things described in Chapter 8 part 1 occurred when AGC and then I attemtpted to sell.  See also Chapter 1 part 5 for complete discussion on the corrupt conduct of the Water Authority at this time.  

The fact is WHRD refused and failed to purchase pursuant to contracts and then the Council and the Water Authority conspired with one another to enable WHRD to aquire the land cheaply and to prevent the sale of it to anyone other than WHRD.

The further fact is that WHRD was incapable of doing anything, it was the Council and Water Authority who had the Statutory Authority which they corruptly used for the purpose of rendering my land unusable by anyone other than WHRD and thereby compel the sale of my land to WHRD.

All of these things were extensively “adverted” to in the 1995 Amended Statement of Claim which Osborn “analysed”.

In order compel the sale of my land to WHRD the Council and Water Authority had to and did conceal the submission referred to in clause 8 of the Planning Permit and thereby conceal all knowlede of the fact of and facts of the private “reticulated water supply” which had been approved by the Council and which I/my land had absolute entitlement to. 

Yes and the Council and Water Authority corruptly conspired with WHRD to that effect while each one of them knew full well that the Water Supply Agreement was unlawful and the water supplied in purported pursuance of the agreement was unlawfully provided.

In addition each of the Council and Water Authority and their respective executive officers knew full well that I/my land was absolutely entitled to the private reticulated water supply defined in the submission referred to in condition 8 of planning permit 2191 and which submission was carefully and fraudulently concealed.

Yes, and I repeat the foregoing. Such an agreement is an affront to all conscience, let alone the law.

Yes, and I repeat the foregoing.

See Chapter 6 – “Garde deceives VCAT”  —   The principal reason why it was sold at a loss was because Osborn’s law school chum and his instructing solicitor John Norman Price misled the Victorian Administrative Appeals Board, as it then was.  As also described in Chapter 6 the Council and Water Authority and their solicitor, Ian Lonie of Maddocks, also misled the Tribunal.

At page 12 of part 2 of my written submission to Osborn I detailed Major General Greg Garde’s conduct at the Tribunal and in particular that he had represented to the Tribunal that the 1982 Water Supply agreement was lawful and enforceable while knowing full well that it was not.  (full part 2 here)

The present fabrications by  Osborn conceal and ignore and fly in the face of the fact known to him that the 1982 Water Supply Agreement was unlawful and unenforceable and thereby also ignores denies and conceals the fact that his law school chum, Major General Garde QC, did mislead the Tribunal as alleged by me.

For the reasons set out at paragraphs 6 to 14 of the 1995 Amended Statement of Claim, namely that they concealed the fact that the 1979 private reticulation water supply had been approved by the Council and that I/my land had entitlement to that private reticulated water supply. Not as corruptly represented by Osborn that I was denied the 1982 water supply.

Yes excepting that I was prevented from recovering the loss at the time of the 1995 proceeding because of the matters and things now set out in Chapter 8 part 6 and 6A and which matters and things were substantially set out at pages 13-16 of part 2 of my written submission to Osborn.

I did not try to resile from the Terms of Settlement, the Terms of Settlement had been obtained in corrupt ccircumstances now described at Chapter 8 part 6,  the Council and Water Authority had defaulted on the terms of settlement, they did not pay by the due date, so I issued notice of trial.  

These comments by Justice Beach were a little unkind, for the purpose of their fraud the Council and Water Authority had fraudulently concealed the fact of and the facts of the private reticulated water supply until 8th August 1995 and as  I now know they continued to conceal the fact that the private reticulated water supply had not been completed according to law.  See Chapter 8 parts 6 and 6A.

At the time Justice Beach thought it “high time the proceeding was finally laid to rest” my discovery of the fraud was only four years prior.

The facts known to Osborn were that the “present proceeding” is the complete antithesis of the facts of the previous proceeding.

• The previous 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding alleged service of Notice of Requirement pursuant to Councils resolution of 20th February 1980 and that allegation was based on the perjury of the Council.  The present proceeding alleges that the Notices of Requirement served had no enabling resolution of Council. I deal fully with the Tylden Rd aspect in Footnote A.

• Despite Osborn’s misepresentations the 1995 Woodleigh Heights proceeding was predicated on the allegation that the private reticulated water supply had been completed according to law and accordingly that the water mains defined in the submission had been laid in 1979 and that I/my land had and was entitled to access to that private reticulated water supply. The new 2005 proceeding alleged that the private reticulated water supply was NOT completed as required by law in that the water mains had not been laid and consequently the private reticulated water supply defined in the submission was not present to have access and entitlement to.

The fact is that Osborn’s assertions at his paragraph 82 depend on his overt misrepresentations as to the gravamen of the previous and present proceeding as discussed throughout this footnote and footnote A and this website generally.

The facts known to Osborn were that at the time of the “settling” of  each of the previous proceedings the Council and Water Authority had continued to conceal the mattters and things giving rise to the 2005 proceeding.

The Council and Water Authority and their lawyers relied upon their deception as discussed in Chapters 1, 2, 3 and four hereof.

Yes — the master swallowed and regurgitated the misrepresentations made to him and Osborn is seeking to provide verisimilitude to the Master’s reaons for the purpose of ignoring denying and concealing the conduct of the lawyers before the Master as repeated before him.

No;  the plaintiffs submitted that they had met the and well and truly answered the grounds for summary dismissal put forward by the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority. See Chapter 4.

These  things asserted by Osborn at his paragraph 97 are part of his scheme after he appointed himself advocate as described in Chapter 1 part 3.

Osborn;s paragraphs 102(a) and (b) go to his overt misrepresentations in respect of the planning permit as described by me in Chapter 1 part 4 and will be further discussed below.

Osborn’s subparagraph 102(c) asserts “water supply”, it was related to the provision of the “reticulation system” not the “water supply”. Osborn was thoroughy aware that the fact that the reticulation system was constructed in 1982 and not 1979 was a “new fact discovered by the plaintiffs” in 1999 at the time of the Practice Court hearing.  The Further Amended Statement of Claim in the 1995 proceeding expressly pleaded the existence of the principal water mains whereas the new 2005 proceeding was expressly predicated on the non-existence of those water mains. Osborn is simply a fraudster twisting and misrepresenting the facts to suit his corrupt porpose.

In addition to his own misrepresentations Osborn’s paragraph 102(c) relies on and repeats the deceptive submissions at paragraphs 91 to 98 of Delany’s Outline wherein Delany asserts that a letter written by me in 1987 to the Council and Water Authority and which letter points out the illegal nature of the 1982 Water supply and Water Supply agreement demonstrates that I was aware in 1987 that the reticulated water supply was not present in 1979 but was in fact provided for in 1982. 

My most simple response to Delany’s paragraphs 91 to 98 was that the submission referred to in clause 8 of planning permit was concealed from me until August 1995 and accordingly the fact of and the facts of the 1979 private water supply were also concealed from me until that time and as a matter of simple logic it is not possible to know that something is not present as required by law without first being aware that it is required by law to be present.

Then upon learning that the private reticulated water supply was required by law to present in 1979 I mounted the 1995 proceeding which alleged that the private reticulated water supply was present as required by law and then during the four years that the 1995 proceeding remained on foot the Council and Water Authority dishonestly concealed and failed to discover the reticulation plan which was shown to me after settlement and which plan disclosed that the reticulation system had not been completed as required by law as alleged by me in the 1995 proceeding.  These things are set out at paragraphs 27-41  and subparagraph 57(b) at page 21 of my affidavit of 18th October 2005   (see also Chapter 8 parts 6 and 6A hereof)

The truth known to Osborn is that in the face of Delany’s assertions his paragraphs 91 to 98 in fact include an admission as to the fact that I was shown the reticulation plan during the Practice Court hearing and an admission that the 1979 reticulaton system was not completed in 1979 as required by law .

It is quite clear and apparent that Delany made his Outline without being cognisant of the logical implications of the fact that the submission referred to in clause 8 of the planning permit and all knowledge of the fact and facts of the private water supply had been concealed from me until August 1995 so my awareness as asserted by him was impossible due to the fraudulent concealment by the Council and Water Authority of the fact of and facts of the private water supply and reticultion system until discovered by me in 1995.

The logical implications of the concealment of the submission were extensively set out by me at paragraph 68 of part 1 of my written submission to Osborn..

From Delany’s paragraphs 91 to 98 and paragraphs 27-41 and 57(b) of my Affidavit and from paragraph 68 of my written submission and from the Further Amended Statement of Claim which Osborn asserts he analysed Osborn is fixed with knowledge that Delany’s submission as to my awareness is fatally flawed as a matter of simple logic and Osborn is thoroughly aware that his assertion at paragraph 102(c) as to “no evidence of new fact” is false. (note in Delany’s outline he has a footnote reference to paragraph 82 of  my affidavit – this is an error his quoted extract is actually my paragraph 40)

As to Osborn’s paragraphs 102(d) and (e), both are dependant upon his false assertion at 102(c). Osborn was thoroughly aware that the fact that the private reticulated water supply was not completed as required by law was concealed from me during the entire period of the 1995 proceeding and accordingly the settlement of that proceeding was fraudulently obtained while the lawyers, let alone the Council and Water Authority were fully aware that the true facts had been concealed from me by a failure to discover key documents, namely the reticulation plan shown to me after settlement.

102(f) see above.

Osborn is merely contorting the facts for his corrupt purpose which was to provide verisimilitude to the Master and to conceal the conduct of the lawyers.

On the face of it this is utter nonsence – that I learned or understood that the 1979 Woodleigh Heights water supply was not present from an understanding that the Council had abandoned the 18 lot plan in respect to Tylden Rd is manifeslty absurd but then again on Osborn’s rendition of facts anything is possible.

The facts known to osborn and on which he bases this absurdity is set out at paragraph 54(a) of my affidavit. The understanding was one of conduct at law, not of fact and circumstance, my affidavit asserts that I after concluding the conduct in respect to Tylden Rd and that the Council had sealed the plans in breach of its duty to refuse to seal them I then realised that the Council had also sealed the plans of Cluster Subdivision in breach of its duty to refuse to seal them as it had done with Tylden Rd, this is not something which invokes disclosure by association or whatever nonsense Osborn is asserting.

Notably at paragraphs 87 to 88 of his Outline delany deceptively asserts to the effect of Osborn’s 144. 

Mindlessly dishonest.

This transcript is from paragraph 65 of Part 1 of my written submission to Osborn; It would have been far more interesting if Osborn had transcribed the rest of that paragraph so I have made it available here. 

The omitted parts of my paragraph 65, with reference to the paragraphs 85-91 of Delany’s Outline before Master Efthim, clearly set out that the lawyers for the Council admit both the fact of the reticulation plan which was concealed until shown to me at the Practice Court but also admit to the predicating facts of the new 2005 proceeding in respect to Woodleigh Heights, namely that the reticulation system was not complete as required by law.. These paragraphs 85-91 of Delany’s were essentially identical to paragraphs 91 to 98 of Delany’s Outline before Osborn which I discuss above.

The complete paragraph 65 of of my submission when read with Delany’s paragraphs 85-91 and my comments in relation to Osborn’s paragraph 102 above completely falsify Osborn’s paragraph 102. Osborn is fixed with having read my paragraph 65. 

Osborn knew full well his paragraph 147 was a fraudulent misrepresentation of the facts known to him. Those facts being;

• The land was outside the Waterworks district of the Water Authority and could not be lawfully supplied with water from the Water Board, potable or not.

• The 1982 water supply was NOT “connected to the subdivision”‘ with those implied meanings; it was purportedly provided to WHRD to the specific exclusion of “the subdivision”.

• Osborn’s words “not extended to the plaintiff’s allotments” is a fraudulent misrepresentation” intended by him to provide a plausable but dishonest reason or explanation as to why I/my land did not have access/entitlement to the water supply which he dishonestly says was “connected to the subdivision”  The water main in fact ran past my allotments. The facts known to Osborn were that I/my land did not have water due to the fraud of the Council and Water Authority as set out in the Further Amended Statement of Claim referred to by him and now described at chapter 8 of this website.

• At the hearing before Osborn the following little exchange took place;

  As discussed at Chapter 4; at the apparent behest of Osborn Garde made inane submissions as to potable water and Osborn wasn’t going to give me an opportunity to respond to this new garbage so he said: (view relevant extract from chapter 4)

  HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  In this matter I propose to reserve my decision and we’ll adjourn sine die.

  Well, this guardian of justice, democracy and impartiality had closed the shop without allowing me a response to this and I knew that these two chums were up to something and I needed to put my twopence worth in so I stood up and the following exchange took place;

  MR THOMPSON:  Your Honour, may I address one issue just raised by Mr Garde?  He raised the issue of potable water.  It’s simply irrelevant.  The question was simply with regard to a reticulated water supply potable or not.  It has zero to do with potable or not

  HIS HONOUR:  Well, I don’t accept that, Mr Thompson.

  MR THOMPSON: and the relevant material is found at J24 where the Shire of Kyneton sets out in respect to a question specifically related to whether tank or bore or septic sewerage would be available.  The council simply says it’s conditional upon reticulated water.  Zero to do with potable.  That’s simply obfuscation, sir.

  HIS HONOUR:  That’s precisely what Mr Garde put to me and I understand it.  In compliance with – the permit had nothing to do with potable water.  Having said that we’ll adjourn sine die.

In the face of the facts and for corrupt purpose Osborn had already predetermined his paragraph 147 at the time of the hearing and all that was left to do was to formulate apparently plausable fabrications for public consumption. 

Osborn’s paragraph 147 merely corruptly provides verisimilitude to the corrupt scheme of his Reasons. 

Each and every utterance by Osborn in respect of “poatable” water is a product of his curruption in conjunction with the corruption of Garde.    

Paragraph 148 is an outright fraudulent misrepresentation like all the rest Osborn knew it at the time he wrote it.

• Firstly, I never ever requested access to that “latter water supply“. My firm position at all times was that the 1982 water supply and Water Supply Agreement were unlawful in all respects.

• Secondly, paragraphs 27 to 30 of my Affidavit 18th October 2005 upon which Osborn relies for conveniently deceptive extracts but glaringly does not rely on what does not suit his corrupt purpose. These paragraphs clearly and precisely and unequivocally describe the “private” “reticulated water supply as forming the gravamen of the 1995 proceeding.

• Thirdly, paragraphs 6 to 14 of the 1995 Amended Statement of Claim clearly precisely and uneqivocally describe the “private reticulated water supply” and my entitlement to that supply and that the representations of the Council and Water Authority to the effect that I/my land was not entited to a reticulated water supply were false and untrue.

• Fourthly, the 1995 Amended Statement of Claim “adverts” to the fraudulent 1982 water supply and water supply agreement for twenty six pages and extensively describes and alleges all of the dishonest and fraudulent conduct of the Council and the Water Authority and Woodleigh Heights Resort Developments P/L in repect to that water supply and water supply agreement and specifically details all of the reasons why the Water Authorities representations that the water supply and water agreement were lawful were in fact fraudulent misrepresentations and that the Council and Water Authorities representations to the effect that I/my land was not entitled to a “reticulated water supply” were false and untrue beacause of the matters and things set out at paragraphs 7 to 14 of that 1995 Amended Statement of Claim, namely that I/my land was entitled to the 1979 private reticulated water supply defined at paragraphs 7 to 14 of that Amended Statement of Claim.

  • • The twenty six pages over which the 1995 Amended Statement of Calim “adverts” to “the fact of a water agreement between WHRD and the Water Board” the Amended Statement of Claim describes clearly those things now described in Chapter 8 hereof and in particular Chapter 8 part 5.  The 1995 Amended Statement of Claim extremely extensively “adverts” to the said water agreement if that is not an oxymoron.  (complete 1995 Amended Statement of Claim available here)

• Fifthly, an extensive letter authored by me and dated 24th August 1987 is selectively quoted by Osborn at his paragraph 169. The paragraphs he fails to quote extensively set out the unlawful nature of the 1982 Water Supply Agreement and Water supply. I will deal with this aspect and the 1987 letter when I discuss Osborn’s paragraph 169 below.

• Osborn was fully aware that the 1982 Water Supply and Water Supply agreement was unlawful in every imaginable respect and did not and could not form the gravamen of the 1995 proceeding.

This plan was not requred to be produced. The hearing before Osborn was to answer the summons for summary dismissal of my 2005 proceeding and all that was required was to answer the grounds of that application and I had done that.

In addition as discussed above; at paragraphs paragraphs 85-91 of Delany’s Outline before Master Efthim and at paragraphs 91 to 98 of Delany’s Outline before Osborn the fact of the reticulation plan and that the 1979 reticulation system had not been laid in 1979 was admitted.

In addition this plan was a Water Authority document in the control and possession of Greg Garde and his instruction solicitor Steven Mark Edward.

Delany had admitted to the fact of the reticulation plan and its effect at paragraphs 85-91 of his Outline before Master Efthim, my affidavit predated Delany’s Outline, production of the plan was not necessary and in any event it was a Water Authority document.

This plan was not requred to be produced. The hearing before Osborn was to answer the grounds of the summons for summary dismissal of my 2005 proceeding and all that was required of me was to answer the grounds of that application and I had done that.

In addition as discussed above at paragraphs paragraphs 85-91 of Delany’s Outline before Master Efthim and at paragraphs 91 to 98 of Delany’s Outline before Osborn the fact of the reticulation plan and that the 1979 reticulation system had not been laid in 1979 was admitted.

In addition this plan was a Water Authority document in the control and possession of the Authority’s lawyers Greg Garde and his instruction solicitor Steven Mark Edward.

Believe it or not; a reticulation plan is just that; the plan manifestly disclosed the laying of a reticulation system of pipes. It manifestly does not describe anything at all in respect of “a reticulated potable water supply to the cluster subdivision.”

As discussed above Delany admitted to both the plan and that the reticulation system was laid in 1982 and not 1979.

More of Osborn’s fraudulent misrepresentations aboout the 1982 “potable” supply being provided to “the cluster subdivision” and that this 1982 formed the gravamen of the 1995 proceeding.

Also Osborn was thoroughly aware that it was the water mains, not the water supply, “potable” or not, which was pertinent.

Here Osborn says that the planning permit imposed a requirement “to provide a non potable supply” as part of the development of the cluster subdivision. As I will demonstrate below the fraudster, Osborn, could not keep track of his fraudulent misrepresentation. On the one hand he states that the developer did not have to comply with condition 8 of the planning permit before the plans were sealed by the Council yet here he asserts that the “non potable” supply was a “requirement imposed by the permit for subdivision.   

Here Osborn fraudulently asserts that I submitted that an approved reticulated water supply “from the water board” was a precondition to the grant of Building permits.

As with all his other substantive paragraphs Osborn knew paragraph 154 to be false and fraudulently constructed by him for his corrupt purpose at the time he wrote it;

• Paragraphs 52 to 54 of part 1 of my written submission to Osborn defined “approved reticulated water supply” (I have highlighted the relevant paragraphs)

  • paragraph 54(b)(viii) said “The private water supply and reticulation system defined in the submission constituted an approved Reticulated Water Supply for the purpose of the Shire of Kyneton Planning Scheme” and;

  • paragraph 54(b)(ix) specifically described the “private reticulated water supply” as being required by the planning permit.

  • paragraph 54(c)(v) said “A reticulated water supply lawfully provided by the Second Defendant is an approved Reticulated Water Supply

  Osborn was also thoroughly aware that essentially every document before him demonstrated that the 1982 water supply was unlawful and not lawfully provided and did not and could not constitute an “approved reticulated water supply”

• At the hearing before Osborn the following little exchange took place;
  

  As discussed at Chapter 4; at the apparent behest of Osborn Garde made inane submissions as to potable water and Osborn wasn’t going to give me an opportunity to respond to this new garbage so he said: (view relevant extract from chapter 4)

• HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  In this matter I propose to reserve my decision and we’ll adjourn sine die.

  Well, this guardian of justice, democracy and impartiality had closed the shop without allowing me a response to this and I knew that these two chums were up to something and I needed to put my twopence worth in so I stood up and the following exchange took place;

  MR THOMPSON:  Your Honour, may I address one issue just raised by Mr Garde?  He raised the issue of potable water.  It’s simply irrelevant.  The question was simply with regard to a reticulated water supply potable or not.  It has zero to do with potable or not

  HIS HONOUR:  Well, I don’t accept that, Mr Thompson.

  MR THOMPSON: and the relevant material is found at J24 where the Shire of Kyneton sets out in respect to a question specifically related to whether tank or bore or septic sewerage would be available.  The council simply says it’s conditional upon reticulated water.  Zero to do with potable.  That’s simply obfuscation, sir.

  HIS HONOUR:  That’s precisely what Mr Garde put to me and I understand it.  In compliance with – the permit had nothing to do with potable water.  Having said that we’ll adjourn sine die.

In the face of the facts and for corrupt purpose Osborn had already determined his paragraph 154 at the time of the hearing and simply lies about the facts to put it.

I never did submit “(from the water board”) as fraudulently asserted by Osborn.

Here I have also provided Osborn’s footnote 46 to his paragraph 155

The hearing before Osborn was to answer the summary dismissal application by the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority.

As discussed above in relation to Osborn’s paragraph 102 the Outlines of Submission by Delany admitted to both the fact of the reticulation plan which was shown to me in the Practice Court and also to the fact that the reticulation system had not been laid in 1979. The application by the Council was on the grounds that I knew in 1987 that the reticulation system had not been laid in 1979.

Osborn’s footnote is simply false. Osborn refers to my appeal submission volume 2 page 28, I have highlighted the relevant paragraph.. It is clear that I said;

“the sole reason as to why it is said that the said water supply was not present is that the component being the principle water mains were not laid in 1979 bit were instead laid in 1982 and that I first became aware of this in 1999 at the Practice Court.“

It is also clear from paragraphs 85-91 of Delany’s Outline before the Master that Delany asserts that in 1987 I had knowledge of those things set out in his paragraph 85.  The things set out at his paragraph 85 incude that the “water mains were in fact laid in 1982 and not in 1979…..”

Similarly in Delany’s paragraphs 91 to 98 before Osborn Delany asserts that in 1987 I had knowledge of those things set out in his paragraph 92. The things set out at his paragraph 92 incude that the “water mains were in fact laid in 1982 and not in 1979…..”

The facts known to Osborn was that it was the water mains/pipes which were relevant and there was no need for evidence as to the nonexistence in 1979; that fact had been admitted and relied upon by Delany for the Council.

At Chapter I part 4 “Osborn on Planning Permits” I dealt with the fraudulent misrepresentations of Osborn in respect to his paragraphs 156 to 162. The reader will recollect that a these paragraphs Osborn represented that the developer did not have to comply with clause 8 of the Planning Permit or in other words did not have to comply with either the plans or the submission before  the Council sealed the plans and the Registrar of Titles became able to register.   Osborn did not believe himself.

I will not comment further on the aspect of paragraphs 156 to 162 which I have covered at Chapter 1 part 4.

Then;

The footnote reference by Osborn is to paragraph 68(f) of part 1 of my submissions to Osborn where I said;

“The first fact is that the private reticulated water supply described in the submission referred to in paragraph W2 of the present Amended Statement of Claim, was required by law to be complete at the time of the sealing of the plans in 1979 and did constitute an approved Reticulated Water Supply for the purpose of the Shire of Kyneton Planning Scheme;“

As with all of his paragraphs Osborn fabricated paragraph 157 after appointing himself advocate

The truth is set out at page 6 of a joint written submission by the Council and Water Authority to the Planning Appeals Tribunal in 1988. (complete submission here)

Notably I attached a copy of that page 6 to my costs submission to Osborn, where I basically told him he was dishonest, litle wonder he or someone fabricated the “Authenticated Orders” – See Chapter 1 Part 5.

The fact is that planning planning scheme was exactly as said by me and the private reticulated water supply was a condition of the planning permit.

osborn transcribes the conditions of planning permit 2191 in his paragraph 158

I substantially dealt with Osborn’s paragraphs 156 to 162 at Chapter 1 part 4 — Osborn is a fraudster.

Entirely dealt with above.  Every aspect is false and was known to be false at the time of fraudulent fabrication, writing and uttering by Osborn.

Dealt with above.

I referred to this paragraph above — so according to Osborn the Amended Statement of Claim in the 1995 proceeding “adverted” to the 1982 water supply agreement.  Well it did so over twenty six pages and extensively and unequivocally set out the unlawful nature of the agreement and the water supply provided in purported pursuance. 

Osborn did not transcribe the critical sections. The very first paragraph of the agreement recites that WHRD is the “owner or occupier of ALL THAT piece of land … …. the whole of the land described in cluster plan of subdivision no 1134“

The Agreement manifestly was not an agreement for the supply of water “to the whole of the subdivision”  – It was expressly and by its very terms an agreement for the supply of water to WHRD who frauduently represented itself as “owner or occupier of ALL THAT piece of land … …. the whole of the land described in cluster plan of subdivision no 1134“

Well that was false, never was true, never could be true, the Body Corporate absolutely owned the common property, WHRD, manifesly never did either own or occupy my lland.  Section 307AA  of the Water Act only provided for agreements with “the owner”. 

Osborn was also thoroughly aware of all the other reasons why the purported agreement was unlawful and unenforceable and fraudulent in nature and purpose. These reasons were extensively set out in the Amended Statement of Claim which Osborn “analysed” and als set out in my letter which he refers to in his paragraph 169.

WHRD, the Council, the Water Authority, Osborn and Major General Garde were all fully aware that the the Water Supply Agreement was dishonest, unlawful and used for for fraudulent purpose.

Osborn is corruptly protecting his corrupt friends with his corrupt Reasons.

This assertion by Osborn is offensively false for all the above reasons, the notion that I would make such a submission is offensive, it was an unlawful and fraudulent purported agreement. Osborn also again jumps in with his “potable” notion.  It was an UNLAWFUL water supply, not a “potable” supply.

Yes and like all fraudsters Osborn even got caught up on this one, the fact is that the supply from the water authority was of low pressure and was to trickle fill the high level water tanks, particularly at night, and then the greater flowrate from the high level tanks provided demand water.

This is what happens when a Judge appoints himself as advocate and then sits in privacy to conclude both the arguments and the judgment in the comlpete absence of submissions.  Dishonest little man.

In addition at that time that I assumed this was during the period when the submission referred to in condition 8 of the Planning Permit and the fact and facts of the private reticulated water supply remained concealed from me and then until 1999 when I finally learned that the 1979 reticulation system had not been installed at all. 

And like the plumbing in a house is extended to the public main supply when it is time to connect the same could manifestly be the case when it was time to connect the private reticulation system it could be extended to the roadway. 

This poor deceitful little man trying to provide himself verisimilitude with any nonsence aspect he can dream up in the complete absence of submissions and facts to support his fabrications.

I was aware of an UNLAWFUL water supply to the private company WHRD and the letter selectively quoted by Osborn thoroughly demonstrates that fact.

Notably Osborn did not transcribe paragraphs  31, 32,34, 76, 77, 78 and 79 of my letter and which paragraphs explicitly and unequivocally set out the unlawful nature of the agreement, nor did he transcribe paragraphs  82 to 111 which substantially set out the things described in Chapter 8 part 5 hereof and nor did he transcribe paragraphs 114 – 124 which substantially describe some of the events now set out in Chapter 8 hereof.

Osborn’s paragraph 169 is very carefully and cleverly deceptive, he says “the fact of CONSTRUCTION of a potable water supply”.  My letter contains no evidence of “construction” at all within the Woodleigh Heights subdivision..  The letter clearly sets out that a water main was laid along Edgcombe Road and makes no mention at all of construction of the reticulation system within Woodleigh Heights.

My letter sets out knowledge of PROVISION of an unlawful Water Supply to WHRD, not construction of one within Woodleigh Heights.

Yes I was aware of the provision of the unlawful 1982 water supply but as discussed above that did not and could not demonstrate knowledge of any aspect of the 1979 water supply or reticulation system which remained concealed from me until 1995 and was concealed by the Council and Water Authority for the purpose of the fraud detailed in Chapter 8 and elsewhere.

The letter disclosed no knowledge at all of the 1979 private reticulated water supply which was well and truly concealed by the Councillors and Water Board members to whom the letter was addressed and also concealed by their complicit executive officers.

Osborn cherry picked the letter and quoted it for his own particular fraudulent purpose and to give verisimiltude to the Master.

I refer above

I refer above, two aspects here;

1/   Osborn is implying his corrupt rendition of the gravamen of the 1995 proceeding.

2/   The 1995 “Woodleigh Supreme Court proceeding” “adverted” to the un;awful nature of the Water Supply Agreement over twenty six pages and and is entirely and absolutely inconsistent with Osborn’s corrupt assertions.

I refer above, the fact that the reticulation plan was shown to me in 1999 was admitted and that the reticulation plan showed construction of the water mains in 1982 and not 1992 is also admitted.   The 1995 proceeding pleaded presence of that water reticulation system in 1979 whereas the 2005 proceeding pleads that it was not present.

Osborn is depending on his misrepresentations as to the gravamen of the 1995 proceeding for his representations and also his assertions as to “water supply” rather then “reticulation system”.

I refer to Chapter 8 and elsewhere and I wonder why Osborn resorted to these fraudulent Reasons if this were true.

See above;  that the reticulation system was not laid in 1979 is admitted and relied upon by Delany for the Council.

“If I am wrong with respect to the above matters” ???????????

Well he certainly was fraudulently wrong so what on earth does he base this assertion on.    

On Osborn’s corrupt rendition of the “gravamen” of the 1995 proceeding the release is a release in respect of Osborn’s fraudulent rendition of the ‘gravamen”

My submisson was that each of the previous proceedings were predicated on the fraudulent representations of the Council and Water Authority;

• In the case of the Tylden Rd land that proceeding was based on the fraudulent representation that the Council had processed the series of silly little plans as pats or effective stages of the 18 lot plan and had made lawful requiremets for the construction of roads and had then lawfully withdrawn them

• In the case of Woodeigh Heights that earlier proceeding was predicated on the false representation that the private reticulated water supply had been completed as required by law and that I/my land had entitlement to and access to that private reticulated water supply.

The releases in each of the previous proceedings released the Council and Water Authority from the subject matter of each of those proceedings.

The subject matter of each of those previous proceedings was specifically predicated on the fraud of the Council and Water Authority being accepted and relied upon as fact.

My submission to Osborn was not as represent by him; my submission was at paragraph 4)(g) and (h) of part 2 of my written submission where I said.

The subject matter of the previous proceeding exists only in the fraud of the Defendants.

As previously set out by me I say that the subject matter of the previous proceedings existed only in the fraud of the Defendants and therefore no subject matter exists except for that fraud. The Terms of Settlement can not release the Defendants from that fraud and the Defendants cannot claim release from that which never existed except in their fraud.

In addition the new subject matter was the total antithesis of the previous true gravamen, as distinct from Osborn’s fraudulent rendition of the gravamen of the previous proceeding.

For completeness here, the fraudulent representation of the Council was the act of sealing the plans of cluster subdivision. The act of sealing was and included a representation to all people that the subdivision had been completed according to law whereas the fact was that it had not been completed.

Osborn was thoroughly aware of the true facts.

As above.  In addition the words used by Osborn are spin to suit his corrupt purpose while acting as self appointed advocate for the Council and Water Authority. 

Each of these things I have dealt with above; (a) is false, (b) Osborn’s potable nonsense, (c) false, (d) Osborn’s potable nonsense, (e) false, (f) false, (g) and (h) depend on Osborn’s concoctions. Osborn is a deceitful little fraudster.

AGREED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ?????  

OF FACT ??????????????

The little fraudster, Justice Robert Osborn, sat in his private place and concocted everything in the face of everything.  

I assume Osborn  means as agreed between self appointed corrupt advocate Osborn and corrupt Judge Osborn.

All of the foregoing was fraudulently invented by Osborn himself and not based on the submissions of either Delany, Garde and Co or myself.  Nor was it based on any documentary evididence at all. 

Osborn’s Reasons are a complete fabrication, fabricated by him for the purpose of ignoring denying and concealing the conduct before the Master and for the purpose of shooting the messenger, me.

This is the line from the Reasons which formed part of the fraudulently fabricated “Authenticated Orders”.