Appendix A – False affidavits of Steven Mark Edward.
As described in Chapter 3 hereof Major General Garde QC and Jim Delany SC conspired with one another and their respective juniors and instructing solicitors to misrepresent the law and the document known as and referred to throughout the hearings and the material hereof as the “Book of Pleadings”.
For the purpose of dishonestly establishing legitimate entitlement to the so called “Book of Pleadings” Major General Garde’s instructing solicitor, Steven Mark Edward, swore a false affidavit, details of the falsity of that affidavit are set out below.
The so called “Book of Pleadings” is first mentioned at paragraph 48 of Major General Greg Garde’s Outline of Submissions dated 8 November 2005 wherein he describes it as being “a true copy of the Plaintiffs’ document entitled ‘Book of Pleadings” (complete Outline here)
The facts however are Major General Garde and Steven Mark Edward were thoroughly aware that the so called “Book of Pleadings” is not and cannot be confused with a Book of Pleadings, they were each thoroughly aware that the document exhibited by them was in fact a privileged document prepared by me for the purpose of briefing my Barrister and obtaining legal advice.
Steven Mark Edward corruptly appended the content of that priveleged document to a genuine Book of Pleadings and he and Garde corruptly represented that combined document as being the “Book of Pleadings.
The fact of that corrupt misrepresentation is graphically set out in the photographs viewable here.
It is not possible that either Steven Mark Edward or Major General Garde or Sharon Burchell held a belief that the dishoneslty appended portion of the so called “Book of Pleadings” was anything other than a privileged document which manifestly was not and could not be confused with a “Book of Pleadings” the true nature of which each of them, as practicing lawyers, would be thoroughly aware of.
The fabricated, supposed “Book of Pleadings assembled by Edward, Garde and Burchell may be viewed here, the document exhibited contins two copies of each of pages 1 and 2 of the genuine Book of Pleadings, the pages constituting my private and priveleged document begins at page 33 of the PDF file.
Now to the false affidavit;
In his Affidavit dated 3rd November 2005 Edward said; (complete Affidavit here)
“I attended at the plaintiffs’ solicitor’s premises in Orange New South Wales on 4 and 5 February 1999 to inspect documents discovered by the plaintiffs …. …. …. On 23, 24, 25, 26 March 1999 I again attended at the plaintiffs’ solicitors premises at Orange and photocopied all the documents then produced by the plaintiffs for the purpose of discovery…..”
At this time I did not know that the purpose of this affidavit was to corruptly legitimise Edward’s possession of the Book of Pleadings but nevertheless this affidavit was, well, at its kindest, on my then understanding, merely not quite right, Steven Edward in fact attended at my residence which was the entire third floor of the building also occupied by my solicitors. The building was initially a purpose built hospital with the upper floor being the resident doctors or nurses residence. So merely for the sake of accuracy I corrected this in my answering affidavit by saying that he had in fact attended at my residence. .
I was surprised and shocked to get a further most extensive affidavit dated 11th November 2005 from Edward wherein he expends hours of work setting out eight pages of affidavit with transcripts of conversations and letters between himself and my solicitor wherein it was arranged that Edward would attend at my solicitors office to view the documents however the fact is that on the several days he was there he came all the way upstairs, sometimes through the offices of Baldock Stacy and Niven, up the very narrow stairs to my back door and then through my laundry and past my shooting medals and bayonet collection, world war II artillery shells and various pieces of machinery and up the hall, past my open door bedroom (it would not close the building was old and tilted a bit) and into my front room where I had a couple of trestle tables made out of cavity doors with a leg frame under them, but so much for what I say; back to what Edward said; in his affidavit, after these 8 pages of verbiage, at his paragraph 25 Edward said; (complete Affidavit here)
“Insofar as the first named plaintiff in the Second Affidavit of Glenn Thompson says that I did not attend at his solicitors but at his ‘domestic premises’ I say that in February and March 1999 I attended at the offices of Baldock Stacy and Niven as referred to above .. .. .. “
Now the facts are simple, the arrangements were made exactly as he extensively set out, but come the day I did not wish to take all five or six thousand pages of my documents downstairs, particularly as some were in a delicate state and I had spent 20 years accumulating them and I was not about to have them at any risk so certainly he first came in the front door of Baldock Stacy and Niven’s offices but then he was shown upstairs to my back door by my solicitor, then he came through my laundry and past my daughters art and my bayonet collection and shooting medals and up the hall, past my bedroom and into the front room of my residence which was adjacent to my kitchen through a large door less archway and he spent a number of days there with his photocopier set up between my trestle tables busily photocopying with my bedroom visible and from time to time using my unmarked conveniences adjacent to my bathroom and near my backdoor.
My solicitor subsequently swore a Stautory Declaration which in part says;
“In early 1999 I showed Steven Edward, a solicitor from Victoria upstairs to the residence where he was to meet Glenn Thompson. Steven came to meet me in my office downstairs and I took him up the internal stairs in the building which consists of a very narrow flight of stairs from the second floor to the back door of the upstairs residence. On the way up I turned to him and said, ‘Glenn Thompson lives up here above the office, it is the old nurses quarters’. I recall that Steven nodded and smiled at the time that I make this statement to him. I then knocked on the door to the upstairs residence and Glenn Thompson opened it and I introduced Steven to him and then went back downstairs to my office, I had no further contact with Steven at that time.“
Steven Edward also has a further problem, in his affidavit, while providing extensive verisimilitude to his, well, lies, falsehoods, his porkies, he said a little too much, at his paragraph 11 he said;
“I was taken to an upper floor in the building, and I believe that this was the third floor, I was taken to a room where there were two trestle tables covered with piles of papers, I was given to understand that these were the documents being discovered by the plaintiffs, and which I could inspect”
In this part of his affidavit is two truths and one porky, the truth parts are the third floor and the trestle tables, the porky is the “documents being discovered by the plaintiffs”.
First to the truth which is his undoing, I subsequently asked two long time employees of Baldock Stacy and Niven to make an affidavit as to whether or not there had ever been trestle tables in any of the offices of Baldock Stacy and Niven and whether they thought the third floor residence could be mistaken for an office of Baldock Stacy and Niven. Both swore that they had never seen trestle tables in any of the offices and that the upstairs had always been a residence and could not be mistaken for an office. (First Statutory Declaration here — Second Statutory Declaration here)
At the time I was astonished by all of this, I mean who cares where he looked at my documents, I was merely clearing up an inaccuracy and Edward turned it into affidavits at 20 paces. The reason became clear when the proceeding got underway, he had copied documents he was not entitled to and needed to dishonestly and fraudulently establish bone fide entitlement to the Book of Pleadings for the purposes of the conspiracy which I have described above.
This all started during the 1995 proceeding when Edward, who is a fox terrier of a solicitor, and I admire him for that, obtained an order for further discovery by me because one of my discovered documents contained reference to a letter which had not been discovered, so rather than go through all that again and again I told him he was welcome to come up and go through all of my documents and to copy anything of relevance to the then Woodleigh Heights proceeding, and he did do exactly that excepting that it appeared to me that he was not inspecting a damn thing, he simply copied everything he could lay his hands on, I wasn’t particularly concerned, I had nothing to hide, an idea of the number of documents he copied is given by the fact that he spent a total of six days in my front room beside my kitchen and in view of my bedroom, during at least four of those days he had a very large high speed copier going all day, and when he left it took several trips up and down my fire escape front entrance with large boxes of copy documents to take to his car, he probably even got a copy of my mum’s birth certificate.
The part that annoyed me most in all of this was the fact that my junior barrister, Neil Adams, had been upstairs into my premises on several occasions and he knew full well that Edward was lying as did my solicitor, John Carpenter who was a partner of Baldock Stacy and Niven, I had taken several photographs showing clearly the layout and my trestle tables in relation to my kitchen and bedroom, I instructed Neil Adams to tell the Court the truth but he refused and his exact words were “the Court is not interested in hearing about that sort of thing” They were probably the truest words spoken in the entire proceeding until I sacked my lawyers. Adams plainly preferred to leave me hang out to dry rather than expose the fact of Edwards’ false affidavits.
The Court, and its officers, the Brotherhood, have amply demonstrated it is simply not concerned with and not interested in addressing or exposing the manifest fact that its officers mislead it with demonstrated impunity and it will punish outsiders who assert the truth.
Anyway, as detailed above the prime reason for Edward’s false affidavit was to provide legitimacy to the so called Book of Pleadings, he wasn’t entitled to, it had zero to do with the Woodleigh Heights proceeding and manifestly was not a discovered or discoverable document. He was permitted and entitled to copy material of relevance to the 1995 Woodleigh Heights proceeding, nothing more. According to his affidavit it was provided to him as a discovered document during inspection in my solicitor’s office. Steven Mark Edward is simply an inveterate liar and he swore several false affidavits. But as you will appreciate from all the foregoing I have become rather used to that type of thing, particularly from officers of the Court, after all their brothers and sisters in law will say and do nothing and will protect them.
The porkie in his affidavit was “I was given to understand that these were the documents being discovered by the plaintiffs” Edward knew full well that they were not “documents being discovered” They were not “discovered documents” they were all personal documents which he was entitled to examine for relevance to the 1995 Woodleigh Heights proceeding and nothing more.
Steven Mark Edward is a liar. He swore false affidavits for the purpose of legitimising his improper possession of a copy of the Book of Pleadings and the above described fraudulent scheme to pervert the course of Justice.