Preparing the Corrupt Scheme.
The strategy for the scheme was in place before the strike-out summonses were issued. The Water Authority’s Summons was issued on 20th September 2005 and supported by an affidavit sworn by Steven Mark Edward some eight days earlier on 12th September 2005. This affidavit refers to his exhibits marked SME1 volumes 1 and 2 and SME2 volumes 1 to 4 for a total of 6 volumes amounting to some 1795 pages of documents. Each and every one of these documents was a proper court document relating to the two previous proceedings except for the “Book of Pleadings” which was secreted at pages 285 to 419 of those 1795 pages. (Just as an aside there was no purpose for about 1600 of those pages other than providing bulk to conceal the “Book of Pleadings” and when copied at least four times at court awarded $1.50 a page a nice little earner for Edward, out of my pocket due to the fraud.)
Then the lawyers kept the strategy and the pseudo “cause of action” secret by using euphemisms. The lawyers prepared a number of affidavits and Outlines of Submissions yet not one of these documents disclosed or even intimated what constituted the “cause of action” let alone the pseudo “cause of action” which they intended to eventually falsely represent to the Court as constituting the cause of action so Garde’s apparently careless submission, described above, suited and fitted this little strategy like a tailored glove because it does not disclose the pseudo “cause of action” which he would later fraudulently represent to the court as constituting the “cause of action” which offended various rules and ought be summarily struck out and nor does his submission disclose the true “cause of action” which would have been fatal to the fraudulent intent to represent the pseudo cause of action as constituting the cause of action”.
The strategy depended upon not expressing the true “cause of action” and concealing this pseudo “cause of action” so these clever lawyers adopted the use of euphemisms for the “cause of action” so that whenever they used such a euphemism my lawyers and I would think that they were referring to the true “cause of action” whenever they referred to the “cause of action” by use of euphemisms such as “the claims sought to be advanced“.
As the evidence discloses, each time they used such a phrase they knew they were referring to the things constituting their fraudulently fabricated fraudulent pseudo “causes of action” while having me believe they were referring to the true cause of action.
Whenever it was necessary to refer to the cause of action Dixon, Delany and Ahern used phrases such as I have set out below along with the relevant paragraph of their First Outline of Submissions;
paragraph 36 “fresh allegations“
paragraph 43 “the claims made by the plaintiffs“
paragraph 52 ” … the cause of action...”
paragraph 54 ” … the allegations in the omitted paragraphs … “
paragraph 55 ” … the events … “
paragraph 66 “the claims sought to be advanced“
paragraph 68 “.. the claims he now seeks to advance … “
paragraph 70 “…. the matters pleaded in the omitted paragraphs ….. “
And as set out above and below, at paragraph 49 of their contrived Outline Edward, Garde and Burchell used “what the first plaintiff has deposed”
In their deceitful little minds however, these phrases were euphemisms for the pseudo “cause of action”. They knew that they each understood one thing while intending and knowing that I was deceived into understanding another.
Dixon didn’t even use euphemisms; she just completely avoided any statement which would necessitate uttering or defining the things constituting the “cause of action” even in her affidavit which purports to support the strike out application.
Of particular note, Dixon’s Affidavit in purported support of the Summons set out a table showing the claims “common” to the previous proceedings and the 2005, proceeding, even this ensured no mention of the matters and things comprising the cause of action and she omitted critical paragraphs from her table, these became known as the “omitted paragraphs” which reference the reader will see from time to time. Had she done a more constructive and useful table of different paragraphs the “cause of action” would have been included in her table. However her table did show that paragraph 7 of the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim alleged service of a Notice of Requirement and, as we shall see, this becomes very important in relation to Osborn’s subsequent fabrications.
In addition for the purpose of the strategy Edward, Garde and Burchell introduced the “Book of Pleadings” in a deceptive manner which specifically represented that the content of the “Book of Pleadings” was consistent with my affidavit and thereby concealed their intended (mis)representation of the “Book of Pleadings”. On the face of it, at the time, it appeared to me that Edward, Garde and Burchell’s outline was, well, recklessly concocted without regard to anything but the reality known to them was that for the purpose of the strategy they had to say something while avoiding disclosing the strategy or the pseudo cause of action or of course the real cause of action and at the same time surreptitiously introduce the “Book of Pleadings” for the purpose of the Strategy.
No one except Greg Garde and Sharon Burchell referred to the “Book of Pleadings” and their reference was deliberately and carefully misleading and deceptive and also concealed the true intent of the lawyers. At paragraph 49 of their Outline of Submissions dated 8th November 2005 Garde and Burchell refer to the “Book of Pleadings” and say;
“… 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 …”; and
“The handwritten notes reflect what the first plaintiff has deposed to in his affidavit …. “. (my emphasis)
So in other words Garde and Burchell also avoid defining the cause of action and instead use the euphemism “what the plaintiffs are seeking to agitate” and they specifically assert that the notes in the book of pleadings “reflect“, or in other words are consistent with, what was in my affidavit and this raises the question, soon to be answered, why did they introduce the Book of Pleadings and particularly to page 5 and others?
On my understanding of their euphemism they specifically represented to me that the “Book of Pleadings” was consistent with my affidavit which was true but their implied assertion that the Book of Pleadings traversed the true “cause of action” was just plain garbage but as I now know they were in fact making their assertions in relation to their deliberately and carefully fabricated pseudo “cause of action” which they knew would be dishonestly put to the Court as constituting the “cause of action” and in this context their assertions in relation to the “Book” of Pleadings” and what I was “seeking to agitate” were pseudo true, i.e. true in respect of their pseudo “cause of action”.
There was no other purpose for them introducing the “Book of Pleadings” other than to facilitate the carefully planned intended misrepresentations in respect to that pseudo “cause of action”. Garde, Burchell and Edward certainly did not introduce the “Book of Pleadings” and swear false affidavits to demonstrate what they knew and intended that I would understand from their paragraph 49 which was an assertion by them that the “Book of Pleadings” was consistent with the true “cause of action” and consistent with my affidavit.
Garde and Burchell’s paragraph 49 was an essential carefully calculated and contrived part of what was clearly a very carefully orchestrated strategy to deceive the Court. Edward’s, Garde’s and Burchell’s role in the conspiracy was to introduce the “Book of Pleadings” and while concurrently not disclosing the intended use of the “Book of Pleadings” or the pseudo “cause of action” and they could not disclose that they were aware of the true cause of action clearly defined in my affidavit because that would have precluded the maliciously deceptive use of the pseudo “cause of action” and this is why Garde and Burchell wrote that apparent garbage in their Outline. Had they disclosed what they knew Dixon, Delany and Ahern intentions to be in relation to the pseudo “cause of action” and the Book of Pleadings then their strategy would have been at an end because I would have bowled their intended misrepresentations out by the Book of Pleadings itself. Steven Mark Edward of course was integral to all of this as Garde’s instructing solicitor and was the only person of this little bunch to be initially aware of the “Book of Pleadings” which he had dishonestly obtained. (see appendix A)
Ms. Michelle Elizabeth Dixon swore two affidavits. The first dated 23rd September 2005 in purported support of the summons included a table of allegations common to the 2005 and the previous proceedings. The second dated 28th October 2005 purported to be in response to my affidavit of 18th October 2005. In this second affidavit, at paragraph 4, Dixon says what she purports to “understand” from reading my affidavit and effectively puts words into my mouth which were never said or even implied by me and then she goes on to demonstrate that these words which she “understood” to come from me were false and in this manner she fraudulently manufactures what I describe as “true lies”. Had she in fact believed her assertions or understandings she would have asserted them as fact in her sworn affidavit but that would be perjury and swearing a false affidavit, wouldn’t it?
From these two affidavits Dixon, Delany and Ahern then morphed the table of common allegations and Dixon’s “understanding” of what I said into a number of false statements which were then expressed as truth and fact in the unsworn Outline of Submissions of Dixon, Delany and Ahern. These “true lies” were developed for the purpose of having the Court believe that the “complete industrial plan” disclosed the pseudo “cause of action” and that the Council and Water Authority had openly discovered or given me that complete plan and thereby openly disclosed the pseudo “cause of action”. A further purpose of the “true lies” was to put words into my mouth for the specific and deceitful purpose of Dixon, Delany and Ahern then showing that those words, “understood” by Dixon to be said by me, were false. This is malicious deceit. They did all this while continuing to use euphemisms and not once even intimating what constituted either their maliciously false pseudo “cause of action” or the true “cause of action” as explicitly and unequivocally defined in the Statement of Claim and my affidavit.
An understanding of this “true lie” concept is gained from the following;
(at the time of settlement of the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding I acquired a black lever arch file which contained copies of the documents discovered by the Council and Water Authority in that proceeding. This file became known as “the black folder” or “the black book”.)
In my Affidavit I provided a précis of the discovery process whereby I determined that the Council had in fact abandoned the 18 lot plan and had not either issued or served the Notice of Requirement of requirement said by it to have been served on or about 20th February 1980 in relation to the roads shown on that 18 lot plan. (that discovery process is now fully described by me at Chapter 11)
In that précis I described that in 2000 I had noticed certain things about the “complete industrial plan” which along with some 600 other pages of documents was contained in the black folder and which then led me to look at further documents and eventually by tortuous process described at Chapter 11 I concluded that at the time the Shire Engineer, Graeme Wilson gave evidence to the Magistrates Court that on or about 20th February 1980 the Council had served a Notice of Requirement in relation to the 18 lot residential plan and that the Council had then processed that 18 lot plan in several parts Wilson was fully aware or recklessly indifferent to the fact that;
The plans considered by the Council on 20th February 1980 had been abandoned by both the Council and Buchanan and not processed any further since 20th February 1980 and that the contrived plans were unlawfully processed in substitution and …. … …
My précis then went on to say; “Upon reaching the above conclusions it became apparent for the first time;
That the Council had acted maliciously or recklessly by sealing the plans contrary to its lawful obligation to refuse to do so
That Wilson’s evidence given to the Magistrates Court had the effect of concealing the Council’s true conduct from the Court and myself.
I further concluded that at the time of sealing the series of residential plans the Council was not only fully aware that no services existed but it was also fully aware that there was no lawful means of providing or compelling the provision of those services.
So my affidavit gave a précis of the discovery process which began by viewing the “complete industrial plan” and then by tortuous process concluded with a precise description of the true “cause of action” which was explicitly defined in my Affidavit and in the Amended Statement of Claim and the fact that the defined “cause of action” had been concealed by perjury.
Then by incredible sleight of mind and fact Dixon, Delany and Ahern morphed or contorted these things as follows.
Dixon’s affidavit dated 28th October 2005 purports to analyse my affidavit of 18th October 2005. At her paragraph 4 she says;
- “Based on my review of the Thompson Affidavit I understand Thompson to be saying that:
4.1 It was his review of the documents in the black folder (provided to him in June 1991) in August 2000 that caused him to issue the current proceeding; and
4.2 The first time that the complete version of the plans was made available to him was when they were supplied to him in the black folder.“
The truth however is that I never said or even alluded to either of those things, on the true facts they are manifest nonsense and she deceitfully manufactured these things for the sole purpose of having them subsequently contorted into the “true lies” for the purpose of deceiving the Court and she never did “understand” either of those things from my affidavit, she fabricated her “understandings” for the purpose of a collective pre-planned conspiracy to deceive the court into believing that the Council had openly disclosed their pseudo “cause of action”. Her deceitful “understanding” was carefully constructed in the context of the planned ultimate misrepresentations to the court.
After providing her purposely fabricated “understanding” at paragraph 4.1 of her sworn document Dixon then goes on to demonstrate at her extensive paragraph 5 to 12.8 of her same sworn affidavit that the words she maliciously placed in my mouth at her paragraph 4.2 were false because the Council had provided a copy of the Complete industrial plans in discovery at the 1988 County Court proceeding. At her paragraph 5 of this series of paragraphs Dixon begins;
For the reasons set out below I believe that the “complete” versions and the “clipped” versions of the plans which were exhibits “GAT-7”, “GAT-8”, and “GAT-9” to the Thompson Affidavit, were discovered by Council in the prior Tylden Rd proceeding, and that those documents were inspected by Thompson’s then solicitors Nevile & Co.
So exceedingly cleverly, but maliciously and deceitfully, Dixon states her “understanding” of what I said and then demonstrates her “understanding” of what I said to be false.
Then at paragraph 36 of their unsworn Outline of Submissions Delany and Ahern, under instruction from Dixon, develop and embellish Dixon’s “understanding” at her paragraph 4.1 and the fact that her further “understanding” at her paragraph 4.2 is false and then they then assert as fact “.… in respect of the Tylden Rd land the ‘critical document’ from the black folder which led Mr. Thompson to reach the conclusions which are said by him to underpin the ‘fresh allegations’ he now wishes to advance ….. was the copy of the complete version of the plans. …. ” (my emphasis)
So with a few deft and fraudulently fabricated and carefully planned corrupt steps Dixon’s “understanding” had become precise assertions by Dixon, Delany and Ahern to the effect that I expressly said that the “complete industrial plan” enabled me to conclude the things which underpinned their euphemism for their pseudo “cause of action”.
Dixons’s maliciously inspired “understandings” had been maliciously and deceitfully morphed into assertions of things actually said by me; no longer “understandings” of Dixon.
So at their abovementioned paragraph 36, while still using euphemisms, Dixon, Delany and Ahern firstly embellish and morph Dixons “understanding” into outright lies which are grounded and founded on Dixons’s purposeful and deceitful affidavit material. In their paragraph 36 Delany and Ahern;
use the euphemism “fresh allegations“
introduce the notion of “critical document“; and
identify that “critical document” as being the “complete version” of the plans
they falsely and deceitfully morph one of Dixon’s “understandings” in to an assertion that in my affidavit I say that this “critical document” underpins the “fresh allegations“
and they say that I said the “critical document” underpins their euphemism for their fabricated pseudo “cause of action”
Dixon, Delany and Ahern assert and establish that contrary to the words which Dixon put into my mouth at her paragraph 4.2 I was in fact provided with the “critical document” being the “complete plans” prior to getting the “black folder”. The lie being that I never even implied that I did not previously have a copy of the “complete plan”
Delany and Ahern then develop these “true lies” further when:
at their paragraph 52 they say “….. Taking Mr. Thompson’s affidavit at face value whatever ‘fraudulent concealment’ or fraud is said to have occurred; the documents now relied upon to seek to establish the cause of action ….. have been in the possession of Mr. Thompson since 1991… “
at their paragraph 53 they purport to set out representative representations of my affidavit but deceitfully only refer to the “black book”
at their paragraph 54 they say “It is apparent from the Thompson summary judgment affidavit that the ‘critical document’ from the black folder which led Mr. Thompson to reach the conclusions which now underpin the allegations …. was the copy of the ‘complete plans’ ….. No other documents from the black folder are mentioned by Mr. Thompson in his affidavit as assisting him in reaching the conclusions he did.” (my emphasis)
These paragraphs are overtly false and intended to deceive.
The words “No other documents from the black folder are mentioned by Mr. Thompson as assisting him ….. ” are deceptive, certainly no other documents from that folder are specified but numerous documents not from the black folder are mentioned at paragraph 53)c)i) of my Affidavit but these “complete plans” are only mentioned in the context that they caused me to notice things about other documents. A fly could well have landed on these other documents and caused me to notice something which had bypassed me in the past in which case Dixon, Delany and Ahern would have been left with “the critical fly”.
The fact is that these “complete plans” were also manifestly contrived to avoid a mistaken view of s.9 and were clear evidence of their pseudo “cause of action” and fitted their corrupt little scheme perfectly.
The further fact is that these “complete plans” were evidence of and disclosed nothing but their pseudo “cause of action”
the words “the allegations” in their paragraph 54 is a euphemism for that pseudo “cause of action” and no document capable of existing can “underpin” that pseudo “cause of action”.
Delany and Ahern then consolidate these “true lies” when at their paragraph 55 they say;
“The complete version of the plans for the industrial allotments is considered by Mr Thompson to be the ‘critical piece of the puzzle‘ which enabled Mr. Thompson to comprehend fully the events which he now alleges took place twenty five years ago in 1980.“
So step by step Delany and Ahern evolve or morph Dixon’s “understanding” so that it became the “true lie” asserted by them to be something I said or believe, at their paragraphs 54 and 55 they say;
That I consider the plan for the industrial allotments to be the “critical piece of the puzzle which enabled” me to “comprehend fully the events ….. ” (Dixons “understanding” has been transformed into my express assertion or state of mind)
In the circumstances and on the evidence I think it reasonable to conclude that these are “damn lies”. They used euphemisms to conceal what they were asserting and the simple fact is, as I have said, there is no document capable of being the “critical piece of the puzzle which enabled” me, or them or anyone at all, to “comprehend fully” that pseudo “cause of action”.
Delany and Ahern then rely on their “damn lie” to say at their paragraph 64 “…. after the black folder containing the ‘critical document‘ was handed to Mr. Thompson ….. there could not be and was no intentional concealment thereafter of any relevant material on the part of the Council” and at their paragraph 66 they say ” …..Council’s conduct in voluntarily providing to Mr. Thompson the black folder containing “the critical piece of the puzzle” is not conduct evidencing a consciousness of wrongdoing or involving dishonesty or moral turpitude ……. “
Delaney and Ahern then compound their “true lies” at their paragraphs 69 and 70 so that they become “true outright fabrications”. In these paragraphs they say that I fail to mention certain facts and they then go on to say;
“the critical piece of the puzzle which led Mr. Thompson, according to him, to the conclusions …… is said to be the copy …. of the complete version of the plans… ” and “The picture Mr. Thompson seeks to paint in his … affidavit is that the first time the …. plans were available to him was when they were supplied to him in the black folder ……… That is not so“
Delany and Ahern then build upon their “true outright fabrication” when at their paragraph 71 they say;
“What Mr. Thompson fails to disclose …. is that (a) the complete version of such plans were discovered .. … (e) Mr. Edward undertook inspection of documents …… those documents included a complete copy of the ‘complete’ versions of the plans ….. “
So the evidence indicates that Dixon’s “understanding” has been, carefully, purposefully and deceitfully transformed into that I discovered their pseudo “cause of action” from this “critical document” and that I had failed to disclose that I had this “critical document” and it was a discovered document and it fully disclosed the pseudo “cause of action”. This is quite a transformation. But a complete deceitful fraud both because of what they have fraudulently constructed but also because no document capable of existing can disclose their pseudo “cause of action”.
Their pseudo “cause of action” was nothing more than a figment of their corrupt purpose, scheme and conspiracy and no document capable of ever existing, let alone the “critical document” could ever disclose that pseudo “cause of action”. The entire sequence was a well planned coordinated scheme and conspiracy to deceive the court.
The purpose of this entire strategy of “true lies” was so as to enable Delany and Ahern to develop the “true outright fabrication” that the complete plan was “the critical piece of the puzzle” that openly disclosed that pseudo “cause of action” and it had been openly disclosed therefore there can be no concealment.
And then they go on at their paragraph 71 to say;
a copy of the complete version of such plans was provided to the Plaintiffs solicitors in the prior Tylden Rd proceeding in 1988; and
when Mr. Edward undertook inspection of discovered documents in March 1999 … … one of the documents in Mr. Thompson’s possession was a copy of the complete version of the plans for the industrial allotments.
So in an exceedingly clever and deceitful little sequence Dixon swears an affidavit giving a cleverly phrased purported opinion or “understanding” in a sworn document and then in an unsworn document Delany and Ahern, under instruction from Dixon maliciously morph Dixon’s “understanding” into an assertion of fact and things said to be expressly said by me and then they demonstrate the falsity of what they falsely assert that I said.
By doing these things the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority had prepared their fraudulent case without mentioning or even alluding to the things constituting the pseudo “cause of action” which they intended to fraudulently submit and without mentioning or alluding to the things known to them to constitute the true cause of action. By using these euphemisms they had thoroughly deceived me in that I believed that they were referring to the true “cause of action” and, in that context, the “true lies” were merely nonsense which confused me in that I thought they were talking nonsense and could not possibly succeed in their application to strike out my proceeding. It utterly confused me, I had no concept or notion at all of corruption at this level and this level of sophistications. I just thought they were stupid and my $8,000 a day man would bowl them over in two seconds but as I now know the depth and sophistication of corruption in the Supreme Court of Victoria far exceeds ordinary contemplation and comprehension.
The planning and execution and concept of this astoundingly sophisticated collectively coordinated malicious deceit was not dreamt up and perfected at that time, this extraordinarily sophisticated malicious corruption must be the product of years of refinement affecting perhaps hundreds or thousands of court cases. One wonders what on AUSTLII is true and what is the product of similar well practices sophisticated and malicious deceit of lawyers and Judges of the same ilk and where the victims do not have the capacity and endurance to fight back and are therefore rotting in gaol or sleeping in the streets or perhaps even suicided while the corrupt lawyers of the ilk of Delany and Garde grow fat on the putrid fruit of their corruption and the despair of their victims who have had their democratic rights stolen from them under the noses of equally corrupt judges who in the least silently, but corruptly, acquiesce.
The following are relevant extracts from Dixon, Delany and Ahern’s Outline; (with interspersed comments by me)
At paragraph 36 of their First Outline of Submissions Delany and Ahern, under instruction from Dixon, develop and embellish Dixon’s “understanding” at her paragraph 4.1 and the fact that her “understanding” is false and they then assert as fact “…. in respect of the Tylden Rd land the ‘critical document‘ from the black folder which led Mr. Thompson to reach the conclusions which are said by him to underpin the ‘fresh allegations‘ he now wishes to advance ….. was the copy of the complete version of the plans. …. ” (my emphasis)
As I say no document in existence or capable of ever existing can underpin their “pseudo” cause of action and I did not say what they fraudulently attribute to me.
At paragraph 54 “It is apparent from the Thompson summary judgment affidavit that the “critical document” from the black folder which led Mr. Thompson to reach the conclusions which now underpin the allegations in the omitted paragraphs was the copy of the “complete version” of the plans for the industrial allotments. No other documents from the black folder are mentioned by Mr. Thompson in his affidavit as assisting him in reaching the conclusions he did.”
As I say no document in existence etc …. As I will shortly show the Master got his Reasons and words from Dixon, Delay and Ahern fraudulent lies, not from my affidavit as asserted by him..
At paragraph 55 “The complete version of the plans for the industrial allotments is considered by Mr. Thompson to be the “critical piece of the puzzle” which enabled Mr. Thompson to comprehend fully the events which he now alleges took place twenty five years ago in 1980”
Plain straight out regurgitated “true lies” but far more serious than that of course, they strike at the heart of democracy.
At paragraph 70. As stated above, “the critical piece of the puzzle which led Mr. Thompson, according to him, to the conclusions which now underpin the matters pleaded in the omitted paragraphs is said to be the copy, contained in the black folder, of the complete version of the plans for the industrial allotments. The picture Mr. Thompson seeks to pain in his summary judgment affidavit is that the first time the complete version of the plans was made available to him was when they were supplied to him in the black folder in June 1991 after the Terms of Settlement in the prior Tylden rd proceeding were signed. That is not so.”
Each and every word is an outright fabrication gradually arrived at be staged morphing, contortion and building upon Dixon’s purposeful “understandings” and the “true lies” constructed from them.
Steven Mark Edward did his little bit in all of this by swearing false Affidavits that he had taken copies of these “complete plans” while he inspected “discovered documents” at my “solicitors premises”. (see Appendix A)
On the face of it Edward, Garde and Burchell also picked up on these “true lies” where at paragraph 45 of their Outline they say of me;
“He claims it was only on examining the folder of documents in August 2000 that he alleges was given to him at the settlement of the County Court proceeding in June 1991 that caused him to issue the current proceedings”
Garde, Edward and Burchell then go on at their following paragraphs to introduce the “complete industrial plans” and the Book of Pleadings which were the cornerstones of the dishonest scheme of all of Delany and Co and Garde and Co.
These critically complimentary things existing between Garde and Co’s material and Delany and Co’s material did not occur by accident or slip or serendipitously; as will unfold below; they were all part of a very carefully coordinated conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and to obtain a wrongful judgment from the Supreme Court of Victoria and in that they succeeded beyond their wildest corrupt imagination.
This is seriously corrupt conduct.