Chapter 3 – Part 3 – The Corrupt Scheme of Delany, Garde and Co – Preliminary Matters.
So straight to the heart, the lawyers involved were:
The Solicitors;
Ms. Michelle Elizabeth Dixon of Maddocks for the Council
Mr. Steven Mark Edward of Mason Sier Turnbull, formerly of Arnold Dallas McPherson, for the Water Authority. (now of Slater & Gordon)
The barristers
Mr. J. Delany SC Mr. G. Ahern for the Council (Instructed by Dixon)
Major General Greg Garde AO RFD QC (Now Justice Garde) & Ms Sharon Burchell for the Water Authority. (Instructed by Edward)
The first shot following the writ in this proceeding was fired by Steven Edward solicitor for the Water Authority, he issued a summons seeking that my proceeding be struck out because it was an abuse of process, The Outline of Submissions prepared and presented by Major General Garde and Sharon Burchell, in relevant part said;
The plaintiffs allege that they are owners of certain parcels of land described as (1) the Tylden Rd land .. … .. (2) Woodleigh Heights land
Well the truth set out in the statement of claim was that we were not the owners having lost both the Tylden rd and Woodleigh Heights lands as a consequence of the fraud alleged in the Statement of claim and elucidated in this book.
The plaintiffs allege that there was a requirement imposed by the Shire of Kyneton ……
Well the truth is that the Statement of Claim specifically alleged that the Council omitted to serve a Notice of Requirement and no requirement was imposed.
The Plaintiffs claim …. the second defendant misrepresented … … water supply …… Subsequently, the plaintiffs sold their land in 1989 to Deckwood Pty. Ltd. For a lower price than they otherwise would have obtained had reticulated water been available
Whereas the Statement of Claim specifically alleged that Esanda, as mortgagee, sold the Woodleigh Heights land to Deckwood and as detailed below Garde himself had previously advised the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that my land had been taken possession of by MCL (Esanda) and I was an ex owner.
Garde got absolutely nothing even remotely right, on the face of it he carelessly concocted these things in his dreams or induced stupor or something but as I will shortly show this apparent nonsense was very carefully composed and fits the scheme of the conspiracy like a tailored glove.
Initially I was of the view that Garde’s outline was merely abject nonsense but as I now know from my 20/20 Technicolor hindsight Garde’s submissions were very carefully contrived to not state or refer to the true “cause of action” or the facts constituting that true “cause of action” and as I now know at his paragraph 49 of his Outline he carefully and purposefully introduced the Book of Pleadings into the proceeding while at the same time he very carefully did not even allude to that purpose. At their paragraph 49 Garde and Burchell and Edward said;
“Further in item 43 of SME 1 Volume 2 is exhibited a true copy of the Plaintiffs’ document entitled “book of pleadings” in the County Court proceeding, undated. The handwritten notes contained in that document traverse the same subject matter as what the plaintiffs are seeking to agitate in the current proceeding: see pages 5 to 9, 12 and 20. The handwritten notes reflect what the first plaintiff has deposed to in his affidavit in opposition in this proceeding”
At their paragraph 49, Garde Burchell and Edward say “The handwritten notes reflect what the first plaintiff has deposed”, well that was true, my Affidavit and my Book of Pleadings were entirely consistent and did reflect one another however this was not the purpose of Garde introducing the Book of Pleadings. His purpose was to deceptively introduce the Book of Pleadings for the purpose of the scheme to deceive the Court and which scheme was to show that “The handwritten notes reflect” their intended fraudulent misrepresentation of page 5 of the Book of Pleadings and their intended misrepresentations of my Affidavit and the law.
In support of the summons and the outline presented by Garde his instructing solicitor Steven Mark Edward swore a number of false affidavits for the purpose of legitimising his illegitimate possession of the Book of Pleadings – In a nutshell he swore that he attended at my solicitors offices and inspected documents discovered by me whereas the fact is that he came to and spent several days at my private premises to peruse my private documents for the purpose of taking copies of documents pertinent to the 1995 Woodleigh Heights proceeding but he also copied personal documents which he knew he was not entitled to so he swore false affidavits to legitimise his illegitimate possession of those documents and in particular the document critical to the “scheme”, the Book of Pleadings”
I have placed full detail of Edwards false affidavits at Appendix A.
For the sake of continuity and context I now repeat and add to some of which I have set out above in respect to the Book of Pleadings;
During the course of the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding I compiled the document referred to above and entitled “Book of Pleadings”. I compiled it for the exclusive use of my then barrister, Francis Tiernan. It set out almost everything I knew and hypothesised at that time.
At the time of compiling the “Book of Pleadings” I was fully aware of Buchanan’s futile attempt to avoid section 9 and I included full detail in the “Book of Pleadings”. At the page numbered 5 of the “Book of Pleadings” I had written the words:
“In order to avoid the provisions of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act which at that time prevented the sale of allotments on subdivisions of more than two allotments (etc). Buchanan then lodged seven separate plans which were contrived to create several subdivisions of two lots each“
On the face of it and out of context, to someone ignorant of the law, or for the purpose of a bunch of corrupt lawyers intent on deceiving a court, my words at page 5 of the “Book of Pleadings” could be represented to indicate that at the time of compiling the “Book of Pleadings” I had knowledge that Buchanan had avoided section 9 of the Sale of Land Act by means of unlawfully contrived 2-lot plans of subdivision.
However as I have demonstrated above the at page 3 and page 8 the “Book of Pleadings” sets out in a clear and unequivocal manner that 2-lot plans do not and cannot facilitate avoidance of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act.
Paragraph T7 of the Amended Statement of Claim alleged;
The Council sealed the plans for an ulterior purpose, namely, to avoid the effect of s 9 of the Sale of Land Act 1958…. …. ….
The true “cause of action” defined in the Amended statement of Claim is found at paragraphs T15 and T16 where it is alleged:
That in knowledge of the fact that the services were not present and there was no lawful means of compelling provision of those services the Council sealed the plans in breach of s.569B(a)(iii) which required the Council to refuse to seal the plans if the allotments were unusable
The circumstances giving rise to the true cause of action are set out at paragraphs T5 and T6 of the Amended Statement of Claim and were that;
The Council omitted to serve the Notice of Requirement related to the 18 lot plan of subdivision.
The Council abandoned the 18 lot plan of subdivision and did not process it any further after 20th February 1980
As the Council had in fact abandoned the 18 lot plan and not processed it in several parts the fact was and the mind of the Council was that the contrived plans were in fact processed as discrete subdivisions and neither those plans or the Notices of Requirement served in relation to them inherited any legitimacy from the planning permit and Council resolutions made in respect of the 18 lot plan and the Council had concealed these facts and its true mind by falsely representing that it had processed the 18 lot plan in several parts and falsely representing that it had served the Notice of Requirement related to that 18 lot plan. As discussed above these facts and the true mind of the Council had been concealed by perjury, falsification of documents, falsified discovery and false admissions to paragraph 7 of the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim in the 1988 proceeding. These things facilitated avoidance of the “effect” of section 9.
I have discussed the distinction between avoiding the “effect” of section 9 and avoiding the lieral provisions of section 9 above.
Garde, Burchell and Edward were setting up for their conspiracy to deceive the court into believing that unlawful plans and avoidance of the literal provisions of section 9 constituted the “cause of action” and that I was aware of that long ago.