Executing the Corrupt Scheme in Court
In the normal course of events a party bringing an action leads off in court and makes their case in a clear manner. The defendant then has the opportunity to respond to that case and then the party bringing the case has an opportunity to respond to anything new raised by the defendant. This did not occur in this case:
At the hearing Delany led off, he made submissions in accord with his outline and the “true lies” but continued to use numerous euphemisms and reference to “critical document” as had been done in his outline. However Delany began to give a clue as to where he was heading but said nothing of substance in relation to these clues;
At page 40 of the transcript of 14th November 2005 Mr. Delany cleverly, purposefully and deceitfully misrepresented the provisions of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act where he asserted that he understood Section 9 of the Sale of Land Act to mean that if a developer is intending to subdivide into three or more allotments the plans have to show all of the roads and streets whereas if a developer was only dividing into two allotments then the plans did not have to show the roads. This man is a Senior Council; he did not believe himself.
Again at page 40 of the transcript of 14th November 2005 Mr. Delany expressed his “understanding” of the “cause of action” set out in the 2005 Amended Statement of Claim to be related to 2-lot plans of subdivision. He said, “….. the complaint as I understand it” and then he represented that “There were further plans lodged and it’s said this was for the purpose of getting around s.9 of the Sale of Land Act ………” This is the very first time that any one of the lawyers for the Council or Water Authority even alludes to what they had planned to misrepresent the “cause of action” as being.
At page 45 of the transcript of the same day Mr. Delany said ” …..a whole series of little plans to get around the Sale of Land Act provisions”.
Now as I have explained above and as clearly set out in the “Book of Pleadings” these assertions by Delany are simply utter nonsense. S.9 of the sale of Land Act cannot be avoided by 2 lot plans. Delany was an SC at the time, he could not have believed this garbage he was sprouting.
Garde then performed his well choreographed part of the scheme and made his submission. He introduced the “Book of Pleadings” but said nothing of significance in relation to it. Garde did not even intimate the pseudo “cause of action” or the use which he knew was planned for the “Book of Pleadings”.
Garde introduced the “Book of Pleadings” on page 1 of the transcript of the second day, he then simply and briefly described a very little of what was in it, he made no comment, no allegations, no comparisons with anything at all and certainly said nothing of relevance to the strike out proceeding he was purportedly pursuing.
The only things of note that he did say are was to the effect that I had “comprehensive knowledge” about Tylden Rd. But he does not say of what in particular or of what relevance his submissions were.
On the submission of Garde there was simply no point to the “Book of Pleadings” or his submission. His submission was essentially in accord with paragraph 49 of his and Burchell’s First Outline as referred to above.
There was nothing to even intimate the submission which Delany was choreographed to make on behalf of all of the conspirators.
This was the Council and Water Authorities strike out application and they had spent an entire day and a half and both Delany and Garde had completed their submissions without making a substantive submission at all. They had not even intimated let alone described either their pseudo “cause of action” or the true “cause of action” and had not even put a semblance of a case, they were astonishingly reticent to put their case. This was their strike out proceeding. They were keeping their pseudo powder dry so to speak.
My barrister, Mr. John Middleton then purported to give my defence, for reasons which are beyond me he specifically misrepresented me and my case. As set out above his inane and grievously damaging submissions flew in the face of the law and my specific written instructions to him and he overtly and with astoundingly grievous negligence (or worse), utterly misrepresented me personally and my case. Full details are set out above. Before going on I make a few comments regarding Middleton;
How and why he came to do what he did confounds me; I know that at the last minute he became concerned by the “Book of Pleadings” (hence my email of 11th October to him) all I can come up with is that the astoundingly and carefully deceitful preparation by Dixon, Delany, Ahern, Garde and Edward confounded and confused him to the extent it had me and then maybe, just maybe, he spoke to the other side’s Barristers at the last minute and they misled or confused him and he simply lost the plot, apart from the fact that he does not have the courage or the integrity to admit to and acknowledge what he did he appeared to me to be a decent sort of fellow, but then again I thought the same of Garde for about three minutes before he opened his mouth in the 1988 Tribunal hearing discussed below.
If Middleton held a belief as to the things uttered by him he had a duty to advise me not to proceed, it does raise the spectre that he did it for the moolah. He is not such a fool that he did not know or understand what he was saying. But as we’ve seen from all of the foregoing in this book, the oath that these people swear is simply lip service to hop on the gravy train. The reality is of course that if they were restricted to even a semblance of the truth the probability is that about 80% of cases would not get to court and Barristers and solicitors pockets would be substantially less well lined and there would be substantially fewer judges. They wallow in and grow fat on putting cases which they know well are baseless but they can’t financially skin a client by limiting themselves to the truth or properly advising hapless clients.
In supposed reply to Middleton’s inane submissions, in the final minutes of the hearing, Delany finally dropped his teams deceitful camouflage and hoisted their true colours, he overtly misrepresented the law and the “Book of Pleadings” and represented the pseudo “cause of action” as being the “cause of action” set out in the Amended Statement of Claim and then with utter contumelious disregard for the Court and his oaths as a Barrister and democracy itself and on behalf of each of his co-conspirators he fraudulently and deceitfully set out to demonstrate that I was aware of that pseudo cause of action long ago and that the Council had openly disclosed it by discovering the complete industrial plan and Delany did these things with the conspiratorial knowledge, consent and above all preparatory and choreographed assistance of all of Dixon, Ahern, Garde, Edward and Burchell.
At pages 87 to 92 of the Transcript of 15th November 2005, in culmination of the conspiracy between himself, Dixon, Ahern Garde, Burchell and Edward Mr. Delany overtly, carefully and deliberately and overtly misrepresented the content of the document entitled “Book of Pleadings” for the purpose of obtaining a judgment based on their collectively carefully choreographed fraudulent deceitful conspiratorial scheme to pervert the course of justice..
At these pages, on behalf of the other lawyers, Mr. Delany overtly, fraudulently and maliciously falsely represented that the “Book of Pleadings” disclosed that I was aware that 2-lot plans of subdivision facilitate avoidance of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 and sealing of these plans was unlawful and that this was one and the same as the “cause of action” set out in the 2005 Amended Statement of Claim and that I claimed to have discovered this in 2000, he said a great deal about the book of pleadings but the nub, the heart of his overt misrepresentations is found at page 88 of the transcript of 15th November 2005, where, while reading from the Book of Pleadings Delany says; (Delany read from page 5 of the Book of Pleadings and interspersed his comment – for understanding I have emboldened what he read and italicised his interspersions.)
“if we go to page 5 and you weren’t taken to this handwritten note, this is very important”, notwithstanding it was illegal Buchanan had sold at least two of the allotments, Notices of Disposition opposite, “One might say why was it illegal?”, In order to avoid the provisions of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act. “Isn’t that interesting,” which at that time prevented the sale of allotments on subdivisions of more than two allotments. Buchanan then lodged “what did he do? He” lodged seven separate plans which were contrived, “written in the Plaintiffs own hand”, to create several subdivisions of two lots each.
After this piece of deceptive and maliciously misleading piece of theatre Mr. Delay went on, with a flourish, to say;
“This is the critical piece of information you’re being told that this poor man didn’t find out until 2000 and didn’t realise he had this great case”
Delany then read and misconstrued page 8 of the Book of Pleadings in isolation. In isolation from page 3 it can be read and misconstrued that my handwriting asserts that the Buchanan broke the law because the plans did not show all of the allotments as required by s569A(1)(a) and for the purpose of providing verisimilitude to his fraudulent case that is exactly as Delany misrepresented it; immediately after misrepresenting page 5 of the Book of Pleadings and hooking the Master as described above and in continuation of that deception at page 89 of the transcript Delany took the Master to page 8 of the Book of Pleadings and said;
“I should have read at the top of p.8, “Mr Buchanan thought he’d exploited … (reads) … one plan showing each allotment”. That’s at the top of p.8. The bottom of the note says, I think you were taken to 569A by Mr Middleton, his clients note that not one of the plans submitted comply. So he knew that when he made that note”
Delany then went on reading and commenting further from the “Book of Pleadings” and then an exchange took place between Master Efthim and Delany
MASTER: “He refers to it in his own writing”.
MR DELANY: “That’s right.”
MASTER: “You go back to his affidavit and say he must’ve known this – – -“
MR DELANY: “All the things he relies on now, which were outlined to you, not only did he know but he made notes about, and what’s more we’ve had a complaint about the giving of false evidence in the Magistrates’ Court at Bendigo.
I invite you to have a look at document C4 – actually start with C3. What he’s doing here is annotating the pleadings in the action. In the middle of the page he says, “The claim was derived from the evidence of the Shire’s engineers given at the Bendigo Magistrates’ Court”, and then he says over at C4, “Discovery, however, indicates that council’s evidence at Bendigo was false. Discovery reveals that the ‘relevant’ 30th schedule Notices were dated 4 March 1980″. Now, that’s exactly the complaint that he now wants to make. He wants to say now they were dated March 1980 so they were later than the February ones and he also knows that they’re separate plans from p.12 that I took you earlier to because each plan had a separate plan reference number. (in the transcript the emboldened words were omitted, the transcript said “(reads)”).
The concealment, if there ever was any, was well and truly over; not only was the concealment over at the time of discovery in this proceeding but also it was known to him. So nothing was in fact concealed from him. If one says maybe the test is and it isn’t but maybe it’s when you find out, well, he found out then.
If we go forward to C9, this is the extract from the council minutes and remember Mr Middleton said he’d need to have the minutes and he’d need to have the plans. Well, he has the minutes. Council minutes, “This is about … (reads) … plans be sealed”, and then there’s a reference to three plans which are the – with two lots.”
In these submissions Delany was showing that the Book of Pleadings demonstrated my knowledge of the unlawful plans or more particularly their pseudo “cause of action” whereas the fact was that these pages contained evidence of the Council’s overt concealment of the true “cause of action”. At page C9 of the Book of Pleadings, read by Delany there is a pasted copy of the Engineers Report of 21st May 1980 and which asserts “plan has been submitted in seven parts and a requirement has been served on the owner….” and then recommends each of the contrived plans be sealed and describes them as 2-lot plans. This is an overt concealment of the fact that the 18 lot plan had been abandoned and the contrived plans processed as separate discrete subdivisions and not as parts of that 18 lot plan.
So Master Efthim took Delany’s carefully prepared and maliciously delivered bait hook line and sinker, and little wonder, Delany and his crooked team had very carefully groomed Master Efthim and lulled him into a belief as to the true lies and they had demonstrated that these true lies openly disclosed their euphemisms so when they hit him with their malicious damn real lies and the pseudo cause of action he was hooked.
By these representations and omissions Delany and his team squarely and for malicious deceitful corrupt purpose misrepresented;
what constituted the “cause of action” in relation to Tylden Rd.
the law
the facts
my affidavit
the “Book of Pleadings”
At the time of Delany hooking the Master each of Dixon, Delany, Aharn, Garde, Burchell and Edward were aware that they had purposely and deliberately deceived the Master for a malicious and fraudulent ulterior purpose, namely to pervert the course of justice and obtain a wrongful judgment in and from the Supreme Court of Victoria.
These contrived plans did not and could not form any part of the “cause of action” and in any event at paragraph 51 my affidavit squarely stated that I learned about these plans and their purpose when my lawyer Danny Ginsburgh told me about them. Danny was my 1983 solicitor and for all I know he died the next day. In addition in my email to him I had told Middleton in writing that I had knowledge of them and their purpose in the 1980’s
Each and every representation by Dixon, Delany and Ahern, in court, was an overt misrepresentation:
They falsely represented:
That the “purpose” constituted the “cause of action”.
That section 9 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 could be avoided by means of “contrived” 2-lot plans.
That the “contrived” 2-lot plans lodged by Buchanan and processed by the Council and Water Authority facilitated avoidance of section 9.
That these 2-lot plans were unlawful and had been unlawfully sealed
That unlawful sealing of these 2–lot plans constituted their pseudo “cause of action”
That the “Book of Pleadings” contained evidence of my knowledge of these things as misrepresented by them.
That the pseudo “cause of action” was or was identical with the “cause of action” alleged in the Amended Statement of Claim.
That the “complete industrial plan” was the “critical document” which enabled me to conclude the pseudo “cause of action”.
That the “complete industrial plan” had been provided to me and the pseudo “cause of action” was thereby openly disclosed.
That having provided me with the “critical document” there was no concealment of their pseudo “cause of action”.
They omitted:
All mention and consideration of section 97 of the Transfer of Land Act
All mention and consideration of the fact that no lawful Notice of Requirement was ever served.
All mention of breach of s569B(7)(a)(iii) of the Local Government Act
Each and every one of these misrepresentations was a fabrication which flew in the face of the law and the facts which were squarely before each of Delany, Garde and Co.
Before going on to an analysis of the Master’s Reasons I make the following point;
Because section 9 cannot be avoided at all let alone by contrived 2-lot plans and the plans were not unlawful at all and that s.569B(10) absolutely made the sealing lawful and that the plans did not and could not cause loss and damage and could not form any part of any conceivable “cause of action” there is no document in existence or capable of ever existing which could disclose that 2-lot plans facilitate avoidance of section 9 or formed any part of any conceivable cause of action. – it was a complete palpably fraudulent scam little wonder they kept it secret with euphemisms and carefully groomed the Master with “true lies” and other deceitful mechanisms of clever and abundantly corrupt lawyers.
As implied at paragraph 87 of Osborn’s Reasons; Master Efthim did not adjudicate on the true “cause of action” or any “cause of action” at all, he swallowed and regurgitated Dixon and Co’s “true lies” whole. (see menu option Part 3 Osborn appoints himself as Advocate for discussion on Osborn’s paragraphs 87 to 89)
Master Efthim was squarely and manifestly misled by the lawyers’ submissions that “unlawful” plans and “unlawful” sealing for the purpose of avoiding section 9 constituted the “cause of action” and that the so called “critical document” disclosed this pseudo “cause of action”. At paragraph 53 of his Reasons for Decision, Master Efthim said:
“It is clear from Mr. Thompson’s first affidavit that the critical documents from the black folder which led to this matter being further litigated are the complete versions of the plans of the industrial allotments…..” (my emphasis)
Despite Master Efthim’s words, he did not derive this assertion of his from my affidavit, he got it essentially word for word, verbatim, from the carefully and fraudulently manufactured true lies of Dixon and Co at paragraphs 54 and 55 of their fraudulent Outline as detailed above.
Had the Master even bothered to read s.9 of the Sale of Land Act or s.569B(10) of the Local Government Act or thought critically for three seconds on the effect of the plans he would have known each and every syllable of the submissions of Dixon, Delany and Ahern as supported by Edward, Garde and Burchell and Middleton to be outright false. Unfortunately the Master read neither the legislation or my affidavit or the Amended Statement of Claim and did not consider the absolute dearth of effect of the plans. He simply relied on the fraudulent garbage put to him, apparently without even a modicum of diligence.
Had he diligently read my affidavit and/or the Statement of Claim he would have realised that Dixon, Delany and Co, had in fact put the “purpose” to him as constituting the “cause of action”. the “purpose” was expressly said to be just that.
Compounding the impact of the “true lies” and deceit of Dixon on the Master was the fact that the grievously negligent submissions of Middleton (which I discuss at Chapter 3 Part 2) provided strong verisimilitude to those “true lies”; to recap and repeat Middleton’s outrageous submissions in context; Middleton said;
- At page 35 of the Transcript of 15th November the following exchange between Middleton and Master Efthim occurred;
MIDDLETON “Now, the villain in this litigation – sorry, one of the villains in this litigation is a fellow called Mr Buchanan and Mr Buchanan obviously sought to avoid the operation of s.9 and one way or the other the two defendants in this proceeding were involved in that avoidance. I will explain to you how it happened when I come to some simple facts. You had to comply with s.9, simple way of doing it, lawyer telling you how to avoid it.”
MASTER: “Two allotments.”
MIDDLETON: “And do lots of them.”
MASTER: “As was mentioned yesterday, nine twos are 18, from memory.” (As discussed below, on the previous day the Council’s lawyer, Delany SC had told the Master garbage about avoiding section 9)
That would be on p.350, “The plan submitted to the council shall show … (reads) … the several corners” et cetera. Those things are required and shall show and they were not. …. … … We go to sub-s.7 and you’ll see quite clearly stated, “The council shall refuse to … (reads) … are complied with”. We say that in May 1980, this is pleaded, the council contravened that provision and s.569A(1)(b) and (c) by sealing seven two lot plan of submissions which weren’t in compliance with that. You won’t find that anywhere in the earlier proceedings. (transcript page 37)
Yes. To put the bottom line on this, Master, this is the first time that it’s been alleged that the initial sealing of the plan of subdivision was unlawful or illegal and that’s despite the fact that we’ve had lots of the proceedings and when I take you to Justice Kaye’s decision, not for very long, it’s apparent that everybody before Justice Kaye proceeded on the assumption that a subdivision was lawful. Everybody in the Magistrates’ Court proceeded on the assumption that the subdivision was lawful. Same in the County Court. (Transcript page 38)
“What we are doing is going back a step which was never thought of, never even contemplated that the subdivision itself would be unlawful.” (transcript page 38)
….. none of the subdivisions we’re referring to now had planning permits and none had valid notices requirement issued to it pursuant to E of the Act. I’ll explain it to you in this sense, that there are clearly no planning permits. Secondly, but the resolution that was made originally as to the requirements was one made in February, 20th. It wasn’t proceeded with. What was proceeded with to get around s.9 of the Sale of Land Act, we would say at the instigation of the villain Mr Buchanan, were a series of two lot subdivision but no requirements were made by any authorisation of the council whatsoever. You can’t rely on the earlier one because that’s in relation to a different animal, so there’s no authorisation at all in relation to the subsequent subdivisions. . (Transcript page 38)
Down the bottom there’s an important inscription which says “Note – Plan submitted in 5 sections 30th Schedules all identical to this” …. … .. The significance of that to the reader, we would say, certainly as Mr Thompson proposes, is that it looks as though when you look over the page to the diagram, that’s all done in one lot, in one basic subdivision because they’re all schedules identical to this. You just see that document. That’s what Mr Thompson thought was happening. Go to 9 and we’ll see what did happen, not to Mr Thompson’s knowledge, however. It took a little while for this to sort of sink in. (Transcript page 44)
“What Mr Thompson thought we say perfectly legitimately, is there was document which he saw at 14 and always thought that was the plans submitted in the sections, not separate subdivisions.” (Transcript page 45)
MASTER: “Then an event happens in 2000, and then he looks at it, then he works all this out.”
MR MIDDLETON: “That’s it. When we say works it all out, works out that the original subdivision was unlawful. It’s important for us to identify and we say once you do identify it we succeed, identify what it is that is the cause of action being brought here and what it is that he discovers. What it is is that the original subdivision was always flawed. The foundation, if you like, was always dodgy. The foundation didn’t exist for everything else that was litigated. It simply wasn’t there. It was all based upon the premise that the subdivision was lawful.” (My emphasis)
“… ….. it actually shows, in our submission, that Mr Thompson was still under the wrong impression that there was still this one plan of subdivision. They weren’t done in different parts… … ….. in this document, which are notations made by Mr Thompson, you readily see that he is still under the impression that the subdivision was to proceed as one in accordance with the resolution of 20 February. That’s the submission I make. ”. (Transcript page 57)
“We did not know that the subdivision was originally flawed and unlawful and we found that out in August 2000.” (Transcript page 71)
As I said above these submissions were in the face of everything. Middleton went on to make a number of further mindless and similar submissions.
And immediately following these grievously negligent (or worse) submissions from Middleton; with reference to page 5 of the Book of Pleadings Delany overtly misrepresented it and for corrupt purpose deceitfully said;
“if we go to page 5 and you weren’t taken to this handwritten note, this is very important”, notwithstanding it was illegal Buchanan had sold at least two of the allotments, Notices of Disposition opposite, “One might say why was it illegal?”, In order to avoid the provisions of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act. “Isn’t that interesting,” which at that time prevented the sale of allotments on subdivisions of more than two allotments. Buchanan then lodged “what did he do? He lodged seven separate plans which were contrived, written in the Plaintiffs own hand”, to create several subdivisions of two lots each.
“This is the critical piece of information you’re being told that this poor man didn’t find out until 2000 and didn’t realise he had this great case”
To which the impressed Master said;
MASTER: “He refers to it in his own writing”.
So not surprisingly the Master had it firmly fixed and reinforced in his mind that it was unlawful sealing of unlawful plans which had been contrived to avoid section 9 which somehow constituted the cause of action and to compound the problem further the fact is that as Delany said “the complete versions of the plans of the industrial allotments” were without doubt evidence of those plans which had been contrived to avoid a moronic view of section 9 but all of that was entirely irrelevant nonsense.
Certainly, in respect to Buchanan’s true intention, the plans were unlawful because they didn’t show all the roads and all the allotments intended to be laid out however as they do not facilitate avoidance of any law at all and they were in fact processed as discrete subdivisions and each of the plans does in fact show all of the roads and all of the allotments intended to be laid out on each of those discrete subdivisions the plans may well be in total conformity with the law however to the extent that they may have been unlawful they were instantaneously rectified and made lawful by the operation of Section 569B(10) of the Local Government Act 1958.
S569B(10) provided “The sealing of a plan of subdivision shall be conclusive evidence for all purposes that there has been compliance with this act with respect to such sealing and that all preliminary steps and proceedings required to be taken in connexion therewith have been duly and properly taken”. (My emphasis).
So as can be seen the submissions of Middleton and the astoundingly sophisticate fraud of Delany and co were beyond nonsense, not only did the contrived plans not facilitate avoidance of section 9 and they did not cause any loss making deficiency in the allotments created but s569B(10) absolutely rectified any unlawfulness of both the plans and the act of sealing. To go back to my analogy there was not even an on the spot fine offence in the act of sealing but 569B(10) did not and could not rectify the breach of s.569B(7)(a)(iii) and the circumstances which invoked the operation of 569B(7)(a)(iii) had zero, zip, zilch to do with unlawful plans or unlawful subdivisions or unlawful sealing.
On the face of it the Master Efthim was so utterly confused and deceived by the putrid combination of malicious deceit of Dixon and team and by the breathtaking neglect, or worse, of Middleton he did not even have the beginning of an inkling of an idea as to the true “cause of action” and it appears he didn’t have a damn clue about the relevant legislation either. He certainly didn’t bother to read or understand it even though it was graphically and explicitly set out in the Book of Pleadings.
Master Efthim’s Reasons in relation to Tylden Rd;
At his paragraph 51 the Master said;
“The Plaintiffs submit that it was not until August 2000, that it was discovered that the initial sealing of the Plaintiffs’ subdivision was unlawful or illegal. The critical documents from the black folder which led Mr. Thompson to reach his conclusion was the copy of the complete version of the plans contained therein. ….”
The fact is I did not submit any such thing;
The first part of this is taken straight from Middleton’s grievously neglectful (or worse) submissions.
The second part; “critical document” being the “complete version of the plans” was lifted straight from Dixon, Delany and Ahern’s true lies.
What I had discovered was the true facts and the Council’s true state of mind which was that the 18 lot plan and associated resolutions had been abandoned and that the Notice of Requirement related to that plan had never been either issued or served and that the contrived plans had been processed as separate subdivisions discrete from one another and from the 18 lot plan and that the Council had committed perjury to conceal that fact from me and the Magistrates Court and Supreme Court and then repeated its damn lies in the 1988 proceeding.
The further obvious thing is the sealing was not unlawful. S.569B(10) fixed everything in respect of sealing.
At paragraph 53h)ii) of my Affidavit before the Master I said; “that Wilson’s evidence given to the Magistrates Court had the effect of concealing the Council’s true conduct from the Court and myself”
In direct reply or comment to this specific paragraph of my affidavit, because he was totally ignorant of the true cause of action, at his paragraph 55, Master Efthim said; “ … One may ask why Mr Wilson’s evidence had the effect of concealing the First Defendant’s true conduct from the Court and Mr. Thompson. This is not a credible explanation.”
Well the simple incontestable fact is that the Magistrate and Justice Kaye and myself were all deceived. The Council had concealed its true conduct from the Court and myself. The fact that the 18 lot plan and associated resolution had been abandoned and that the Notice of Requirement was not served was concealed from those courts and me by perjury and falsified documentary evidence. Both Judgments were squarely founded on acceptance of the false sworn and documentary evidence of the Council that on or about 20th February 1980 it had served a Notice of Requirement related to the 18 Lot Tylden Rd Residential plan of subdivision and thereby imposed a “Requirement” in respect to it and each of the so called “several parts” of that 18 lot plan.
This graphically demonstrates that the Master did not even have the beginning of an inkling of an idea as to what constituted the true “cause of action”; no further analysis of Master Efthim’s Reasons are necessary. That the Council had abandoned the 18 lot plan and associated resolution and not served the Notice of Requirement in relation to that plan was the sole possible cause of loss and damage and the sole things giving rise to the true “cause of action”
Although the Master got his wording a little convoluted a more compete transcript of the Master’s paragraph 55 is;
Mr. Thompson alleges that at the time Mr. Wilson Gave evidence the First Defendant was fully aware or recklessly indifferent to the existence of a series of facts. That evidence was given in 1987. Since then the Plaintiffs brought actions in the Supreme Court, County Court and tried to set aside settlement in 1999. It was not until the year 2000 that the evidence given by Mr. Wilson in the Magistrates’ Court had the effect of concealing the First Defendants conduct from the Court himself. It is amazing that Mr. Thompson is of that belief. It is clear he had all the documents, and had heard the evidence of Mr. Wilson. He had been to Court on a further three occasions. On may ask why Mr. Wilson’s evidence had the effect of concealing the First Defendant’s true conduct from the Court and Mr. Thompson. This is not a credible explanation.
Well the simple unequivocal fact is that the Magistrate and Justice Kaye were deceived. The Notice of Requirement that they both adjudicated on never ever existed. IT WAS A DAMN LIE, PERJURY, in addition the 18 lot plan which both the Magistrate and Justice Kaye were led to believe had been the subject of the Notice of Requirement had been abandoned and probably destroyed. THE COUNCIL’S ENTIRE CASE BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE AND JUSTICE KAYE WAS A SHAM.
This merely demonstrates that the Master did not even have then beginning of an inkling of an idea and that resulted from the poison put to him combined with his abject neglect.
Paragraph 57 of my Affidavit which the Master Claims to have read contains 39 subparagraphs which explicitly and unequivocally describe how the fact that the Notice of Requirement was not served and the fact that the 18 lot plan was abandoned was concealed from the Magistrate and Justice Kaye and describes the false admissions to the above reproduced paragraph 7 and the falsified discovery in the 1988 proceeding.
DESPITE HIS WORDS, THE MASTER DID NOT READ MY AFFIDAVIT WITH AN OPEN MIND. HE FLAT OUT RELIED ON AND WAS INFLUENCED BY THE LIES PUT TO HIM BY DELANY, GARDE AND CO AS ABLY ASSISTED BY THE GRIEVOUS NEGLECT OF MIDDELTON.
As I said above the Master may as well have found against me because I had eggs for breakfast, anything other than the fact that the council had abandoned the 18 lot plan and associated resolution of 20th February 1980 and not served the Notice of Requirement in relation to that was as relevant. The lawyers and the Master may as well have discussed the price of fish and then on the application of the fraudsters, Delany, Garde and Co the Master awarded indemnity costs against me and handsomely rewarded these little fraudsters. Damn!
At his numbered paragraphs the Master said; (with my comments interspersed)
11. The cause of action against the Defendants is a result of misfeasance in public office by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs claim to have suffered loss and damage as a consequence of the actions of the Defendants in relation to the allotments.
I ask of Master Efthim, exactly what misfeasance of the Council did he adjudicate on. It certainly was nothing to do with abandoning the 18 lot plan and associated resolutions or the consequential breach of s569B(7)(a)(iii) and there was nothing else done which was unlawful and/or capable of causing loss and damage or constituted malfeasance. The processing of the silly little plans certainly did not constitute malfeasance, they were benign, impotent, they were merely testament to criminal intent of Buchanan and the fraud of Delany, Garde and Co, the grievous neglect, or worse, of Middleton and now the neglect of the Master.
35 (From a supposed reading of my affidavit Master Efthim says of me); “……Upon examining the documents within the black folder (given to him in 1988) it became apparent to him that there were two versions of plans for the industrial allotments … … … … As a result of perusing the documents in the black folder Mr. Thompson came to a series of conclusions and it became apparent to Mr. Thompson for the first time that the First Defendant had acted maliciously or recklessly by sealing the residential plans contrary to its lawful obligation to refuse to do so ……..
This is not from my affidavit, it is derived directly from the “true lies” and deceit of Dixon and Co.
In addition from the incredibly negligent (or worse) submissions of Middleton at page 37 of the transcript and the corrupt submissions of Delany and Co the Master understood the unlawful sealing to result from the manifestly benign facts of the plans not showing all the roads or all of the allotments and s569B(7)(a)(ii) required the Council to refuse to seal.
35 (continued) ……. and that the evidence of Mr. Wilson (an employee of the First Defendant) given to the Magistrates Court had the effect of concealing the First Defendant’s true conduct from the Court and himself.
See my Response to Master Efthim’s paragraph 55 above. The Council’s “sealing of the residential plans contrary to its lawful obligation to do so” was a function of s.569B(7)(iii) and nothing to do with the physical act of sealing benign plans as understood by the Master from the rubbish fed to him.
51 “The plaintiffs submit that it was not until August 2000, that it was discovered that the initial sealing of the Plaintiffs’ subdivision was unlawful or illegal. The critical documents from the black folder which led Mr. Thompson to reach his conclusions was the copy of the complete version of the plans contained therein….”
I did not discover that the initial sealing was unlawful, I discovered that the Council abandoned the 18 lot plan and associated resolutions and no Requirement was imposed and therefore there was no lawful means of ensuring provisions of the services and consequently s569(B)(7)(a)(iii) restrained the Council from sealing and the complete plans were evidence of nothing other than the deceit of Dixon, Delany, Ahern, Edward, Garde and Burchell and their fraudulent pseudo “cause of action”.
Paragraph 51 is straight from the “true lies”
53 “It is clear from Mr. Thompson’s first affidavit that the critical documents from the black folder which led to this matter being further litigated are the complete version of the plans of the industrial allotments…….”
True lie, straight from the fraudulent submissions, not the facts.
54 “Based on the material before me there has been nothing concealed from Mr. Thompson. The documents in the black folder had been previously discovered to Mr. Thompson.
See my reply to paragraph 55 above.
55. “ … One may ask why Mr Wilson’s evidence had the effect of concealing the First Defendant’s true conduct from the Court and Mr. Thompson. This is not a credible explanation.” (my emphasis – these seemingly innocuous words become relevant in the Osborn Section below)
I repeat this paragraph for continuity, see responses to 55 above
56 Mr. Edward has produced … … .. book of pleadings ….. The Defendants relied heavily on these notes.
Of course they relied heavily on the Book of Pleadings, the entire malicious scheme to deceive the Court was built upon their conspiracy to misrepresent its content, it was central to the scheme of Dixon, Delany and Ahern and Edward swore false affidavits to introduce it and Garde and Burchell authored and uttered their purposefully incredible Outline to deceitfully introduce it.
57 at this paragraph the Master Efthim transcribed from the Book of Pleadings in support of his absurd Reasons that unlawful sealing of unlawful plans comprised the pseudo cause of action put to him by Dixon and the rest and by the grievous neglect of Middleton. The Master transcribed thirteen separate extracts from the Book of Pleadings, three of them demonstrate that I was of the belief that a “Requirement” had been imposed upon Buchanan and that the “Requirement” had been lifted and that the Council “always intended that the requirements were secretly still on foot” when and after it accepted my guarantees.
These extracts which the Master used to demonstrate my knowledge of “unlawful sealing” of “unlawful plans” in fact demonstrate that the Master had no idea that the true “cause of action” resulted from my discovery in 2000 that the “Requirements” which I demonstrably then thought to have been imposed were in fact never imposed.
58 Clearly on an analysis of the pleadings by Mr. Thompson, it appears that nothing has been concealed from the Plaintiffs ……..
Certainly nothing to do with irrelevant stupid plans was concealed from me. But it is clear that all understanding of the true “cause of action” was deceitfully concealed from the Master by Delany and Co as it was concealed from the Magistrate, Justice Kaye and subsequently from myself and the Court during the 1988 proceeding. Damn! The Book of Pleadings and my 1988 Statements of Claim clearly set out my belief that a Notice of Requirement had been served and that Buchanan had a duty to construct the roads until the Council withdrew that requirement.
I repeat my reply to the Master’s paragraph 55.
That the Master had no idea is expressly set out in his paragraph 70 where he says “I do note that it is said that the new pleadings arose out of the discovery of unlawful sealing of the plans. This is not conduct which can be attributed to the Second Defendant” Well the fact is the pleadings state the conduct of the Water Authority and allege that the conduct was done in knowledge of the things pleaded at paragraphs T11 and T20 of the Amended Statement of Claim and which paragraphs were that the Notice of Requirement had not been served, nothing to do with unlawful sealing.
Master Efthim was so thoroughly deceived by Dixon, Delany, Garde and Co, not to mention the abject neglect of Middleton and Co, that he did not mention the abandonment of the 18 lot plan and omission to serve that Notice of Requirement once in his reason for judgment, he had swallowed the pseudo “cause of action” and the true lies whole and then regurgitated them whole and undigested in his reasons as planned by Dixon and Co.
First of all if Master Efthim had looked at my affidavit instead of blindly accepting the fraudulently deceitful “true lies” of Dixon, Delany and Ahern he would have noticed that the causes of action have zero to do with unlawful plans and with a little thought he would have realised that unlawful plans cannot cause any loss and damage at all. Notwithstanding his negligence I am not going to be harsh on the Master after all he was well and truly deceived by the concerted coordinated efforts of a well practiced team of expert liars garbed in silk and wigs. Had he diligently read my affidavit and/or the Amended Statement of Claim with clear mind rather than one tainted by the lies of Dixon, Delany and Ahern he would have known that the issue had zero, zilch zip to do with unlawful plans and avoidance of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act but his mind was beyond tainted, it was irretrievably polluted by the very carefully planned and executed fraud of Dixon, Delany and Ahern and Edward, Garde and Burchell. The result of that pollution was he read everything with an incorrect preconception and a jaundiced eye.
Now I know it will initially surprise the reader but I agree absolutely with Delany and Co’s assertions because there is no doubt about it, the complete plans relied upon by them and the Master do absolutely disclose the pseudo cause of action, the plans are definitely contrived to avoid (a less than imbecilic fraudsters view of) s9 of the Sale of Land Act. Do they disclose the real cause of action? Nope……….. (NIS = Not In Subdivision) The obvious truth however is that there is no document in existence or capable of ever existing which can disclose the pseudo “ cause of action” that the contrived plans facilitated avoidance of s.9 or were unlawfully sealed or caused loss and damage.
It is manifest that these contrived 2-Lot plans are evidence of nothing except the pseudo “cause of action”. These plans were definitely contrived to avoid a moronic view of s.9 and definitely demonstrate the pseudo “cause of action” were it capable of existing.
Finally, in relation to Woodleigh heights, these dishonest lawyers put to Master Efthim that from 1985 I was fully aware that “the water supply” was laid in 1982 and that the proof of this was in a letter of mine dated 24th August 1987 to the Council and Water Authority wherein, amongst other things I pointed out the illegality of the Water Supply Agreement between the Water Authority and WHRD and that an illegal water main was laid along Edgecombe Rd Kyneton to the perimeter of the Woodleigh Heights subdivision.
At paragraph 88 of their Outline of Submissions Dixon, Delany and Ahern represented that this letter demonstrated that “Mr Thompson was aware from at least 1987 that the reticulated water supply was laid in 1982”
At the time of making these representations Delany and Co were thoroughly aware that the two water supplies could not be confused with one another and that knowledge of the 1982 water supply disclosed no knowledge at all of the 1979 water supply and particularly did not disclose knowledge that the 1979 water main had not been laid in 1979 as required by law.
I have already addressed this Woodleigh Heights aspect here – “Osborn on Planning Permits” in relation to the manifestly fabricated Reasons of Osborn.