Osborn’s fraudulent fabrications in respect of Woodleigh Heights
The proceeding before the Master and subsequently Osborn involved three subdivisions. The foregoing relates to the conduct of Delany, Garde and Co and Osborn in relation to the Tylden Rd residential subdivision.
Delany and Co’s conduct and the subsequent conduct of Osborn in relation to the Woodleigh Heights subdivision was as explicitly corrupt as the foregoing.
Similarly Osborn’s “different framework of analysis” in respect to Woodleigh Heights was as explicitly corrupt as his conduct in relation to Tylden Rd.
Unfortunately a little background detail is essential to an understanding.
Kyneton Council and Kyneton Water Board, the predecessors to Macedon Ranges Shire Council and Coliban Water were abundantly corrupt. (full details of that corruption are set out at Chapter 8 and following).
In 1979 I purchased 10 Blocks of land on the Woodleigh Heights subdivision. It was a Rural Residential Cluster Subdivision with a private reticulated water supply (see notation on top right of plan page). (see also page 6 of Council’s submission to the Planning Appeals Tribunal. Full submission here)
In 1981 a private company, Woodleigh Heights Resort Developments Pty. Ltd. “WHRD” was incorporated for the purpose of developing a timeshare resort on the subdivision.
In 1982 the Water Authority secretly entered into a manifestly fraudulent Water Supply Agreement with that company and which purported to give control of water supply within the cluster subdivision, to WHRD.
In 1983 WHRD entered into contracts to buy my land. WHRD then defaulted and when I said that it was Ok because I would merely sell elsewhere WHRD stated that if I tried to sell to anyone else other than WHRD then water would be denied to my land and it would be rendered useless and valueless. The Council and the Water Authority then corruptly conspired with one another to give effect to that fraud. (see Chapter 8)
To give fraudulent effect to the threat of WHRD the Council and Water Authority fraudulently represented that pursuant to that 1982 Agreement WHRD owned and operated the water supply and common property reticulation system within the cluster subdivision and that my land was not entitled to a “reticulated water supply” with the result that my land was rendered valueless and useless to anyone except WHRD
for the purpose of that fraud the Council concealed all detail of the initial subdivision of the land including all knowledge of the private“reticulated water supply” which had been approved by the Council in 1978 and which was required by law to be present in 1979 and which I/my land had an absolute entitlement to.
In relation to this 1982 Water Supply Agreement I only need to say one thing, it was outright fraudulent and used for fraudulent purpose, namely to prevent the sale of my land to anyone other than WHRD.
Everybody in this democratic country of Australia knows full well that a statutory authority cannot lawfully enter into an agreement with a private person/entity which purports to give that person or private company control over an essential service such as water supply to someone else’s property and particularly cannot purport to give them control over the supply of an essential service within a cluster subdivision so that they have control over the common property and the supply of that essential service to every other property holders property within that cluster subdivision.
The Water Supply Agreement was outright fraudulent and the water provided in purported pursuance of that agreement was manifestly unlawfully and fraudulently provided and for the reasons set out in Chapter 8 each and every Councillor and Water Authority member was aware of that fact.
In 1995, after amalgamation of Council’s in Victoria and the old guard had gone I gained access to the Council files and established that in 1978 the Council had approved a private “reticulated water supply” which was common property and which by operation of the planning permit and the law was required to be present in 1979 when the Council sealed the plans of subdivision and I/my land at all times had entitlement to that 1979 “reticulated water supply”.
In 1995 I issued Supreme Court proceedings and the “cause of action”, the gravamen of that proceeding was that in 1978 the Council had approved that 1978/79 private “reticulated water supply” and it was required by law to be present in 1979 when the Council sealed the plans and accordingly I/my land at all times had access to / entitlement to that 1979 “reticulated water supply” and that the Council and Water Authority had fraudulently concealed those facts from me.
These two disparate water supplies, the legal and legitimate 1978/79 one and the fraudulently supplied 1982 one could not be confused with one another.
In 1987 I had written an extensive letter to the Kyneton Council and Kyneton Water Board and which extensively set out the dishonest and fraudulent nature of the 1982 Water Supply Agreement. My letter consisted of 14 pages and 124 paragraphs and disclosed no knowledge at all that the 1978/79 water supply had been approved by the Council and all details of which were well and truly concealed from me at that time.
Delany and Garde and Co were demonstrably well aware of the distinction between the two water supplies and the fraudulent nature of the 1982 supply, Garde and his instructing solicitor Steven Mark Edward were a team and acting for the Water Authority during the 1995 proceeding and as detailed in Chapter 6 Garde had acted for WHRD in 1988 where the fraudulent Water Supply Agreement was a key issue.
In 2000 when I discovered the truth relating to the Tylden Rd subdivision I subsequently learned that the Council had sealed the plans to the cluster subdivision in full knowledge that the 1978/79 water supply was not present as required by law; as I will fully detail below this had facilitated Buchanan’s avoidance of the “effect” of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act in relation to the Woodleigh Heights subdivision and also facilitated or provided a half truth ground or basis for the Council and Water Authority’s fraudulent representations in respect to the fraudulent 1982 Water Supply Agreement.
My 2005 proceeding alleged that the Council had sealed the plans in full knowledge that the 1978/79 water supply was not present in that the water mains had not been laid and that this had been fraudulently concealed until discovered by me in 2000.
For the purpose of fraudulently demonstrating that I knew of this too long ago and my claim was therefore barred at paragraph 88 of their Outline of Submissions before the Master Dixon, Delany and Ahern represented that my 1987 letter demonstrated that “Mr Thompson was aware from at least 1987 that the reticulated water supply was laid in 1982”
At page 77 of the 1st day transcript before the Master Delany said; “what the August 1987 letter and the 1982 water reticulation agreement clearly show is that Mr Thompson was aware from at least August 1987, if not September ’85, when he was given a copy of the reticulation agreement, that the reticulated water supply was not present in 1979. It was in fact laid down in 1982 and it follows therefore, it’s been open to reflect on any legal consequence of those matters since at least August 1987.”
At the time of writing their Outline and at the time of making that submission each of Delany, Garde and Co were fully aware that it was a deceitful and dishonest submission. They knew;
That for the purpose of their fraudulent misrepresentations that I/my land did not have entitlement to a “reticulated water supply” the Council and Water Authority fraudulently concealed all knowledge of the 1978/79 water supply until discovered by me in 1995
That my knowledge of the fraudulent and unlawful 1982 water supply disclosed nothing of, let alone knowledge of any aspect at all of, the 1978/79 “reticulated water supply” which remained deliberately and completely concealed from me at the time of my 1987 letter and until 1995.
My 1987 letter particularly did not and could not disclose knowledge of the new “cause of action” in respect to Woodleigh Heights which was that when the Council sealed the plans of Cluster Subdivision in 1979 the 1978/79 “reticulated water supply” was not present as required by law in that the reticulation system, the main water pipes, were not present.
The Master swallowed this deceitful submission as well. In relation to the Woodleigh Heights water supply; Master Efthim’s Reasons said;
60. ….. Mr. Thompson was aware from at least 1987 that the reticulation water supply was laid in 1982.
Then at the appeal before Osborn Delany and Co repeated this deception; at paragraphs 94 to 98 of their written submissions and at page 35 of the transcript of the 1st day before Osborn; Delany said;
“But what we submit Your Honour is what Mr Thompson fails to mention, and what the documentary evidence establishes, is that he was aware and had been aware, at least from August 1987 that the reticulated water supply had been laid in 1982 and not 1979.”
And at page 37 Delany said; “And that the objective evidence establishes it as the master states in Paragraph 60 of his reasons, that Mr Thompson was aware from at least 1987 that the reticulation water supply was laid in 1982.”
By these fraudulent representations Delany misled the Master and then intended to deceive Osborn into believing that the 1982 water supply was one and the same as or a lawful substitute for the 1978/79 water supply and that I knew in 1987 that the 1978/79 water supply was in fact laid or provided or lawfully substituted in 1982 whereas the true facts known to Delany, Garde and Co were that the two supplies were incapable of being confused with one another and knowledge of the fraudulent 1982 supply which no-one had lawful entitlement to did not and could not impart or imply knowledge of the 1978/79 water supply which I/my land did have unimpeachable right and entitlement to but which right and entitlement was purposely and deliberately concealed by the Council and Water Authority for the purpose of their fraud in relation to the 1982 Water Supply Agreement and supply.
Delany, Garde and Co successfully deceived the Master with their deceitful submission.
In response to these misrepresentations I was also forthright in my comments to Osborn, I pointed out that it was impossible to confuse the two water supplies and I said “it is not possible that Mr. Delaney or his junior or his instructing solicitor held a belief that his submission was anything other than misleading.”
I also pointed out that in 1988 the then Lieutenant Colonel Garde had acted for WHRD and he overtly misled the Administrate Appeals Tribunal where, as fully and explicitly detailed at Chapter 6 below.
In the face of the facts and the law demonstrably known to him and his Instructing Solicitor at paragraph 4.0 of his “Written Submission on behalf of Appellant” dated 7th March 1988 Garde said, in capital letters; “THE APPLICANT HAS THE BENEFIT OF ENFORECEABLE LEGAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE WATERWORKS TRUST FOR THE PROVISION OF WATER, AND THE SEWERAGE AUTHORITY FOR THE PROVISION OF SEWERAGE” and I then said to Osborn;
I say that for the reasons set out by me in my letters of 26/2/88 and that by its specific terms the Water Supply Agreement was in specific breach of s.307AA(2) there was no possibility of a belief by Lieutenant Colonel Garde that the Water Supply Agreement was either lawful or enforceable and I submit to this Court that at the time of drafting and making his submission Lieutenant Colonel Garde knew full well that his submission was false and misleading or alternatively Lieutenant Colonel Garde made the submission carelessly and recklessly not caring whether it was either true or false.
In the face of these truths Osborn had a further problem, if he held or implied the Water Supply Agreement to be unlawful then these additional allegations of mine would also stand including against his law school chum Garde; so what did Osborn do?
He fraudulently resorted to yet more blatant outright fabrications and as I will fully particularise below the deceitful scheme of his fabricated Reasons in relation to the water supply to Woodleigh Heights was to; in the face of the facts and the law demonstrably before him;
(A) fraudulently hold/treat the manifestly unlawful 1982 water supply as the legitimate lawful water supply provided to the subdivision; and;
(B) to fraudulently hold that the 1978/79 water supply was not a requirement of the 1978 planning permit and not required to be present in 1979 when the Council sealed the plans.
Part (A) of Osborn’s scheme had the effect of ignoring, denying and concealing and making wrong my allegations in respect to Garde’s 1988 conduct and the whole of the scheme facilitated providing verisimilitude to the Masters Reasons and the misrepresentations of Delany, Garde and Co before the Master in respect to the water supply.
An example of part (A) of Osborn’s corrupt scheme. In this example Osborn manifestly misrepresents the facts of and surrounding the fraudulent 1982 water supply and deceitfully holds/treats it as the lawful and lawfully provided supply to the subdivision and he also manifestly and overtly deceitfully misrepresents the gravamen of the 1995 proceeding, as detailed above he fraudulently and overly misrepresented the facts related to the 1988 County Court proceeding and he misrepresented that gravamen. This is two out of two gravamens misrepreented by Osborn; 100% .
At paragraph 18 of his fabricated Reasons for Judgment, under the heading “Woodleigh Heights Factual Background”, Justice Osborne said; “…… a dispute arose as to the withholding of reticulated water supply from the Plaintiffs’ land by the subdivider. Such water was supplied by the Water Board to this subdivision in 1982”.
Then at his paragraph 19 he said “….. the Plaintiffs’ sued the Council and Water Board in 1995 alleging that each had made fraudulent misrepresentations as to the Plaintiffs’ lack of entitlement to such water ……… when (it was alleged) the Plaintiffs’ were in truth entitled to such water”
Osborn’s paragraph 18 was very carefully composed and crafted to provide its own verisimilitude. The use of the term, “the subdivider” provides an implied legitimacy, the term “provided to this subdivision” is simply false and implies legitimacy and intended to conceal the fact manifestly known to Osborn, that to the specific exclusion of “this subdivision” the water was fraudulently provided to the private company “WHRD” and not; “to this subdivision” as deceitfully asserted by him. In addition there never was a dispute as to the withholding of that 1982 supply, my firm position always had been that it was fraudulently provided and no one at all had an entitlement to it and my specific submission to Osborn in that regard is at page 114 of the transcript of 1/11/2006 where I said;
“…..it was an unlawful water supply and no right to that water supply existed. Nobody had a right to it, it was simply unlawful.”
Osborn’s paragraph 18 alone impugns both the man and his entire reasons. The fact is he could not write the truth known to him and protect Garde and find against me.
Now to turn to Osborn’s paragraph 19.
Osborn’s paragraph 19 is simply overtly, flat out, false; in that paragraph he implicitly asserts that the gravamen of the 1995 proceeding was that the Council and Water Authority fraudulently represented a lack of entitlement to the water supply referred to in his paragraph 18, (i.e. the 1982 supply) when the truth was that there was an entitlement to that water supply. Osborn expressly asserts this implied falsehood at his paragraph 148 where he says “It was this latter water supply to which the plaintiffs were denied access. This denial formed the gravamen of the Woodleigh Supreme Court proceedings.” (My emphasis).
Osborn’s words “latter water supply” are very important, the “latter water supply” referred to by Osborn is unequivocally the water supply referred to in his impugned paragraph 18 and provided by the Water Authority in 1982 pursuant to the manifestly unlawful Water Supply Agreement the fraudulent intent and effect of which was, as detailed at Chapter 8, to prevent the sale of my land to anyone other than WHRD. That fraudulent effect was known to Osborn, it was set out in both the 1995 and 2005 Statements of Claim and my submissions to him and the unlawfulness of the Water Supply Agreement is apparent from the very terms of the agreement and the law. It purported to give lawful control of the water supply and reticulation system within and to the entire cluster subdivision including to my land and to the common property, to WHRD; damn!
Osborn’s words “latter water supply” fix him with concurrently understood and considered knowledge of a “former” water supply. That “former” water supply is the one which the Council had approved in 1978 as described above. It was this prior or former water supply which I and my land was absolutely entitled to and which I asserted a right to in the 1995 proceeding and not the “latter water supply” as falsely asserted by Osborn.
The facts squarely before Osborn at the time he wrote his paragraph 19 are that the Indorsement to the Writ in the 1995 proceeding specifically and unequivocally defined the “former” water supply and the fraudulent representations made in relation to that “former” water supply as comprising the gravamen of the 1995 proceeding; the 1995 Indorsement alleged;
“4. the Plaintiffs claim against each of the Defendants is based on fraudulent misrepresentations ….. to the effect that the land did not have and never had a right of access to an approved reticulated water supply ……
5.(d) the defendants continued to make the representations …..
5.(e) the Defendants made the representations fraudulently …….
5.(h) the representations were false and untrue at the time they were made in that
(i) the land was part of cluster subdivision CS1134
(ii) cluster subdivision 1134 was subdivided pursuant to Planning Permit 2191
(iii) Provision 6 of Planning Permit 2191 required that the Body Corporate be responsible for the maintenance of all private facilities including water
(iv) Provision 8 of the Planning Permit required that the development be carried out in accordance with the plan and submission which formed part of the application for the permit
(v) The submission provided for the construction of a water supply and reticulation system consisting of, inter alia, a lake, high level water tanks, and reticulation pipes
(vi) and accordingly, as and from the date the developers (Kenneth Raymond Buchanan and Yvonne Rae Buchanan) were entitled to sell the allotments (October 1979 i.e. the date of registration of the plan of subdivision by the Registrar of Titles) each allotment and/or owner had a right and entitlement to a reticulated water supply.
5.(i) The Defendants concealed from the Plaintiffs the falsity of the representations and the Plaintiffs did not become aware of the content of the Plan and submission constituting provision 8 of the Planning Permit 2191 until 8.8.95”.
The Writ and Statements of Claim in the 1995 proceeding unequivocally asserted the 1978/79 private “reticulated water supply” and my entitlement to that “former” water supply as comprising the Gravamen of that proceeding and it is not possible to construe it as fraudulently represented by Osborn.
Nothing in the Writ or the original Statement of Claim or as amended alleged or even vaguely implied entitlement to the “latter” 1982 supply.
Paragraph 57A(a) of the Amended Further Statement of Claim specifically alleged that the Water Supply Agreement, or “latter water supply”, was unlawful because, inter alia, it breached clause 6 of the Planning Permit which required the water supply to be maintained by the Body Corporate of the Cluster Subdivision and I did not and could not assert entitlement to that manifestly unlawful and fraudulently provided “latter”, 1982, supply.
At the time of writing his paragraphs 18 and 19 Osborn was fixed with knowledge (a) that the Writ and Statements of Claim in the 1995 proceeding asserted a right to the former private “reticulated water supply”; and; (b) that the Statements of Claim asserted that the “latter” 1982 was unlawful and I did not assert a right to that “latter” water supply.
This 1995 Writ was exhibit 1, (the very first document) of the book of exhibits marked SME 2 Volume 1 and was exhibited to Osborn by the solicitor for Coliban Water, Steven Mark Edwards, who was instructing Major General Garde QC. It is not possible to construe the Writ or Statements of Claim as asserted by Osborn.
As with his abovementioned fabrications relating to Tylden Rd; Osborn is fixed with knowledge that at the time of writing them his paragraphs 18, 19 and 148 and dependant paragraphs were false and had no possible basis in either fact or law.
Subparagraphs 5(h) and 5(i) of the 1995 writ unequivocally define the 1978/79 private “reticulated water supply” and asserts entitlement to that 1978/79 “reticulated water supply” and it asserts fraudulent representation in relation to that 1978/79 water supply as constituting the “cause of action” or gravamen of the 1995 proceeding and it is not possible to construe it or the statements of claim as relating to the “latter” 1982 supply provided by the Water Authority as fraudulently represented by Osborn at his paragraphs 19 and 148. In addition paragraphs 3 to 14 of the Further Amended Statement of claim manifestly describe the 1978/79 private water supply and that I/my land had entitlement to that 1978/79 water supply and paragraphs 31A to 67A graphically detail the fact that the 1982 water supply was unlawful in every respect and that the Council and Water Authority’s representations that the 1982 Water Supply Agreement and water supply were lawful were fraudulent misrepresentations. (complete Amended Statement of Claim here)
Now I turn to an example of part (B) of Osborn’s fraudulent scheme in relation to the Woodleigh Heights water supply.
I now refer my readers to paragraph 5(h) of the 1995 Writ and paragraphs 5 to 14 of the Amended Statement of Claim both of which which accurately describe the facts and circumstances of the 1978/79 water supply and in particular that condition 8 of 1978 planning permit 2191 required the development to be carried out in accordance with the plans and submission which formed part of the application for permit and that the submission provided for the construction of a water supply and reticulation system and accordingly, in compliance with the planning permit and the law, that water supply was required to be complete when the Council sealed the plans and the Registrar of Titles registered the Plan of Cluster Subdivision.
The problem for Osborn was that the fraudulent and corrupt scheme of his fabricated Reasons could not co-exist with these reasonably straight forward readily understandable facts.
His little scheme could not live with two legitimate water supplies and he had, as demonstrated above, determined to fraudulently represent, by implication, that the fraudulent 1982 supply was the legitimate supply so he had no option other than to assert that the 1978/79 was not; so like all fraudsters he tied himself up in something of a Gordian knot of deceit and further deceit. The following is an example of part (B) of his scheme.
As explained below, at paragraphs 156 to 162 of his outright Fabrications Osborn’s purposeful contortions of fact and law led him to fraudulently assert that condition 8 of Planning Permit 2191 permitting the cluster subdivision did not have to be complied with by the subdivider but instead had to be complied with by people who purchased (on Osborn’s rendition) useless allotments from the subdivider, Buchanan, who, according to Osborn, did not have to comply with condition 8.
These convolutions of Osborn’s mind are extraordinary and despite the seriousness, they are amusing in that they graphically demonstrate the extent or degree of fraudulent contortion of fact and law that this imposter was prepared to and did fly in the face of; he flew in the face of common sense, the facts and the law to find against me and thereby ignore, deny and conceal the fact that Delany, Garde and Co corruptly misled the Master and that Garde had also misled the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1988.
Common Sense: Grandma knows that you must comply with a Planning Permit issued by a Council.
Facts and Law: In 1978 Buchanan applied to the Council for a planning permit. The application document dated 10th November 1978 contained zero, zip, zilch detail of the proposed subdivision except for the location of the land.
The application dated 10th November 1978 was an application to;
Sub-divide the land described hereunder in accordance with the accompanying plan (six copies)
Erect construct or carry out on land described hereunder the buildings or works in accordance with the accompanying plan (three copies)
Use the land described hereunder for the purpose of A DETACHED HOUSE ON EACH ALLOTMENT. (these words were capitalised on the application.)
Nothing could be ascertained from the application document, not even that a Cluster Subdivision was proposed. All of the detail of the application was contained in the plans referred to in item (i) of the application and in a large professionally produced submission which accompanied the application document and formed part of the application;
These plans and submission which formed part of the application set out and described;
the number of allotments, the size and shape and location of the allotments, defined the roads, defined the six acre lake, defined the common property, defined the easements for the “private reticulated water supply” defined the high level tanks for the water supply, defined the private water supply reticulation system, defined that the subdivision was to be a residential cluster subdivision, it defined the water supply, the effluent disposal, the progressive installation of electricity supply and telecom services, it described the construction of the roads, it described the common property and the utilisation of it including provision of playgrounds, picnic areas, it described how 25 acres of the common property would be left natural – it described how the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission would not object provided it could be demonstrated that the proposed water supply system was adequate. It described how the private “reticulated water supply” would provide a reticulated fire fighting system which would provide for a safer environment for future residents and adjoining land holders who did not have access to a reticulated water supply and numerous other things.
Based solely and absolutely on the details set out in the said plans and submission and not on the application document which was absolutely devoid of detail the Council issued Planning Permit no PP2191 which permitted subdivision according to the plans and submission which formed part of the application.
Condition 8 of that permit stipulated:
The Development be carried out in accordance with the plans and submission which formed part of this application.
The Shire of Kyneton Interim Development Order (“IDO”) assented to by the Governor In Council under the provisions of the Victorian Town and Country Planning Act provided:-
Except in accordance with the provisions of a permit …. no person shall use or develop any land … ….
After the coming into operation of this Interim Development Order
…..
No person shall subdivide into allotments any land …. ….. except in accordance with the provisions of a permit issued by the Responsible Authority.
The permit approved by the Council was to Subdivide the land according to the plans and submission and to use those allotments for “residential and pastoral purposes”. Clause 2)b) of the IDO applied in respect of that permit.
The permit which issued contained an error of omission in that the words “residential and” were erroneously omitted so condition 1) of the Planning Permit erroneously said “Allotments only to be used for pastoral purposes, excluding piggeries, kennels, and poultry farms without the prior approval of Council”
This error of omission however was rectified;
The Ninth Schedule “Scheme of Development” registered by the Registrar of Titles contained a verbatim transcript of condition 1) of Planning Permit 2191 excepting that the word “are” was inserted between “Allotments” and “only” and the words “Residential and” were inserted between “for” and “pastoral” and these alterations were made and initialled by the Municipal Clerk, Stan Porter, prior to Registration by the Registrar of Titles so the permitted uses of the allotments under the Ninth Schedule to the Cluster Titles Act, as amended and as initially intended by the Council and then registered by the Registrar and recorded in the Titles Office were;
Allotments are only to be used for residential and pastoral purposes ……….
The 1980 Cluster redevelopment of my land was again for “residential” purpose and the First Schedule document certified by the Council and registered by the Registrar of Titles stated;
Purpose for which each new lot or enlarged lot is intended to be owned and used.
Then each and every allotment was separately identified with its unique lot number and the single word “Residential” was written alongside.
The Fifth Schedule to the 1980 Cluster Redevelopment certified by the Council was identically worded to the abovementioned Ninth Schedule as amended.
The unequivocal intended, approved and permitted use was “Residential” but an owner was also permitted to pastorally graze the one and half rabbits or guinea pigs which each block may have supported in a good year.
So on the face of it; the facts and the law are fairly simple Buchanan was required by the IDO and the planning permit to comply with condition 8 and carry out the subdivision in accord with the Plans and the Submission and the intended use was residential with pastoral permitted.
My “cause of action”, the gravamen of my new 2005 claim in relation to the Woodleigh Heights subdivisions was totally predicated on these simple immutable facts and the fact that the private “reticulated water supply” defined in those plans and submission had not been completed as required by law at the time that the Council sealed the plans in 1979.
So now corrupt little imposter; Osborn comes along; the facts, the law and common sense did not suit Osborn’s corrupt scheme and purpose so at his paragraph 156 he said;
The application for permit which is in evidence was in fact one both to subdivide the land AND to use the land for the purpose of a detached house on each allotment. (Osborn’s italics, my bolding AND capitalisation)
At his paragraph 157;
The application was not one which put forward an “approved reticulated water supply for the purpose of the Shire of Kyneton Planning Scheme”.
At his paragraph 160 he said; (The following was a single paragraph – I have divided to dot points for clarity)
The reference to the development in condition 8 is in fact a reference to the cluster type residential development forming a part of the subject matter of the permit.
Condition 8 does not impose a requirement which must be met prior to the sealing of the plans
The permit conditions and in particular conditions 1 and 3 make clear that in the first instance the allotments could not be cleared or used for purposes other than pastoral use without the further permission of Council
Nevertheless, it was envisaged that the cluster type development would result in time in the construction of dwellings.
Condition 8 imposed a precondition to the use of development of the land not upon the subdivision of the land. (my emphasis)
By these deceitfully fabricated paragraphs Osborn asserted that Planning Permit 2191 was;
firstly a permit to subdivide the land; AND;
secondly a permit to DEVELOP the land for residential purposes; and;
that condition 8 of that permit did not apply “upon the subdivision of the land” and did not have to be complied with prior to sealing of the plans by the Council; and;
that condition 8 was a precondition to subsequent DEVELOPMENT for residential use.
For his fraudulent purpose Osborn seized upon the word “DEVELOPMENT” in condition 8 to fraudulently distort the intended meaning to represent that condition 8 applied to the “use of development of the land” (for residential use) and not to SUBDIVISION of the land and he seized upon the error of omission in condition 1 of the actual permit to fraudulently represent that the DEVELOPMENT for residential purpose was a second stage or phase of Development separate from SUBDIVISION and not permitted by the Planning Permit 2191 and which required further permission from the Council and it was at this second stage or phase, subsequent to sealing and Registration and issue of separate titles and lawful sales to consumers, which condition 8 applied to. (At least that is what it appears to me that the nonsense of his alphabet soup of fraudulent misrepresentations is attempting to assert)
So on Osborn’s express assertion the subdivider did not have to comply with condition 8 and “Condition 8 does not impose a requirement which must be met prior to the sealing of the plans”
In other words Osborn’s express and unequivocal assertion is that the subdivider did not have to comply with either the plans or the submission prior to the Council sealing the plans. In other words Osborn’s express assertion is that the developer did not have to do a damn thing, not even buy a shovel before the Council sealed the plans and then the Registrar of Titles was entitled to approve those plans and then the subdivider was entitled to sell the somewhat ethereal allotments which did not have the benefit of any of the things set out in the plans and/or submission and on Osborn’s plainly absurd and preposterous notion perhaps not even need the benefit of a plan.
On Osborn’s express assertions there was nothing, zero, zip, zilch that the subdivider had to comply with, not even a damn plan.
One wonders precisely what plans the Council was to seal if the plans did not have to be complied with prior to sealing. Osborn’s fraudulently contorted fabrications are mind snapping, he must have sat in his chair for hours pondering how to fraudulently misrepresent this aspect before desperately seizing on and distorting “DEVELOPMENT” to suit his corrupt scheme. He may of course have privately consulted other dishonest lawyers or dishonest judges. This imposter wrote this junk and published it under the banner of the Supreme Court. Osborn must be intoxicated by his position where he can write anything he pleases and the naive populace, ignorant of the facts and the corruption of the court and Osborn in particular read those reasons as gospel.
Further; on Osborn’s outright fraudulent fabrication it was a purchaser of an allotment who purchased after sealing and after the Registrar, relying on that seal, had approved the plans and who then wished to “DEVELOP” for residential use that had to comply with the plans and the submission.
These notions are so outrageously preposterous that I don’t need to say more. Osborn is a fraudster, he did not believe these paragraphs or any of his substantive fabrications at the time that he fabricated and wrote them and then published them and corruptly provided verisimilitude to them under and by the banner of the Supreme Court of Victoria. He is a fraudster secure in the knowledge that his friends in higher places will protect him.
Osborn fraudulently fabricated these paragraphs along with the remained of his fraudulent reasons for the express purpose of perverting the course of justice and for the corrupt purpose of ignoring denying and concealing the fact, know to him that Delany, Garde and Co, as graphically explained below, had conspired with one another for the purpose of perverting the course of justice and securing a wrongful judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Notably, as fully detailed at Chapter 6 below, at the 1988 Victorian Administrative Appeals Tribunal where Garde overtly misled the Tribunal the Council and Water Authority, via their lawyer, Ian Lonie of Maddocks, gave a written submission which in part and in relation to the Woodleigh Heights subdivision said; (full submission here – see page 6)
“The Council has adopted a policy or guidelines regulating the size of subdivisional allotments in different areas under its control. That policy as applied to the subject land provides for a minimum allotment size of 3 acres (with reticulated water) and 6 acres (without reticulated water)”
“… there was an application for the cluster subdivision of the land into 45 allotments (of 2 acres each) having an overall lot density of 1 allotment per 3 acres. One of the conditions of that development required water to be provided by a large on-site dam and internal reticulation.” (my emphasis)
The fact is that this dishonest imposter, Osborn, sat in his private space and carefully and fraudulently fabricated his fabrications in the complete absence of submissions and which fabricated Reasons flew in the face of everything and then he fraudulently published them as adjudicated Reasons for Judgment of and by the Supreme Court of Victoria.
For his corrupt purposes Osborn raped my democratic rights and vicariously raped the democratic rights of every man, woman and child in Victoria. His offence is far more serious than any offender which he or any other Justice of that Court has ever sat in judgment of and far more serious than the offence of ex Justice Marcus Einfeld.
“The Honourable” Justice Osborn is not a fit and proper person to be a Justice of The Supreme Court of Victoria or of the Court of Appeal as he now is.