Chapter 3 – Part 4 – The Corrupt Scheme
The lawyers for the Council and Water Authority wished to have my 2005 proceeding struck-out by the Court without trial.
On the true facts and the true “cause of action” there were no grounds for such an application.
The fraudulent scheme developed by Jim Delany SC and Major General Garde QC and their respective Juniors and instructing solicitors was to;
Deceive the Court in to believing that the purpose defined at paragraph T7 of the Amended Statement of Claim constituted the “cause of action” (hereinafter referred to by me as the pseudo “cause of action”)
That page 5 of the Book of Pleadings demonstrated that I was aware of that pseudo cause of action at the time of writing the Book of Pleadings in 1991
That the Council had openly disclosed that pseudo “cause of action” by discovering a complete copy of an industrial plan.
The further or scheme developed by Delany, Garde and Co was a scheme to conceal the primary scheme and that further scheme was to use euphemisms whenever it was necessary to allude to the pseudo “cause of action” and by this secondary scheme I and my lawyers was purposefully led to believe that the euphemism was a reference to the true “cause of action” while they understood it to be a reference to the pseudo cause of action”.
A further or third scheme was to develop initially innocuous false assertions into outright lies with the appearance of truth, I call these “true lies”.
In simple terms the primary scheme was to represent the PURPOSE defined in paragraph T7 and my Affidavit of 18th October 2005 as being or constituting their pseudo “cause of action” i.e. the pseudo cause of action was that the council sealed the plans for the purpose of avoiding section 9 of the Sale of Land Act and to them misrepresent the content of the Book of Pleadings by presenting page 5 of the Book of Pleadings and fraudulently representing the Book of Pleadings as evidence that I was aware of their pseudo “cause of action” at the time that I compiled it in 1991 and that the council had openly disclosed their pseudo “cause of action” by discovering a complete copy of an industrial plan
Now of course this conspiracy was outright fraudulent.
The purpose is not and cannot be construed as the cause of action.
The contrived plans did not facilitate avoidance of section 9.
The contrived plans did not and could not cause loss and/or damage.
The Book of Pleading manifestly sets out that the contrived plans do not facilitate avoidance of s.9
No document in existence or capable of ever existing can disclose that pseudo “cause of action” because section 9 of the Sale of Land simply cannot be avoided at all let alone by means of stupid two lot plans of subdivision which are mere testament to stupidity and criminal intent of Buchanan and his dishonest solicitors and will soon be demonstrated to be testament to the fraud of Delany, Garde and Co.
Just to be a little pedantic for a moment to ensure that it is understood that the purpose cannot be alleged or construed to be the cause of action.
Now just for the sake of understanding by extreme analogy we’ll consider the allegation “Fred robbed the bank to buy food for his hungry children” now quite clearly robbing the bank was the action, the thing done, the hungry children were the reason and feeding them was the purpose. Quite plainly Fred cannot be charged for the reason or the purpose but it may mitigate the seriousness of the thing done, similarly the purpose stated in the Statement of Claim discloses or alleges a purpose which exacerbates the seriousness of what was alleged but it can never be said that the purpose was the thing alleged.