Home - ANZ Bank Court Fraud

Part 1. Fraudulently and maliciously fabricated authenticated order documents containing purposefully concocted supposed Supreme Court orders that were never made. (The fabrication and uttering of these documents are likely the highest court-based offences ever maliciously committed in a Western-style democracy; they constitute a predictable and integral part of what is probably the most significant continuous chain of bank, government, and court-based corruption, denial, and concealment in the history of Australia and perhaps the world, involving the ANZ Bank, Westpac Bank, two Victorian statutory authorities, a chain of crooked lawyers, and corrupt Victorian courts, extending uninterrupted from 1979 to the present day.)

Appendix 1 hereto purports to be an authentic, sealed, authenticated order document dated 11^th April 2007, purporting to authenticate Supreme Court orders said to have been made by Justice Robert Osborn on the 29th of November 2006.

The supposed order 1 on that document is said to be, “The appeal should be dismissed and there be judgment for the defendants.”
Order 2 on that document is an order adjourning the further hearing until 7 December 2006.

Appendix 2 hereto purports to be an authentic, sealed, authenticated order document dated 11^th April 2007, purporting to authenticate a single order said to have been made on 7^th December 2006 by Robert Osborn.

The single order set out in that document is, “The Plaintiffs pay the Defendants costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis.”

Appendices 3 & 4 hereto, respectively, are relevant pages of the transcripts for the hearings on 29^th November 2006 and 7^th December 2006.

Those transcripts unequivocally evince.
- That the supposed order 1 set out on the first purported authenticated order was NOT made on the 29^th of November 2006 or at all.
- No substantive orders at all were made on 29^th November 2006.
- That three substantive orders, NOT one, were in fact made on 7^th December 2006, namely, ‘firstly, that the appeal be dismissed’. Secondly that there be judgement for the defendants and thirdly that the plaintiffs pay the defendants costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis”
- That the first purported authenticated order document was fraud by including or adding a concocted supposed order that was never made.
- That the second purported authenticated order document was fraudulent by omitting the first two orders that were in fact made on the 7th of December and without which purposeful omissions, the first concocted supposed order could not stand.

As a litigant in person, on the 21st December 2006, which was the last possible day allowed under the court rules, I filed and served a notice of appeal against the orders made by Robert Osborn on the 7th December 2006.

In essence, using genteel but unmistakable terms, my notice of appeal alleged and sufficiently particularised that Osborn had fabricated his purported reasons for judgement and that the lawyers for the defendants were well aware of that fact.

Those lawyers included Greg Garde, Jim Delany & Sharon Burchell.

The obvious malicious intent of the court and the intended effect of the two fraudulently fabricated authenticated order documents, and, in particular, the maliciously concocted supposed order 1, said to have been made on 29^th November 2006, were to, with the authority of the court, pervert the course of justice by corruptly rendering my appeal invalid by reason of having been filed out of time from the said date of that concocted order.

Appendix 5 hereto is a letter to me dated 7^th May 2007. That letter said that the two abovementioned purported authenticated order documents were enclosed by way of service on me.

That letter was authored by Steven Mark Edward, who, at all relevant times, was the solicitor acting for the Victorian Statutory Authority, Coliban Water, and was the instructing solicitor to Major General Greg Garde QC (as he then was) and Garde’s junior barrister, Sharon Burchell.

Purporting to rely on the fabricated order 1, said to have been made on 29^th November 2006, Edward’s letter expressly set out the obvious malicious intended effect; it stated that my “appeal has been filed out of time in relation to the orders made on 29 November 2006.”

Manifestly, Edward, who was present at the hearings of 29^th November and 7^th December, was well aware that the two purported authenticated order documents and the supposed orders set out in them were purposeful, malicious, fraudulent fabrications by the court, issued by the court and uttered by him for the specific purpose of perverting the course of justice by fraudulently rendering my appeal invalid by reason of being filed out of time from 29^th November.

The obvious questions are the following: Did the court, likely including Osborn and others, unilaterally fabricate and concoct those documents and orders, knowing that the lawyers, Edward, Garde, Delany, Burchell, and the rest, would not object despite being fully aware of the fact of their fabrication? Or did the lawyers, likely initiated by Garde, suggest those fabrications to the court, confident that it would not baulk? Or did the court and the lawyers gather together and jointly decide to commit the fabrications and concoctions? Either way, the evidence abundantly demonstrates a heinously corrupt court-based culture.

Manifestly, the court, Edward, Garde, and the rest thought that they could dupe me, an ignorant layman litigant in person, with their authoritative, flagrant fabrications and concoctions.

Also manifestly, those fabrications and concoctions were fearlessly done in full view of the entire court of appeal in obvious confidence that the court of appeal would endorse them by holding that my appeal was invalidly filed.

The court did not produce those carefully and purposefully fabricated documents and concocted orders in a vacuum; the court and all of the relevant lawyers, Garde, Delany, Burchell, and the rest, knew well that Osborn had crassly and flagrantly fabricated his purported reasons for judgement for the specific purpose of denying and concealing the court-based fraud of each and every one of them, and they knew well that my grounds for appeal, sufficiently set out in my hastily prepared notice of appeal, did provide accurate and ineluctable particulars of portions of Osborn’s extensive flagrant fabrications.

The less-than-honest court, aware of its own corruption and having decided to conceal and deny that corruption, was then left with the corrupt task of protecting itself and its corrupt lawyer friends by disposing of me, my allegations, the facts, and my appeal without a trial.

The fabricated authenticated order documents and the concocted orders were the court’s opening shots in that sordid task.

Having decided to conceal and deny, the court, Osborn, Garde, Burchell, Delany, and the rest of the lawyers knew well that on the 7th of December 2006, I held what they knew to be a mistaken belief that on the 29th of November 2006, Osborn had made orders dismissing my appeal from Master Efthim’s orders and had made a judgement against me.

They corruptly and maliciously chose to exploit my mistaken belief by fabricating authenticated order documents and concocting fictitious orders that accorded with what they knew to be my mistaken beliefs.

My mistaken beliefs and their knowledge of my mistaken beliefs arose under the following circumstances.

Judgement day for my appeal before Osborn was scheduled for 29^th November 2006.
I was a resident of Orange, NSW, on the morning of 29^th November 2006. I was on approach to Essendon Airport when a sudden, quite severe squall forced me to turn around and land at Mangalore.
I telephoned my Melbourne agent, Daniel Izakow, and asked him to attend court to offer my apologies.
After the hearing Daniel telephoned me and told me that I had lost my appeal and that the court had been adjourned until 7^th December to allow me to make an argument as to costs.
At that time, I wrongly assumed that orders striking out my appeal had been made on that day, the 29th of November, 2006.
After I flew back to Orange, Daniel faxed me a copy of Osborn’s published reasons.
From a simple reading of Osborn’s purported reasons, it was manifest that Osborn, likely in direct conspiracy with at least Garde, sat in his chambers, cave, and personally crassly fabricated the entirety of his purported reasons for judgement that flew in the face of the facts, the law, and simple common sense and, inter alia, were specifically contrived.
- Firstly, to falsify or make wrong my specific written allegation and the fact that on 7^th March 1988 the then junior barrister, Lieutenant Colonel Greg Garde, had conspired with the solicitor John Norman Price and others to mislead the then Victorian Planning Appeals Tribunal for the purpose of making the circumstances of the conspiracy described in the Victorian Parliament on 21 November 1985 appear lawful and legitimate, and had they not done so, it is probable that my family and I would not have suffered loss on the relevant land and the hearing before Osborn would not be occurring.
- Secondly, to falsify my further written allegations and the incontrovertible facts that during the hearing appealed from before Osborn, namely the 2005 hearing before the then Master Efthim, the then barristers John Middleton and Jim Delany had made flagrantly and preposterously false submissions, and that Delany had then repeated those crassly, flagrantly, patently false submissions during my appeal before Osborn.
In preparation for the hearing on the 7th of December, I prepared a substantial written submission that unmistakably set out that Osborn had fabricated his purported reasons for judgement, that submission;
- Opened with my mistaken belief that judgement orders had been made on 29^th November 2006.
- Said;
  - “(2) As a matter of demonstrable fact your substantive reasons for Judgement are manifestly wrong and without any basis in fact or reason“
  - “(17) The plaintiffs place on record that they are seriously concerned and disturbed by your Honour’s reasons for judgement and the facts and circumstances surrounding that judgement and the circumstances of the conduct of the hearing of the appeal by your Honour”
- Said, that the present question was whether Osborn would award costs against me and whether the lawyers would seek costs while in knowledge that Osborn’s reasons were flawed and flawed at least in part due to their specific misrepresentations.
- Told Osborn that I would be appealing his judgement.
- Opened paragraph 7 with the words, “Since judgement last Wednesday….”
- Then provided sufficient accurate commentary on Osborn’s flagrantly fabricated purported reasons.
Then, to my surprise, on that day, the 7th of December 2006, Osborn made his three orders: firstly, that my appeal be dismissed; secondly, there be judgement for the defendants. Thirdly, he made indemnity costs orders against me.
The making of those orders on the 7^th provided me with an additional 7 days beyond what I initially thought to be the deadline for filing my notice of appeal.
To confirm that I did have those extra 7 days, I immediately ordered a transcript of the 29^th November hearing and discovered that no orders apart from adjournment orders were made on that day.
Unbeknownst to Osborn, Garde, Delany, and the others, upon my reading the transcript of the 29^th of November, I no longer held my mistaken belief.
I then filed and served my notice of appeal against Osborn’s orders on the 21^st of December 2006, which was the last day allowable after the 7^th of December.
Despite having only three weeks to try to understand the scheme of Osborn’s extensive fabrications, which represented a new, extensive and disjointed, crass, and flagrant court-based fraud that was difficult to comprehend, my 14-page notice of appeal included sufficiently detailed ineluctable specifics about various aspects of those fabrications. For the sake of brevity, I omitted many crude and flagrant aspects of Osborn’s and the court’s fraud.

From that set of circumstances, particularly from my written set of allegations, the court, Osborn, Garde, Delany, and the bevy of other lawyers knew well that, on the 7^th of December 2006, I held a mistaken belief that Osborn had made his substantive orders on 29^th November 2006. In addition, they did not know that I had since realised my mistake.

Not being aware of my discussion with Daniel Isakow, the following facts indicate that they thought that I, a mere ignorant layperson, had concluded my mistaken belief from reading Osborn’s published reasons and the fact of the publication of those reasons.

They obviously then thought that they could dupe me and corruptly dispose of me and my appeal by fraudulently representing a portion of Osborn’s published reasons as constituting or being orders for dismissal and judgement.

While it is clear from Osborn’s various voluminous fabrications that he probably considers himself a wordsmith, the fact is that his crass fabrications suggest that he is more a word-molester than a smith, as the following and the material further below demonstrate: he uses and contorts and tortures available verbiage to crassly fabricate things.

In a crass attempt to pervert the course of justice, the court, probably Osborn, in probable conspiracy with at least Garde, consistent with their knowledge of my mistaken belief, did several things.

Firstly, they extracted part of the last line of Osborn’s fabricated reasons; that line, paragraph 184, says, “In all the circumstances the appeal from the Master should be dismissed.”
From that last line, they extracted the words, “the appeal from the master should be dismissed.”
Then they extracted the second order that was in fact made on the 7^th of December, 2006. The genuine second order was, and still is, “that there be judgment for the defendants.”
They then concatenated those two factually distinct and disparate things and fabricated the supposed order 1 set out in the first fraudulent authenticated order document. That fabricated order, fraudulently said to have been made on the 29th of November, 2006, states, “The appeal should be dismissed and there be judgment for the defendants.”

The probability is that the court, Osborn, and the various lawyers, particularly Garde, were so demented by the prospect of having their blatant high crimes aired in open court—where, however unlikely, there might be at least one judge with integrity—that they resorted to this additional crass and flagrant fraud in an attempt to prevent it. I suppose one should expect such further corrupt conduct from such high-level fraudsters.

Significantly, that concocted purported order is not even an order; “…SHOULD be dismissed…” Obviously dismissal had not yet happened and may or may not happen. Preposterous, no honest and competent court would make such an order.

I merely note that these flagrant high crimes were fearlessly committed in full view of each and every Victorian judge, magistrate, lawyer, and Victorian attorney general.

Upon receiving those fabricated documents and concocted orders from Edward, I immediately recognised them for what they were and understood their intent. I telephoned the prothonotary’s office. I briefly explained that the documents did not reflect the facts and asked how authorised order documents were prepared; to my surprise, the prothonotary’s office did not express shock and refused to explain the preparation process. The clerk, or whoever he was, then said, “We can’t have erroneous documents floating around,” and asked that I return all originals and destroy all copies.

I strongly suspect that the prothonotary’s office was directly involved. The documents bore the prothonotary’s seal.

Part 2: Further high crime, yet more fraudulently concocted, purportedly authenticated orders.

On 28^th May 2007, a directions hearing came on before Master Cain. As I expected, the lawyers attempted to use what they knew to be the fraudulently fabricated authenticated order documents and concocted orders to have my appeal struck out.

I simply exhibited the transcripts for the 29^th November and 7^th December and pointed out that no such orders had been made on the 29^th of November or at all.

Master Cain adjourned the hearing and said, “Enquiries will be made of the Court as to whether the orders made by the Honourable Justice Osborn on 29 November 2006 and 7 December can be amended pursuant to the slip rule under order 36.07 or whether the appellants must make an application for enlargement of time to appeal…”

Significantly, Master Cain must have been well aware that those palpably fabricated documents and obviously concocted orders could not be corrected or amended or swept away by the slip rule.

I assume that Master Cain then had a word with Osborn, after which, predictably, the court then fabricated a further purported authenticated order document containing further concoctions.

Appendix 6 hereto is a further fraudulently fabricated authenticated order document dated 4^th June 2007.

That document and everything in it are further purposeful, flagrant fraud by the court.

That document wrongly says the originating process was “writ”.
That document wrongly says it was obtained by “Correction of orders made 29 November 2006 and 7 December 2006″.
Under the heading “Other Matters”, the new fabricated document fraudulently states:

On 29 November the court (a) gave reasons for judgment that the appeal from Master Efthim should be dismissed and that there shall be judgment for the defendant; and (b) adjourned the proceeding for argument concerning costs until 7 December 2006.
On 7 December after argument the Court made final orders.
Authenticated orders prepared after the hearings on 29 November 2006 and 7 December 2006 are by this order corrected under the slip rule.

The documents then say, “The Court Orders That.”
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. There is judgment for the Defendants.
3. The plaintiffs pay the defendants costs of the proceeding including the costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis.

However, the facts known to the court are as follows:

The originating process was fraud by the court, namely fabricating authenticated order documents and concocting supposed orders.
The concocted orders that the initial fabricated documents said to have been made on 29^th November were not made on that day or at all; they were fraudulent fabrications that were not available to be corrected or swept under the carpet by the so-called slip rule. Additionally, the order made on 7^th December, which required me to pay indemnity costs, was not corrected; it remained as originally ordered.
The fact of the publication of purported reasons for judgement is entirely irrelevant, excepting that the mention of them and the part quoted demonstrates the court’s and Osborn’s knowledge of the source of the wording of fabricated order 1 in the first fabricated document, that part being what they concluded that I had based my mistaken belief on and what they could dupe me with.
There was no argument at all on the 7^th of December; I simply handed up my written set of allegations and facts as to Osborn’s fabrications. Osborn adjourned to read my allegation. Upon reconvening, Osborn told the lawyers, Garde, etc., that there was no need to respond. Then in full knowledge of the fact of his fabricated purported reasons Osborn purposefully made, and Garde, Delany, Burchell, and the lesser lawyers accepted, his orders maliciously made against me.
The fabricated authenticated order documents and the concocted orders set out in them were NOT made after the hearings of 29^th November 2006 and 7^th December 2006; they were both maliciously and purposefully prepared on the 7^th of April, 2007, after I had filed my notice of appeal and before the first court of appeal directions hearing.
1. The “slip rule” is not applicable to fraudulently fabricated authenticated order documents or concocted orders purposefully set out in them.
2. The fact known to the court was and remains that Osborn’s actual orders, purposefully made on the 7^th of December 2006, did not contain or include and were not affected by any error or slip or omission, and they remained unaltered in the transcript.
The three orders then set out in that new purposefully fabricated authenticated document dated 4^th June 2007 are the exact, unaltered, uncorrected orders that were, in fact, made on the 7^th of December 2006.
All three fabricated authenticated order documents and the concoction set out on them were and remain hard evidence of calculated malicious fraud or worse by the court and its officers.

The new purported authenticated order document dated June 4, 2007, and the things set out in it were a new and purposeful act of deliberate fraud by Osborn and the court; that new act of fraud was intended to corruptly conceal and deny and appear to rectify the fact, known to everyone, that the first two purported authenticated order documents and the supposed orders set out in them were careful, malicious, purposeful, deliberate acts of fraud and corruption by the court.

The court was and remains well aware but continues to deny and conceal that the two initial fraudulently fabricated authenticated order documents and the concocted purported orders set out in them were not and could not be corrected or eliminated or hidden by the further purposefully fabricated authenticated order document that corruptly invoked the so-called slip rule. The first two documents and their contents are clear, unequivocal, and immutable evidence of the initial part of this corruption, and the third shows the depth of the court’s depravity.

Part 3: The court and the entire justice system are well aware of, but seek to deny and conceal, the court-based corruption discussed herein.

The fact of that awareness, denial, and concealment is demonstrated by, inter alia, the following.

The facts and circumstances, as discussed below, of and surrounding and preceding and arising from the malicious fabrication, by the court, of Appendices 1, 2, & 6 hereto were obviously well known to the judges and lesser court officers who were fearlessly party to their flagrant fabrication, utterance, use, and intended effect and well known to the several court of appeal judges that subsequently became aware of them.
On the menu page of my website, “courtsontrial.com”, under the menu option “Censoring the Web” is full documentation and discussion demonstrating that in January 2014, at least two Supreme Court judges, probably Robert Osborn & Greg Garde, conspired with one another and others to wrongfully use their position to censor the web by having my website shut down for the specific purpose of concealing from the people of Australia the evidence of, and the fact of, their own and broader court-based utter corruption published by me and well known to them. They did so by maliciously and wrongfully threatening my Australian internet content host with contempt of court charges if he did not remove my website from the web.
- My courageous internet content host, a small regional businessman, possessed of integrity, refused to comply in the absence of a court order.
On the menu page of my website, under the menu option “Robert Clark & Stephen Lee,” is full documentation and discussion demonstrating that in July 2014, after the censorship attempt of the court and judges failed, the then attorney general, Robert Clark, and the assistant government solicitor, Stephen Lee, conspired with one another and probably at least with Osborn and Garde to wrongfully use their positions to serially maliciously threaten my internet content host and his associates if he did not shut down my website.
- To relieve my courageous Australian internet content host, a small NSW regional businessman, from the high personal stress maliciously imposed on him by the court, Clark & Lee, I simply moved my website to an American internet content host.
- Significantly, in full knowledge that I was the author and publisher of my website, they failed and refused to take up my invitations to write to me.
By registered mail of 5^th August 2015, my letter dated 5^th August 2015, which set out substantial parts of the court-based corruption detailed in this letter, was sent to each Supreme Court & Court of Appeal judge in office on that date, and by email of 7^th August 2015, I emailed a copy of that letter to all of approximately 1900 barristers with a published email address. A copy of that letter together with registered mail receipts and a list of recipient barristers is available on my website. Predictably, apart from abusing me, no one did anything.
In late 2019, either the Supreme Court, possibly the then chief justice herself, or the attorney general communicated with YouTube to request the removal of my very accurate and extensive video entitled “Judicial and Cultural Corruption in the Supreme Court of Victoria.”
- YouTube then geo-blocked my video; Australians get the message. “Video unavailable. This content is not available on this country domain due to a legal complaint from the government.”
  - There was, of course, no legitimate legal complaint; the court or the chief justice or whoever was acting in the face of the law when communicating with YouTube.
- Though I could have appealed to YouTube, I chose to leave that geo-block in place as a further demonstration of the extent that the court and government will go to conceal the court-based corruption known to them.
- That video set out the ineluctable evidence of the fact of the overt corrupt conduct of several judges and lawyers, including John Middleton and Jim Delany, and the flagrant fabrication of documents by Garde and his instructing solicitor.
- Along with a foreword about the wrongful geo-blocking, I republished that video with the title “Government & Judicial System of Victoria, Australia Conceal Corruption.” It remains available on YouTube and on my website.
Numerous other communications to Victorian judges and barristers that are available on my website.
The matters and things discussed below.

Neither the court nor its judges and lesser officers, nor the so-called justice department, can plead ignorance.

Part 4: Brief background.

As sufficiently particularised further below, appendices 1, 2, & 6 hereto arose as a consequence of the following and more:

In 1988, an ANZ Bank subsidiary and its solicitor, John Norman Price, resolved to use what they must have thought, or known, to be a corruptible or careless court as a tool of fraud by bringing a crassly, flagrantly fabricated, patently fallacious case for the specific purpose of obtaining a wrongful judgement.
The specific intent of the ANZ Bank subsidiary was to obtain a wrongful judgement that made the water agreement, and the facts and circumstances surrounding it, referred to in the Victorian House of Assembly on the 21^st November 1985, appear lawful and legitimate. (See Hansard, Assembly 21 November 1985, page 117.)
For that specific purpose, Price engaged the then-junior barrister, Lieutenant Colonel Greg Garde.
Fully aware that no legitimate case could be made. Garde accepted the engagement.
By their purposeful fraud upon the court, in conspiracy with others, the ANZ subsidiary, Price and Garde, did obtain the preposterous, wrongful judgment that they conspired to get.
In 2005 I brought a proceeding that arose as a direct consequence of Garde’s 1988 misconduct.
Incredibly, in that 2005 proceeding, Garde was an opposing barrister.
In 2007 that proceeding, with me as a litigant in person, came before Justice Robert Osborn.
Along with particulars of other court-based corruption, I put the facts of Garde’s 1988 misconduct to Justice Robert Osborn and said that if Garde had not made his 1988 misrepresentation, the probability is that I would not have suffered loss and damage, and the hearing before Osborn would not be occurring.
Garde then repeated, as fact, his flagrantly, overtly, manifestly false 1988 misrepresentations to Osborn.
Then, in open court, for the purpose of legitimising or providing verisimilitude to at least part of Garde’s misrepresentations, with Osborn prompting Garde, Garde and Osborn cooperated with one another to, without notice, place new and fallacious things on record.
Osborn then refused to allow me to respond to those without notice of new things and immediately adjourned.
Justice Robert Osborn then fabricated purported reasons for judgment that exactly repeat Price’s and Garde’s 1988 misrepresentations and are flagrantly contrived to make those crass misrepresentations appear true, correct, and lawful.
Osborn’s fabricated purported reasons also make substantial use of the fallacious without-notice material cooperatively placed on record by Garde and Osborn.
Surrounded by his now-demonstrated-to-be-like-minded, protective friends, Osborn fearlessly delivered what they thought to be a most perfect injustice, and he made punishing indemnity cost orders to punish me for having the temerarious integrity to allege and evince court-based corruption.
Confident that the Court of Appeal would be horrified by Osborn’s conduct, in 2007 I filed a Notice of Appeal that, inter alia, alleged Osborn’s fabrications.

Then.

The court fraudulently fabricated appendices 1 & 2, as detailed below, to render my appeal invalid.
Appendix 5 was fabricated by the court to conceal the fact of the fabrication of appendices 1 & 2.
Then in full knowledge of the fabrication of appendices 1, 2 & 6 and their purpose and that my appeal sufficiently particularised that Osborn’s reasons were fabricated, the Court of Appeal
- While knowing full well that compliance may expose their respective fabrications before Osborn, excused Garde and Delany from complying with practice statement No 2 of 1995
- repeatedly made exceedingly onerous orders and directions that no ordinary litigant in person could be expected to be able to comply with and must have been calculated to have my appeal struck out upon my expected default. I did comply.
I then retained Ian Waller QC, as he then was, and Louie Hawas to present my case as to Osborn’s fabrications; they refused to discuss, let alone address, the fact well known to them that Osborn’s reasons were in the face of the facts and the law.
Waller and Hawas told me that the court of appeal would find a way to find against me, and they refused to act for me.

Upon realising that the entire court, including the court of appeal, was a sham, intent on concealing court-based corruption, I withdrew my appeal, and in a subsequent costs hearing before justices Neave and Mandie, where Garde and his mob were seeking orders that I pay punishing indemnity costs, in an extensive written affidavit and submission, I said the following:

I determined that so long as Barristers such as Mr. Garde appear before this Court and say the things that they do with impunity then this is not the place to seek justice. I determined to stop throwing money away and having this Court continually reward Mr. Garde for his fabrications.
I decided to abandon the Appeal in favour of going public with the complete story of what has occurred over the years including in this Court and to actively campaign to expose deception, incompetence and dishonestly in this Court and particularly expose Barristers who mislead the Court. To this end I reserved a website courtsontrial.com well before the present summons was served. I do not apologise for abandoning the Appeal.
Truth and fact are far more powerful than any Judgment of this Court.
So long as Counsel can mislead this Court with impunity this Court is a sham.

Then in full knowledge of the fact that, and the reasons why, the court had fabricated appendices 1, 2 & 6 hereto and while fixed with knowledge of abundant ineluctable evidence that Osborn had fabricated his purported reasons, in their written reasons Neave and Mandie said, “… Nor is it necessary to take into account any unfounded and scandalous allegations made in relation to the court itself.” Then relying on Osborn’s (flagrantly fabricated) reasons, Neave and Mandie said, “It is sufficient to determine the application upon the basis that the appeal was hopeless.”

Then, in full knowledge of evidence that Osborn had fabricated his purported reasons, Neave and Mandie ordered that I pay punishing indemnity costs to Garde’s mob.

Significantly, the particular aspect of Osborn’s reasons that Neave and Mandie focused on to say that my appeal was hopeless, namely releases signed in earlier proceedings, was one aspect of Osborn’s reasons that, as discussed further below, was blatantly fabricated.

Neave and Mandie were well aware of abundant, ineluctable evidence, including from a simple reading of Osborn’s purported reasons, that Osborn had flagrantly fabricated his purported reasons, yet they not only failed to openly investigate that criminal activity, but they also concealed and denied it and knowingly and maliciously punished me while rewarding Osborn’s criminal co-conspirators, Garde and his mob.

My decision to abandon my appeal rather than have even more costs awarded to Garde was thereby proven to be a correct decision.