FORM 1 Regulation 5

FORM 1
Regulation 5
1. The Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim/Appellant, Harold James Johnson, gives notice that -
in the cases of:
(a) Harold James Johnson v Pippin Patricia Cressy & Ors, Victorian Supreme
Court Proceedings No. 3731 of 2009;
(b) Trust Company Fiduciary Services Ltd v Harold James Johnson; Harold
James Johnson v Pippin Patricia Cressy & Ors, Supreme Court of Victoria
Proceedings No. 9263 of 2008; and
(c) Harold James Johnson v Trust Company Fiduciary Services Limited & Ors,
Supreme Court of Victoria Proceedings No. 3766 of 2009
questions of law arise that relate to the application of the Charter of Human Rights and
Responsiblities;
2. (a) The questions of law that relate to the application of the Charter of Human Rights and
Responsibilities ('Charter') are as follows:
(i) If a Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria compels a Defendant to prove his
sanity, especially in circumstances where the Defendant is a middle-aged, middle-
class, tertiary educated and natural born citizen of Victoria who happens to be a
barrister and solicitor of that Honourable Court of 18 plus years continuous good
standing, and where the Judge does so at the unlawful urgence of the Plaintiff's
Counsel and before the Judge will allow the Defendant the right (sic) to defend
himself against the Plaintiff's claims against him, are those actions of that Judge
of the Supreme Court a violation by the Judge of his human rights responsiblities
towards the Defendant under the Charter (including without limitation section 24,
section 8 and section 20 thereof) and/or a violation by the Judge of Any Other
Page 1
Laws?
(ii) If a Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria compels a Defendant to stand trial in
civil proceedings circumstances where proper pre-trial procedures have not been
observed due to the wilful misconduct of the Plaintiff's solicitors and counsel, are
those actions of that Judge of the Supreme Court a violation by the Judge of his
human rights responsiblities towards the Defendant under the Charter (including
without limitation section 24, section 8 and section 20 thereof) and/or a violation
by the Judge of Any Other Laws?
(iii) If a Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria compels a Defendant to continue to
stand trial in civil proceedings in circumstances where the Defendant has been
surprised by an early trial date obtained by the wilful misconduct of the Plaintiff's
solicitors and counsel, and is not trial ready (and indeed has not even at that date
secured independent legal representation) are those actions of that Judge of the
Supreme Court a violation by the Judge of his human rights responsiblities
Laws?
(iv) If a Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria compels a Defendant to continue to
stand trial in civil proceedings in circumstances where the Defendant is
demonstrably suffering from severe physical pain and sleep depravation requiring
hospitalisationl, are those actions of that Judge of the Supreme Court a violation
by the Judge of his human rights responsiblities towards the Defendant under the
Charter (including without limitation section 24, section 8 and section 20 thereof)
and/or a violation by the Judge of Any Other Laws?
(v) If a Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria shuts his eyes to gross defects of
process (for which the Judge is directly responsible), refuses to apply
longstanding laws set down by unanimous judgements of the High Court of
Australia, shuts his eyes to his own findings of perjury, contempt, burglary and
concealment of evidence by the Plaintiff, shuts his eyes to the independent
evidence of independent eye witnesses, statutory and contractual records, and
makes findings (contrary to due process, contrary to due laws, contrary to the
independent evidence, and contrary to that Judge's own findings as to credibility
of the Plaintiff), are those actions of that Judge of the Supreme Court a violation
by the Judge of his human rights responsiblities towards the Defendant under the
Page 2
(vi) In performing tasks and functions in connection with the administration of justice in
the State of Victoria, such as hearing interlocutory relief applications, such as
making orders for directions and such as ruling that a case should proceed to trial,
to what extent (if at all) is a Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria lawfully
obliged under the Charter (including without limitation section 24, section 8 and
section 20 thereof) or under Any Other Laws to recognise, to respect, to foster
and/or to protect the human rights of a Defendant recognised by Part 2 of the
Charter?
(vii) If a Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria fails to follow the due processes of His
Court and aggravates that failure by granting a Plaintiff in civil proceedings
substantial interlocutory orders and relief, substantially depriving a Defendant of
his property rights and causing substantial economic hardship to the Defendant,
in the process, in circumstances where the Plaintiff admits before that Judge that
the Plaintiff lacks the ability to meet any orders for costs or compensation if at the
subsequent trial the Court rules that the Plaintiff had no right to obtaii those orders
or relief, are those actions of that Judge of the Supreme Court a violation by the
Judge of his human rights responsiblities towards the Defendant under the
(viii) Where there are strong grounds to suggest 'apprehended bias', or even actual
bias or prejudice of a case by a Judge of the Supreme Court whether by reason of
past conduct of that Judge complained of in earlier proceedings, or by reason of
an admitted long-term friendship between that Judge and the Plaintiff's counsel
(of the kind that the Plaintiff's Counsel and another Judge previously agreed was
sufficient to require that Judge to disqualify himself), but the Judge refuses to step
down from taking any further part in those proceedings and insists on continuing
to preside over those proceedings, are those actions of that Judge of the
Laws?
(ix) In performing her functions pursuant to the Legal Practice Act, to what extent (if
at all) is the Legal Services Commissioner (being a statutory authority created
under the Legal Practice Act 2004) lawfully obliged under the Charter (including
without limitation section 24, section 8 and section 20 thereof) or under Any Other
Laws to recognise, to respect, to foster and/or to protect the human rights of the
Page 3
Defendant recognised by Part 2 of the Charter?
(x) In unlawfully refusing to perform her statutory duties to investigate and promptly
resolve a misconduct complaint made against an Australian legal practitioner by
the Defendant (himself an Australian legal practitioner), to what extent are those
actions of the Legal Servicese Commissioner a violation by the Legal Services
Commissioner of her human rights responsiblities towards the Defendant under
the Charter (including without limitation section 24, section 8 and section 20
thereof) and/or a violation by the Legal Services Commissioner of Any Other
Laws?
(xi) In taking unlawful reprisal actions against the Defendant (including acting
unlawfully under the Whistleblowers Protection Act by making vexatious and
abusive costs applications and by conducting vexatious and abusive
investigations of the Defendant's mental health), to what extent are those actions
of the Legal Servicese Commissioner a violation by the Legal Services
Commissioner of her human rights responsiblities towards the Defendant under
the Charter (including without limitation section 24, section 8 and section 20
thereof) and/or a violation by the Legal Services Commissioner of Any Other
Laws?
(xii) In performing its functions pursuant to the Legal Practice Act, to what extent (if at
all) is the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee (being a statutory authority
created under the Legal Practice Act 2004) lawfully obliged under the Charter
(including without limitation section 24, section 8 and section 20 thereof) or under
Any Other Laws to recognise, to respect, to foster and/or to protect the human
rights of the Defendant recognised by Part 2 of the Charter?
(xiii) In supporting six of the Defendants by counterclaim (each of them being
Australian legal practitioners insured by the Legal Practitioners Liablity
Commmittee under its statutory monopoly in this State) by providing each of them
with independent legal representation by way of a city law firm and a city barrister,
in order to resist the claims brought by the Defendant against them in these civil
proceedings, in circumstances where, if proven, the misconduct of those
defendant Australian legal professionals constitutes serious professional, civil and
criminal misconduct, to what extent are those actions of the Legal Practitioners
Liability Committee a violation by the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee of its
without limitation section 24, section 8 and section 20 thereof) and/or a violation
by the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee of Any Other Laws?
Page 4
(xiv) In performing its functions pursuant to the Legal Practice Act, to what extent (if at
all) is the Legal Services Board (being a statutory authority created under the
Legal Practice Act 2004) lawfully obliged under the Charter (including without
limitation section 24, section 8 and section 20 thereof) or under Any Other Laws to
recognise, to respect, to foster and/or to protect the human rights of the
(xv) In refusing to hear and refusing to action (whether by reporting the same to the
Attorney-General or otherwise) a report made by an Australian legal practitioner
(namely the Defendant) of gross misconduct by the Chief Executive of the Legal
Services Board (nambely the Legal Services Commissioner) and apprehension of
unlawful reprisal actions by the Chief Executive of the Legal Services Board
against him (being a well-founded apprehension as subsequent developments
demonstrated), to what extent are those actions of the Legal Practitioners Liability
Committee a violation by the Legal Services Board of its human rights
responsiblities towards the Defendant under the Charter (including without
limitation section 24, section 8 and section 20 thereof) and/or a violation by the
Legal Services Board of Any Other Laws?
(xvi) In performing its functions pursuant to the Legal Aid Act, to what extent (if at all)
is Victoria Legal Aid (being a statutory authority created under the Legal Aid Act
1978) lawfully obliged under the Charter (including without limitation section 24,
section 8 and section 20 thereof) or under Any Other Laws to recognise, to
respect, to foster and/or to protect the human rights of the Defendant recognised
by Part 2 of the Charter?
(xvii) In refusing to grant the Defendant legal aid funding in order that the Defendant
may be represented in these legal proceedings by an independent city law firm
and an independent city (or, for reasons of apparent if not actual bias and
prejudice) interstate or UK) barrister, to what extent are those actions of Victoria
Legal Aid a violation by Victoria Legal Aid of its human rights responsiblities
section 8 and section 20 thereof) and/or a violation by Victoria Legal Aid of Any
Other Laws, in the circumstances where the Government (via its organ of
government, the Legal Practitioners Liablity Committee) is supporting six of the
Defendants by counterclaim (each of them being Australian legal practitioners
insured by the Legal Practitioners Liablity Commmittee under its statutory
monopoly in this State) by providing each of them with independent legal
representation by way of a city law firm and a city barrister, in order to resist the
Page 5
claims brought by the Defendant against them in these civil proceedings, in
circumstances where, if proven, the misconduct of those defendant Australian
legal professionals constitutes serious professional, civil and criminal misconduct?
(xviii) In performing, in the State of Victoria and/or in connection with persons ordinarily
resident in the State of Victoria, his functions pursuant to federal laws, including
the Family Law Act and the Federal Magistrates Court Act, to what extent (if at all)
is a Federal Magistrate lawfully obliged under the Charter (including without
limitation section 24, section 8 and section 20 thereof) or under Any Other Laws to
recognise, to respect, to foster and/or to protect the human rights of the
(xix) To what extent, if any, in performing, in the State of Victoria and/or in connection
with persons ordinarily resident in the State of Victoria, his functions pursuant to
federal laws, including the Family Law Act and the Federal Magistrates Court Act,
to what extent (if at all) is a Federal Magistrate prohibited under the Charter
Any Other Laws from making orders in circumstances where the Federal
Magistrate has created an apprehension of bias and/or manifested actual bias in
favour of one party to the dispute (and that party's legal representatives) and
created an apprehension of bias and/or manifested actual bias againstanother
party to those proceedings.
(xx) To what extent, if any, in performing, in the State of Victoria and/or in connection
with persons ordinarily resident in the State of Victoria, his functions pursuant to
federal laws, including the Family Law Act and the Federal Magistrates Court Act,
to what extent (if at all) is a Federal Magistrate prohibited under the Charter
Any Other Laws from making orders that are a contempt of the Federal and
Victorian Parliaments and a contempt and attempt to pervert the course of justice
in proceedings in his own (federal magistrates) court and an attempt to pervert the
course of justice in proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court?
(xxi) To what extent (if at all) are members of the legal profession in Victoria
(specifically, solicitors, barristers and judges) lawfully obliged under the Charter
Any Other Laws to recognise, to respect, to foster and/or to protect the human
rights of the Defendant recognised by Part 2 of the Charter, whether by virtue of
their being admitted and enrolled as officers of the Supreme Court of Victoria, or
by virtue of their oaths of admission to such offices, or otherwise?
Page 6
(xxii) To what extent, if any, in performing, in the State of Victoria and/or in connection
with persons ordinarily resident in the State of Victoria, his or her functions as an
Australian legal practitioner, to what extent (if at all) is an Australian legal
practitioner prohibited under the Charter (including without limitation section 24,
section 8 and section 20 thereof) or under Any Other Laws from abusing his or
per position as an Australian legal practitioner making orders that are a contempt
of the Federal and Victorian Parliaments and a contempt and attempt to pervert
the course of justice in proceedings in his own (federal magistrates) court and an
attempt to pervert the course of justice in proceedings in the Victorian Supreme
Court?
(xxiii) In 2005 the Australian legal profession (via the six highest ranking legal
professionals in Australia – in the near unanimous Full High Court decision in
Victoria Legal Aid v D'orta-Edenke [Justice Kirby dissenting on constitutional
and moral and logical grounds, not to mention plain common sense] contrary to
legal and human rights developments in every other Englsh common law country,
voted the Australian legal profession a continuing and expanded common law
licence to commit professional negligence in the Court room with impunity and
extended that licence to 'licence to ccover negligence committed by solicitors and
barristers in preparation for litigation (a blanket immunity for litigation barristers
and solicitors. To what extent, if any, by virtue of the Charter or by virtue of Any
Other Law has the Parliament of Victoria or the Federal Parliament of Australia
cancelled that common law licence for Australian legal professionals to commit
negligence against other Australian's without fear of being held legally accountable
for their wrong doing?
(xxiv) Did the scope of the common law licence given by the Australian legal profession
only to members of its profession in the 'D'orta-Edenke decision ever extend to
include licences to commit contempts of the State and Federal Parliaments and
Courts of this land, licences to commit malicious defamation (even of fellow
Australian legal professionals), and to engage in champetery, fraud, maintenance
and more extreme forms of extortion and blackmail (even against fellow Australian
legal professionals) and, if so, to what extent, if any, by virtue of the Charter or by
virtue of Any Other Laws has the Parliament of Victoria or the Federal Parliament
of Australia cancelled that common law licence for Australian legal professionals to
commit negligence against other Australian's without fear of being held legally
accountable for their wrong doing?
(xxv) To what extent if any, have the absolute or qualified privileges of members of the
Page 7
Australian legal profession (such as the privilege to lie, defame and fraud from the
bar table) been abolished or qualified by virtue of the Charter or by virtue of Any
Other Laws?
(xxvi) To what extent if any, have the absolute or qualified privileges of parties to
proceedings and/or other witnessess in civil proceedings (such as the privilege to
lie, defame and fraud from the witness box) been abolished or qualified by virtue of
the Charter or by virtue of Any Other Laws?
(xxvii) Where a Judge of the Supreme Court finds, during the course of civil proceedings,
that a barrister has lied to him from the bar table (by falsely accusing a fellow
Australian legal professional of committing burglary and theft in circumstances
where the lying barrister produced no evidence to support the false allegation and
the fellow Australian legal professional produce all evidence necessary to
demonstrate that the claim was entirely false), and the Judge fails to investigate
and punish that barrister under applicable contempt laws and applicable
professional misconduct laws, to what extent are those in-actions of that Judge of
the Supreme Court a violation by the Judge of his human rights responsiblities
Laws?
(xviii) Where a Judge of the Supreme Court finds, during the course of civil proceedings,
that a Plaintiff has lied to him from the witness box (by falsely accusing the
Defendant of committing burglary and theft in circumstances where the lying
Plaintiff produced no evidence to support the false allegation and the Defendant
produces all evidence necessary to demonstrate that the claim was entirely false,
and the Judge finds that the Plaintiff committed other perjuries and crimes of
dishonesty, including aggrevated burglary to steal and conceal evidence from the
Court, and the Judge fails to investigate and punish the Plaintiff under applicable
contempt and perjury laws, to what extent are those in-actions of that Judge of the
Laws?
(xxix) Are human rights limited to humans or do non-human life forms and/or artificial
and fictitious legal entities (such as proprietary companies such as the Third
Respondent Harwood Andrews Pty Ltd) also possess human rights under the
Charter or under Any Other Laws?
Page 8
(xxx) Before a person can protest their human rights and claim any rights or protection
under the Charter or under Any Other Laws is it necessary for that human to
demonstrate that he has not violated any human rights of any other persons
(whether human or otherwise and whether parties to the proceedings or
otherwise)?
(xxxi) Is it a violation of the human rights responsiblities under the Charter or under Any
Other Law by an Australian legal practitioner, including a member of the ethics
committee of the Victorian Bar, to assert from the bar table (without any evidence
to substantiate these wild allegations) that a person, namely the Defendant, is not
entitled to complain about his human rights being violated (including without
limitation, where the Judge fails to investigate and punish the lying barrister under
laws relating to professonal misconduct and under perjury laws, to what extent are
those in-actions of that Judge of the Supreme Court a violation by the Judge of his
without limitation section 24, section 8 and section 20 thereof) and/or a violation by
the Judge of Any Other Laws?
(xxxii) Is it a violation of the human rights responsibilities under the Charter or under Any
Other Law owed by a Judge of the Victorian Supreme Court to a person, namely
the Defendant, if that Judge holds the Defendant guilty of violating the human
rights of defendant's by counterclaim (including a non-human, incorporated entity)
without requiring the Counsel for those defendants by counterclaim to substantiate
those wild allegations by supplying evidence (a) that they enjoy human rights (in
the case of the non-human, incorporated entity); and (b) that any of their human
rights as described in the Charter have in any way been violated by the Defendant.
3. (a) The facts showing these matters are ones to which questions of law arise that relate to
the application of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities may be summarised
as follows:
(i) As at the start of April 2007 I was a very happy and successful professional man
and father. I was a dedicated, hardworking and accomplised solicitor of 18 years
good standing earning in excess of $50,000 per month in fees. I was a dedicated
and very good non-live with father to my three children from my marriage (which
ended during 1996 – 1998, but has never been formally annuled). I was also a
dedicated and very good non-live with father to my fourth child, my alleged love
Page 9
child from a 1999 romantic relationship with Ms Pippin Patricia Cressy, the original
plaintiff to all of these numbered bits of legal proceedings ('Ms 1999'). I was
paying substantial child support for my three children - $2200 per month, and
spending quality time with them every second weekend and for one week or more
every school holidays. Child support for my alleged love child consisted of
providing Ms 1999 with a house for her and all three of her children (each born to
different men) to live in, rent-free, plus $600 per week plus paying various utility
bills and education expenses (for Ms 1999 and for her three children). For some
eight years I had been spending quality non-live with father time with all three of
Ms 1999s children, to the point where it was a great shock (and caused obvious
psychological damage) when Ms 1999 told her second youngest child in about
August 2007 that I was not in fact his biological dad. Back in early April 2007, I
had broken off my relationship of three years with my previous girlfriend (Elizabeth,
or 'Lise') and was happy living in my 23rd floor city penthouse, enjoying my work,
enjoying my new scuba-diving hobby and enjoying the start of a new relationship
with my girlfriend of a few months (Stella). After several years of working 80 - 100
hours per week I was looking forward to implementing my early retirement plan
that I had worked so hard for, that is, restructuring my property portfolio so that I
was mortgage and debt-free, and slipping into a 3 day working week, to give me
more time for my children, my relationship with Stella and my new hobbies. All of
these facts were amply demonstrated by the independent evidence (including
testimony of independent eye witnesses) during the Trial in December 2008, and
were of course all of that independent and documented evidence was
corroborated by my own testimony during the Trial.
(ii) But in mid-2007 that all changed. Ms 1999 turned up on my doorstep shortly after
Easter and propositioned me. Ms 1999 wanted me to move in with her, as a
couple. I was horrified by this turn of events. I told her 'I'll think about it', just to
buy some time to work out what to do. Ms 1999 had a history of all sorts of erratic
and violent behaviour and I could see that while she had made a good job of
hiding some of her more recent behaviour from me, another round of violence and
abuse was about to explode.
(iii) In early May 2007 Ms 1999 found perhaps the only family lawyers in the State who
would be willing to listen to and act upon her wild and unsubstantiated claims.
Harwood Andrews Lawyers accepted Ms 1999 as a client (notwithstanding their
multi-million dollar 8 year association with me). Harwood Andrews Lawyers would
go on to clock up in excess of $100,000 of legal work for Ms 1999, all but the first
Page 10
(?) $3,000 of this being done on credit [an example of the crime of champtery and
maintenance, as it remains a crime in almost every State of Australia except, for
the last 20 years, the State of Victoria when it was decriminalised erroneously
thinking that this would usher in a period of lawyer funded legal aid to fill the
vaccuous yawning deficit of government funded legal aid even at the risk of
encouraging lawyer-fraudsters and lawyer-blackmailers like Harwood Andrews
Lawyers example in this case.] Harwood Andrews Lawyers registered caveats
against all six of my (then) properties, claiming that Ms 1999 had contributed
monies to my acquisition, holding and improvement of the properties. [All of these
were subsequently found by a Judge to be lies – obviously, because neither
Harwood Andrews Lawyers nor their successors Berry Family Law never bothered
to seek, collect or produce any evidence to support these claims.] Harwood
Andrews also took a charge from Ms 1999, a fraudulent charge over one of my
properties and registered a caveat of their own, to fraudulently secure their attempt
to extort their legal fees out of me.
(iv) During May and June I sought to have Ms 1999 withdraw her fraudulent and heavy
handed claims against me. I tried to explain to Ms 1999 that her conduct, and her
lawyers, would only succeed in ruining me finanancially. She would be left
homeless because I wouldn't be able to provide her with a house to live in. She
would be left without child support monies (neither of the fathers of her two other
children had ever paid child support), and whatever she and her lawyers didn't ruin
would end up in my banks pockets or in her lawyers' pockets. But common sense
failed to prevail. Ms 1999 did restore our co-parenting arrangement of the past 8
or so years – at least while and when it suited her. I asked Ms 1999 'how much'
she wanted to call off her lawyers and caveats. As she didn't have any idea what I
was worth, what I could afford to pay, she couldn't tell me what the ransom figure
was. Eventually she said she wanted two properties (worth $750,000 and
$250,000, respectively), totally mortgage free. That was about 100% of the net
value of my property portfolio at that date.
(v) During July and August 2007 I witnessed further explosions of Ms 1999's erratic
behaviour. Ms 1999 had a long history of making violent threats against me,
against her children and against herself. These included death threats, threats to
put me up on false rape charges. In early September 2007 Ms 1999 broke our
fragile co-parenting agreement [I was still providinng her with a house and
substantial cash child support at this time]. Ms 1999 disappeared with her
children. The childrens' teachers were becoming concerned because Ms 1999
Page 11
had stopped taking them to school. In September 2007 I applied via the Federal
Magistrates Court (family law jurisidiction) for a formal 50/50 custodyof the three
children, and interim orders that Ms 1999 and the children return to the house that
I had made available for them and that Ms 1999 resume their schooling. I hoped
that these proceedings, which I commenced reluctantly out of fear for the safety of
the children, might result in relevant government agencies (such as child
protection agency and the mental health service) becoming involved and giving
much needed support to Ms 1999 and her children – as Ms 1999's behaviour and
its flow-on effects on her children were by then well and truly beyond my abilities to
sensibly manage on my own.
(vi) In late September 2007 (AFL Grand Final day) Ms 1999 committed a serious
battery and assault of her three children, especially my alleged daughter, and
caused substantiial property damage. This resulted in Ms 1999 being hauled away
by the local Police (to whom she was by this stage well known) and taken to a
local psychiatric hospital for assessment. Due to limited resources, neither the
Hospital nor the Department of Human Services (Child Support Agency)
conducted a proper examination. None of the witnesses to the tirade were
consulted. I was not contacted, nor did I find out about her attack on the children
until, severly traumatised, the children told me what happened about a week later.
Ms 1999 was allowed by the 'responsible' government agencies to get away with
this serious physical and psychological harming of her children (and hide the fact
that this was normal home life for her children) on the pretext that the outburst was
all my fault for making the custody application and seeking the family law court
interim orders that she had consented to (without adjudication) a few days prior to
that outburst. After the children told me what happened, I met Ms 1999's elderly
neigbour (a retired general and psychiatric nurse) who had rendered assistance to
the children at the height of the outburst (and indeed had been keeping an eye on
the children and the families equally neglected and starved pets) morning and
night for the previous year or so. That neighbour, a Ms Deak-Fabrikant, provided a
short, sworn witness statement of Ms 1999's frightful assault on her own children
and the history of neglect and abuse in which it took place.
(vii) In mid-November 2007 Ms 1999 committed an aggravated burglary of my home
[as the Trial Judge found proven in February 2009] and stole approximately 5
archive boxes of my financial records (tax returns going back to 1995, credit card
statements), my 2 mobile phones (containing photographic evidence detrimental to
her property claims and favourable to my joint custody claims), sensitive working
Page 12
papers (including Governmental papers and reports I was working on), about 60
items of unopenned mail. 2 weeks later, on my insistence, the Police executed a
search warrant against Ms 1999 and recovered about 70% of these stolen items,
which Ms 1999 had hidden under her bed. Harwood Andrews Lawyers coached
Ms 1999 to (falsely, as the Trial Judge found in February 2009] claim that my home
was joint 'de facto matrimonial property', and my stolen possessions were also
'joint de facto matrimonial property' and on that basis, she claimed she had every
right to break into my home and steal my stuff. Harwood Andrews Lawyers then
interfered in the police investigation [keen, I guess that their client Ms 1999 not be
charged with a crime attracting a maximum penalty of up to 25 years
imprisonment]. Harwood Andrews Lawyers abused the processes of the Family
Law Act and family law courts by subpoenaing the cops to deliver the stolen loot
into the family law court (strictly, the Federal Magistrates Court) as evidence in the
custody application, despite none of the evidence having any relevance to those
proceedings nor, even any slight relevance to Ms 1999's property claims in the
Supreme Court. These latter two facts (lack of relevance) are proven by the failure
of Ms 1999's lawyers to refer to or produce even one bit of the stolen, subpoenaed
loot. But, Harwood Andrews Lawyers, having tricked the police, having subverted
the course of a police investigation, by misleading the police into thinking that Ms
1999 was lawfully in my home, lawfully removing my possessions [query, that
discovery by aggravated burglary is a legitimate means of obtaining [?] evidence in
civil trials in this State], Harwood Andrews Lawyers succeeded in having the police
fail to prosecute Ms 1999 for her crimes. Indeed, despite finding that Ms 1999 lied
to him in the witness box, had lied to the police, and had lied to Judges in previous
(pre-trial hearings) and that this would 'cost her dearly', rather than punishing Ms
1999 for the original or these further crimes (perjury, evidence-related offences
etc), rather than giving her anything like the 25 years maximum jail time she was in
line for (and some period of institutionalisation would provide a desirable
opportuniity for her psychiatric needs to receive the attention they need),
somewhat poetically the Trial Judge in Febraury 2009 ordered Ms 1999 to pay me
$25 in compensation for taking my stuff [that's $1.00 per year of the maximum jail
term she was eligible for] – oh and not to be outdone, the Trial Judge refused to let
me make submissions as to the hundred thousand dollars plus genuine loss and
damages that Ms 1999 had caused me by this crime alone.
(viii) On 17 December 2007 the eighth defendant by counterclaim (Dr David List)
published his inappropriately so-called 'family report.' This report records that Ms
Page 13
1999 had no problems with a 50:50 custody arrangement with me for my alleged
daughter 'eventually'. It also records that the child herself wanted a 50:50 custody
arrangement 'that's equal'. It doesn't (but should) record that as the alleged father
of the child, I was seeking only what the child wanted and her mother was
agreeable for – a 50:50 custody arrangement. So where's the problem? The only
issue was whether Ms 1999's two older children, especially the younger of her two
sons, who had inaccurately been raised by his mother 'from birth (5 months of
age)' to believe that I was his biological father, should be the subject of the same
50:50 arrangement. But instead of sticking to the issues relevant to his
appointment by the Court, Dr List used his appointment to engage in a self-
pleasuring vendetta against me. He decided that the little girl's use of the word
'equal' was evidence that I had manipulated her to say this against her true
wishes. He breached the confidentiality upon which I gave him information about
Ms 1999's troubled past, and the recent recurrence of her behavours in the
present. He trivialised and dismissed Ms 1999's admissions of domestic violence
towards her own children on the September 2007 AFL Grand Final day incident.
He also ignored the little girls' statement to him that she gets 'hurt 40 times a day
for no reason' when she is in her mother's home – and in doing so committed
crimes under this States mandatory reporting of child violence laws. He also takes
the little girls expression of her wish to be home-schooled by me [as she has
witnessed her primary school aged aunt [5 years her senior] being home-schooled
by her maternal grandmother] not as indicative of her confidence and trust in the
love and protection of her 'dad', but construes this as suggesting I am some sort of
child-abusing freak, when only a complete embicile would think that a $3,000 a
day commercial lawyer with my level of financial responsiblities (funding 3
households, including 6 non-live with children by two different women) would
consider for a moment taking one of those 6 children out of regular schooling and
foregoing $15,000 a week in income to homeschool her. Worse than accusing me
of triangulation and manipulation of my alleged daughter, Dr List shuts his eyes to
the manifest manipulation of all three children by their mother (there is nothing
normal or healthy about a 9 year old boy and a 12 year old boy jumping all over
the biological father of the elder of the two, like a pair of preschoolers, in their
severly arrested development clambering for the man's attention – as an
intelligent, caring non-live with dad who has many times been in that situation with
those two boys, not to mention their half-sister and their primary school aged aunt,
Page 14
I can vouch even without formal education in child psychology that it is grossly
disturbing.] Dr List even self-incriminates by recording in his report a session
where he and Ms 1999 and the biological father of Ms 1999's eldest child run me
down in front of all three children in a 'triangulating' hate session which is
manifestly a contravention of the court orders then extant. Worse, when Ms 1999
confesses all manner of past psychiatric and criminal abuse problems (admits the
September 2007 domestic violence towards her children, admitsher November
2007 aggravated burglary of my home and attempted theft and removal of
evidence, admits her early days of prostition) Ms 1999 retaliates by falsely
accusing me of being a drunken, violent, drug taking incestuous pedophile who
was kicked out of home as a teenager for raping his unborn neice – all of the usual
false allegations that are thrown at men in the context of a family court case,
where the woman just wants to maximise her child support entitlements for the
next decade and a half whilst excluding her children from all relationship with their
father. Dr List doesn't think anything odd about these dramatic accusations (they
sit pretty wierdly with Ms 1999 saying a few weeks earlier she had 'no problems'
with a 50:50 custody arrangement for her daughter 'eventually'. Nor does Dr List
think it is necessary to put Ms 1999's allegations to me for a response. Dr List
thinks that these allegations 'could be true'. A power drunk mental case in his own
right, Dr List concludes that the little girl is at risk whilst in my care, whilst shutting
his eyes to and even conspiring in his report to cover up the admitted [by her
mother] risk to the little girl [hurt '40 times a day for no reason'] whilst in her
mother's home. On 2 December 2008, before the Trial Judge, Dr List further
conspires with Ms 1999's barrister in an unlawful application to the Trial Judge to
have me ruled mentally unfit to defend myself against Ms 1999s fraudulent claims
to my property. According to Dr List's testimony that day Ms 1999's false
accusations of pedophilia etc 'convey aspects of [me] that warrant investigation by
the Court'. Presumably my true accusations regarding Dr List, Dr List must readily
conceed, warrant at least equally investigation by the Court. Dr List also testified
that I ought not be allowed by the Trial Judge to defend myself against Ms 1999's
(and her lawyer's and Dr List's) allegations against me because even the mentally
illnesses Dr List falsely accused me of [and of which I have since been cleared of
many times] were such that my symptoms (and therefore, Dr List, my falsely
alleged incapacity to speak up in my own defence) might not even show up to the
Judge at all during the trial. Surely an absence of symptoms is more likely to be
Page 15
illustrative of an absence of the alleged mental illness, and not an illustration of a
greater depth of the alleged mental illness?
(ix) During November - December 2007 I received indications from Harwood Andrews
Lawyers that they were taking notice of (a) their (obvious) lack of evidence from
Ms 1999 to substantiate her claims; and (b) the rapidly accumulating independent
evidence (the September domestic violence towards her children; the October
witness statement from her neighbour; the November aggrevated burglary; the
December police report and the December (via List) admissions of all of the above
and other criminal and mentally ill behaviours Ms 1999 admitted). It seemed to me
that Harwood Andrews Lawyers were beginning to heed my warnings. They
induced Ms 1999 to remove her caveat claim against one of my properties.
Harwood Andrews Lawyers also removed their own caveat against my one
property that it attached to. Whilst Ms 1999's Harwood Andrews Lawyer (I had not
yet contacted my Harwood Andrews Lawyers of the previous 8 years – their
chairman and their senior partner – 'Richard' and 'Warwick' has I had known them
all this period) didn't communicate directly with me, and continued to ignore my
mounting correspondences to them. It seemed that they had begun to realise that
Ms 1999 was an out and out mentally ill liar and fraudster [as the evidence,
including her own written confessions, demonstrated at Trial in February 2009].
Alas, it turned out that Ms 1999's Harwood Andrews Lawyers had simply failed to
read my correspondence properly. I had written to them demonstrating that Ms
1999 had not contributed anything to my acquisition or maintenance or
improvement of one of my properties, my property at Caulfield East, because I had
115% or thereabouts funded it with bank debt (including $12,000 surplus of
borrowings over outgoings). It later transpired that Harwood Andrews Lawyers
had read my correspondence and extracts of my 2006 contract of purchase and
advised Ms 1999 that I was selling the property in late 2007 for a fair price (query,
not producing any net sale proceeds?). It later transpired that Harwood Andrews
Lawyers removed their caveat over my Altona property (where Ms 1999 and her
children were residing with members of her extended family at that point), through
more shere incompetence on their part. All this became apparent in March 2009
when Ms 1999's Harwood Andrews lawyer then unlawfully registered a
replacement caveat on my Altona property and accused me, several times, in
Court of lying to them about my dealings in my Caulfied East property (which, as a
Supreme Court Judge said on 12 March 2008, was none of their damned business
anyway what I did with my property). But with the caveat partly lifted in November
Page 16
2007 over my Caulfied property, I was able to effect a $2M borrowing, refinancing
that property and purchasing another (my seventh) and contracting to purchase off
the plan two more properties.
(x) In late November 2007, early December 2007 it became clear that my hopes that
Harwood Andrews Lawyers had acquired some ethics and intelligence and legal
skills (the latter two being notably absent for the entire period of my 8 year working
relationship with them prior to this scandal) were misplaced. I had filed notices at
the Titles Office seeking to have all of Ms 1999's caveats removed (save for her
caveat against my Altona property where she was in residence as factualised
above – simply because I did not want to be aggressive – I was just trying to
protect my assets and not wanting to look like I was threatening to throw her, or
her children, or her extended family, out on the street – like the Salvation Army had
done to her many years earlier. Rather than have these vexatious and scandalous
caveats lapse, Harwood Andrews Lawyers (or more accurately, Richard Ingelby of
the Victorian Bar on instructions from them) drew up a statement of claim
fraudulently asserting that Ms 1999 had lived with me (or vice versa) as my de
facto wife for some 9 years, had raised my children etc etc, and was entitled to half
of my stuff because of being a regular Mrs Brady and feeding her children lots of
takeaway food (that is, when she remembered to feed them at all). Her
neighbour's witness statement (dated October 2007), even without amplification
by her subsequent testimony at trial, alone should have been sufficient
independent evidence to demonstrate the fraudulent absurdity of those claims. I
wrote to Harwood Andrews Lawyers, pointing out that their Statement of Claim
was nothing more than a blackmail demand (the first time Ms 1999 had had her
blackmail demands of me recorded in writing) issued under a (misuse of) the seal
of the Supreme Court.
(xi) During December 2007 and January 2008, unable to keep up the mortgage
payments on all of my properties much longer, I entered into contracts for sale of 4
of them (to sell them in a strong property market before unpaid mortgage debt and
mortgagee sales procedures ate up the net equity in them -- as of course is what
Ms 1999 and her lawyers caused to happen). Harwood Andrews Lawyers
responded by seeking injunctions to restrain me from selling my properties and
seeking to get orders that Ms 1999 retain in rent free occupancy of my Altona
property (along with her three children, her mother and her two (infant) half-sisters
– her children's aunts).
(xii) In February 2008, I was somewhat disgusted by Ms 1999's blackmail and fraud
Page 17
(the blackmail part she had been carrying out for years but it never dawned on me
she would claim to be my de facto in the face of clear evidence proving the
contrary). I was also, even more so, disgusted by the gusto Harwood Andrews
Lawyers showed in taking over the fraud. While I could rationalise Ms 1999's fraud
as being driven by desperation and mental illness (as illustrated by her spirallingly
erratic behaviours of the previous six months). I didn't think Harwood Andrews
Lawyers could lay claim to equal measures of desperation and mental illness. I
had at that point received reports that Ms 1999's relationship with her Harwood
Andrews Lawyer, David William Hanlon might have been enjoying a different sort
of solicitor relationship with Ms 1999. Those reports of him being 'intimately
involved' with Ms 1999 fell short of anything I could use as evidence in a court of
law. But they did offer some explanation for his leave of his senses in champetring
and maintaining Ms 1999's claims contrary to the mounting independent evidence
(police reports, neighbour's witness statements, his own intereference in police
investigations, her confessions as recorded by Dr List even if the good doctor did
his best to trivialise them, breaking a few laws himself in the process). It occurred
to me that David William Hanlon's leave of his senses might be such a frolick (it
seeming so far removed from the normal proper conduct of a lawyer to issue
proceedings at the Titles Office let alone in the Supreme Court without gathering
any evidence on which to form a judgement that the proceedings were a
reasonable vindication of the client's rights rather than an abusive of process – the
lawyer becoming the unwitting dupe of a blackmailing fraudster. It occurred to me
that Harwood Andrews Pty Ltd, his employer might not be vicariously liable for
David William Hanlon's unlawful actions against me. Certainly, it was clear to me
that by this stage, what with interfering in police investigations of Ms 1999's
aggravated burglary, and possibly also her domestic violence towards her children
six weekends earlier, Harwood Andrews Lawyers would have clocked themselves
up about $100,000 in purported fees that, Ms 1999 having no means to pay them,
they would want to extort from me). I added to my three sentence defence a pair
of counterclaims against Ms 1999 (suing her for breach of our co-parenting / child
support arrangement that had been in place since mid-2003) and suing Harwood
Andrews Lawyers, including their bungling employee solicitor, David William
Hanlon, for registering the fraudulent caveats (that were causing me such severe
financial grief) and for interfering in the police investigation of Ms 1999's
aggravated burglary (their abusing of process subponea off the cops of the stolen
Page 18
loot into the custody court case). So in February 2008, days before what was to
be only the first of many vexatious and abusive applications in the Practice Court
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court [which is exactly what one of the presiding
judges called in, on 12 March 2008] I added to my three sentence defence, a set
of three holding counterclaims, against Ms 1999, against David William Hanlon
and against his employer (and by that time, my former external legal counsellors)
Harwood Andrews Pty Ltd.
(xii) On 12 March 2008, at that Practice Court hearing before Justice Wheelan, I met
Ms 1999's lawyers' lawyers (Ms Newcombe of city law firm Lander & Rogers, and
Ms Sofraniou of the Victorian Bar). I welcomed both ladies to the proceedings,
declaring that Harwood Andrews Lawyers and their instructed counsel, Richard
Ingeleby were nothing more than blackmailers and bushrangers. I welcomed both
ladies saying I was glad that Harwood Andrews would now have access to
competent legal advice [one of my former colleagues being at that time a partner
in the firm of Lander & Rogers] as competent legal advice was something that
Harwood Andrews Lawyers had demonstrated they were incapable of generating
internally.
(xiii) At some stage during late March or early April 2008, after some prodding from me,
I was informed that Berry Family Law, and its employee James Turnbull, had
stepped into Harwood Andrews Lawyers' shoes as Ms 1999's solicitors. I
welcomed Berry Family Law and James Turnbull to the matter – sending them a
substantial brief of materials, in anticipation that Harwood Andrews Lawyers lacked
the ability to give them an orderly handover of instructions on the file. I also made
a few more 'without prejudice' settlement offers, including an offer that was worth
in monetary terms about $300,000 (which is 3 times the amount that the Trial
Judge wrongly (as a matter of process, law, and fact, and even – ignoring those
three kinds of errors, was totally wrong as a matter of basic math) ordered on 25
February 2009 that I pay to Ms 1999 (appeal pending). Of course that $105,000 is
but a fraction of the costs (estimated at $400,000 plus) that the Trial Judge
ordered me to pay to Ms 1999's lawyers on a full-indemnity basis. It is also a
fraction (probably less than half) of the costs (somewhere around $250,000) that
the Trial Judge ordered me to pay to the Victorian Government (reimbursement to
the Legal Practitioners Liability EVASION fund) for Lander & Rogers and Ms
Sofraniou's playful and disgraceful efforts (not that much effort was required) to
wrongly cajole (reinforce the prejudices and desires of) an already determined Trial
Judge into throwing out my counterclaims against David William Hanlon and
Page 19
Harwood Andrews Lawyers without even hearing them first.
(xiv) During November 2007 and March 2008 I complain several times to the Law
Institute about the unprofessional misconduct of Harwood Andrews Lawyers and
David William Hanlon in particular in promoting Ms 1999's scandalous, fraudulent
claims against my assets, and asking the Law Institute to mediate between
Harwood Andrews Lawyers and myself. My requests of 'Richard' and 'Warwick'
(Chairman and Senior Partner/Acting Chairman) of Harwood Andrews to sit down
and discuss the situation – as opposed to discussing the possible merger of our
respective legal practices – fall on deaf ears. The Law Institute writes back to me
tellling me it doesn't get involved in problems between its members and informs
me that I should take up my complaint with the Legal Services Commissioner. I
duly write to the Legal Services Commissioner, forwarding the first, second and
fifth (not having time to write the third and the fourth) of my misconduct complaint
concerning Harwood Andrews Lawyers. The Legal Services Commissioner
responds with some staggeringly incompetent legal analysis (even by 7th grade
legal studies standards) informing me that the Legal Services Commissioners
powers, functions, duties (query, also its Government funding and resources)
under its 2004 Act of Parliament are clipped by an unreported 1993 decision of a
Supreme Court Judge which denies it (or denies Parliament the power to give it,
according to the clear words of the 2004 legislation) the power to investigate my
complaint. The Legal Services Commissioner (surely the most timid Government
regulatory body in the history of government regulatory bodies) tells me that I must
take up every aspect of every concern I have about Harwood Andrews and David
William Hanlon at the Trial, for the Trial Judge to investigate and discipline them.
The Legal Services Commissioner tells me that if I don't do this thoroughly enough
the Legal Services Commissioner will not have the power (viz, will find a ready
excuse again) not to investigate whatever findings the Trial Judge makes against
Harwood Andrews Lawyers and David William Hanlon at the Trial. During
December 2008 and February 2009, when I try repeatedly to carry out the Legal
Services Commissioner's instructions, the Trial Judge (rightly I believe) points out
that the Legal Services Commissioner has the resources, statutory powers and
duties to investigate my complaints against Harwood Andrews Lawyers and David
William Hanlon, and my complaints about Ms 1999's new lawyers (James Turnbull
of Berry Family Law and Graeme Devries of the Victorian Bar), the Trial Judge
berates me for wasting his time (trying to do what the Legal Services
Commissioner directed me to do – I'm told to follow the Trial Judge's directions not
Page 20
the Legal Services Commissioner's directions), the Trial Judge orders indemnity
costs against me for wasting his time (trying to do what the Legal Services
Commissioner directed me to do) and creates this myth that Ms 1999's lawyers
and her lawyers' lawyers subsequently jump upon, this myth that I extended and
wasted the Court's time, when in truth, being surprised with a 2 December 2008
trial date, being deprived of the opportunity to retain independent legal
representation, being deprived of the opportunity to secure a trial by judge and jury
(where the circumstances demonstrated I needed a jury as trier of fact as
protection against abuse from the bar and abuse from the bench), deprived of the
benefit of normal pre-trial procedures (like discovery of documents to be used by
the plaintiff at trial), even with being unlawfully deprived of the November 2008
version of my counterclaims against Ms Cressy, David William Hanlon and
Harwood Andrews Lawyers (being forced by the Trial Judge to proceed with my
amateurish and rushed February 2009 pleadings), I reduced the length of the trial
from my estimate of 3 to 4 weeks given in early 2008 to only 16 days (a lot more
than Ms 1999's lawyer's fraudulent estimate of 2 days) by calling less than a third
of my projected 3 dozen witnesses, (indeed less than a third of my witness
subpoenaes had time to be served before the 2 December 2008 false trial date)
clipping my cross-examination of Ms Cressy from 4 days to 1 day, clipping the
duration of my own evidence in chief to barely 2 days (rather than my 5 day
estimate) etc, etc. That 16 days duration was some achievement in minimalism
given my lack of prior experience as a litigator (let alone as an advocate, let alone
at wearing in what was quite literally a legal fight for my life, not one but all 4 hats
of client, witness, instructor and counsel). That 16 days duration was also quite an
achievement given my tortured ill-health (I should have been hospitalised, on
doctors advice from the second morning of the trial and was forced to endure the
first 4 days of the trial with excrutiating back pain and resulting chronic sleep
deprivation (zero, zero, zero and 4 hours sleep, respectively during the first four
days of the first week of the trial).
(xv) On 20 June 2008 Ms 1999's new lawyers (different solicitor, different barrister, but
same champetry and maintenance exploding out to in excess of $3000,000 by the
end of the Trial) engineer another abuse of process – a day and a half hearing in
the Practice Court before Justice Anthony Cavanough. Despite informing Ms
1999's new counsel, Mr Graeme Devries that he is in the wrong jurisdiction
(Practice Court being for urgent applications with hearings restricted to a maximum
of 2 hours), 4 ½ hours later Justice Cavanough issues the 'gagging and eviction'
Page 21
orders referred to in my November 2008 version of my counterclaims (filed as part
of the proceedings with numbering 9263 of 2008). Briefly, Ms 1999's lawyers filed
an affidavit dated 12 June 2008 by Ms Cressy, testifying she didn't have the money
to pay her lawyers for a trial. [Ergo, as I submitted, no ability to meet any required
security for costs if granted interlocutory relief – a de facto form of summary
judgement without a trial – and therefore ineligible for the relief sought.] Ms
1999's barrister, Graeme Devries, lied to Justice Cavanough several times. Firstly
he asserted that I was breaking the federal magistrate court orders that Ms Cressy
occupy my Altona property (her mother and two half-sisters had moved out at that
point and one of Ms 1999s many boyfriends had moved in). Firstly, I had sought
that order as an interim order. There was nothing in the order that Ms 1999, let
alone one of her boyfriends (or even her mother and extended family) be allowed
to live their indefinitely and rent free. Thirdly, the federal magistrate had no
powers (eg under the Family Law Act) to make that order – so it was ultra vires in
any event. Secondly, I had not sought to throw Ms 1999 out on the street. I had in
fact offfered to house her and her three children (and yes, even the live-with one of
her boyfriends) in another of my properties, on an attractive rental basis, so that I
could liquify and cut my financial haemoraging on my Altona property. Thirdly,
Graeme Devries abused his 'cloak of privilege' of the bar table to criminally defame
me. Graeme Devries maliciously alleged to Justice Cavanough that I was 'earning
a secret income as a prostitute'. Graeme Devries would later (despite all of the
evidence of the truth of my claims, suggest to the Trial Judge in December 2008
that I was lying because I couldn't possibly have been doing all the things
described in paragraph 3(a)(i) above. So I don't know how Graeme Devries could
sanely add things I was not doing – such as prostituting, to my genuinely busy
schedule. Nevertheless (it being reasonable speculation that Graeme Devries and
Justice Cavanough (an ex-member of the Victorian bar before being appointed ot
the Supreme Court bench) have been old acquaintances since university, if not
high school, if not primary school, if not kindergarten, without so much ado as
evidence or argument, Justice Cavanough ruled that I had stacks of assets and
stacks of income and was hiding them. Justice Cavanough shut his eyes to his
double lack of jurisdiction, shut his eyes to the absurd forthwith made orders
evicting me from my Point Cook property, giving Ms 1999 rights of occupancy of
the property, giving Ms 1999 and Ms 1999's lawyers power of sale of my property,
and gagging me from discussing any of this with my mortgagee of that Property
Page 22
(whom I had been at pains to keep fully informed, along with all of my mortgagees,
since the very onset of their frauds against me). Justice Cavanough then, it being
late after Court hours on a Friday afternoon, scheduled a second day hearing of
Ms 1999's scandalous, vexatious and abusive application for 14 July 2008. That
date was chosen, at Graeme Devries request, so as not clash with Ms 1999's
scheduled engagement to work at one of three Melbourne brothels (every
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of every week, as Graeme Devries sweetly
announced to the Court). At the second day continuation of that hearing Justice
Hansen confirmed and extended those orders of Justice Cavenough, as described
in my November 2008 version of my counterclaims (filed in the part of the
proceedings with numbering 9263 of 2008).
(xvi) At some time in August 2008 Ms 1999's lawyers had a private hearing with Master
Kings (as she then was) of the Supreme Court and Ms 1999's claim (the original
9665 of 2007 proceedings) were given a trial date of 2 December 2008 with an
estimate of 2 days. It transpires that Ms 1999's lawyers (the only party
represented at the hearing as nobody invited me or even told me the outcome until
several months later) failed to inform Master Kings that there had been no pre-trial
process, no orders for discovery etc etc. Further, Ms 1999's lawyers failed to
inform Ms 1999 that I had provided them with an early (March – April 2008)
estimate of 3 – 4 weeks, including some 3 dozen witnesses. Forced to Trial in
December 2008 (rather than 2009 or 2010) by Ms 1999's lawyers deceit, the Trial
Judge, naturally enough, blamed me for her lawyer's deceipt (according to the Trial
Judge, Ms 1999's lawyers were within their rights to pretend that I would not turn
up to defend myself against her fraudulent claims).
(xvii) In June 2008, my legal practice having been mortally wounded by Ms 1999's
aggravated burgalry in November 2007 and subsequent unlawful dispossession of
my stolen papers and equipment by David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrew's
unlawful subpoena of those documents from the Police before they could be
properly returned to me, I closed my legal practice. I had, in April 2008 as a stop
gap measure, incorporated part of my legal practice as Sutton Lawyers Pty Ltd
specially for the purposes of that incorporated legal practice representing me in
these proceedings. I was not aware at that time of the solicitor-litigant rules
entitling a self-represented solicitor from recovering costs as they 'follow the cause'
when scandalous vexatious litigation is dismissed by proper Court trial process.
During March 2008 to November 2008 I sought again assistance from the Law
Institute of Victoria. I had several discussions and a meeting with the then
Page 23
President of the Law Institute, Tony Burke. I also had several discussions with
prominent city law firms that fraudulently represent themselves to be 'champions of
the underdog' and to work on a 'no win no fee' basis. I also had discussions with
many family law solicitors (seeking lawyers who would act for me on commercial
terms matching the champetery and maintenance that Ms 1999 had enjoyed thus
far, mistakenly believing that as my assets were not just 100% my own but even in
the worst case – that Ms 1999 might steal [no pun intended] a wrongful judgement
[as Ms 1999's lawyers and the Trial Judge did subsequently engineer – that my
assets were in any case half mine, and I might hock them by caveat as colateral
for my legal costs. Sadly, uniform market practice for family lawyers is to extend
generous credit (with 25% uplift at the end) only to the female plaintiff's [the
'golden tickets' as these willy wonker family lawyers call them]. They do not
extend credit to the male victims [I am yet to be enlightened on the industry name
for the male defendant's – 'johhnies' or 'gutted turkeys' perhaps? I was repeatedly
told that Ms 1999 did not have a case (as I well knew) but it would cost me 'zillions'
to defend myself. I was often told I was being 'crucified'. I was sometimes told
'sometimes bad things happen but there's nothing you can do about it ... they're
not real lawyers anyway.' [Those last cheering words coming from the then
President of the Law Institute himself.] Often I was told to just pack up, close up
and file for bankruptcy, and kiss my credit history, my reputation, my practising
certificate and my $3,000 a day earnings ability goodbye. Regularly, I was (and
still am) 'laughed at' for 'having a fool for a client' (ie the old joke about being a
self-represented solicitor-litigant) despite it being obvious that I was representing
myself out of necessity (openly acknowledging that I did not have the requiste skill
set) and the joker being the person that I was asking to be my independent legal
representor.
(xviii) In March or April 2008, alarmed by the increasing physical abuse of Ms 1999's
youngest child (my alleged love child) from her 1 year older half-brother – including
beatings at home and at school and even death threats (in the presence of adults
including myself, who had witnessed this 9 year old nappy-wearing knife wielding
little boy's exploits) I issued in the federal magistrates court a contravention order
application. The problem was, this little boy believing all of his life up until about
August 2007 that I was his biological father, and more than happy for me to be his
daddy irrespective of biological considerations, he was increasingly frustrated that
his half-sister had contact time with me while, despite rather generous court orders
requiring his mother to let him spend tiime with me 'whenever he wished', his
Page 24
mother was contravening those orders. In May 2009 my contravention order
application was listed for hearing. I explained to the presiding Federal Judge (the
nineth defendant by counterclaim to my November 2008 counterclaim filed in the
part of the proceedings numbered 9263 of 2008) that Ms 1999's refusal to allow
her younger son contact time with me in accordance with the orders she had
consented to in late 2007 was having a detrimental psychological effect on her
son, and was putting her daughter (my alleged love child) under increased
beatings and even death threats from her half-brother. I informed the presiding
Federal Judge that my alleged love child's school principal was there to give
evidence of the increased beatings at school, and that Ms 1999's neighbour (who
was watching over the children morning and night, especially the latter when they
more often than not were playing in the streets after dark while their mother was
not home) was there to testify of the seriousness of the situation in Ms 1999's
home. The Federal Judge however, decided he would not hear my contravention
application. His reasons given were that the application was in the nature of a
criminal prosecution because if he found Ms 1999 guilty as charged [How, I ask
could he not] then he would have the powers to punish Ms 1999 including the
power to send her to jail. Because he had these powers, he ruled that he would
not hear my application. Instead he ordered me to pay Ms 1999's lawyers costs.
He also ordered the school principal and Ms 1999's neighbour into court. Told
them that he was not going to hear their evidence and, on being satisfied that he
could not order me to compensate them for their time, informed them they were
free to go [much to their evident fury with the system, as they expressed to me
after court.] Accordingly, since my alleged daughter's well-being and even her life
were in danger, in late May 2007 I said goodbye to her (without being too obvious
about it) and I have not seen or heard or had any contact with her since [on pain of
3 years imprisonment or $20,000 in fines if I dare to even try to make contact with
her.] On 8 September 2008, my third attempt to have this Federal Judge stand
down for reasons of demonstrated bias (not merely apprehended bias) I withdrew
my custody application and walked from his crooked and corrupt court. My
assertions as to hs corruption and bias were demonstrated as accurate when I
received, many weeks later, copies of orders made by the Federal Judge the
following day (query, how or why since I had withdrawn my application) purporting
to restrict me from using any of the materials from the family law court custody
application in my defence of Ms 1999's Supreme Court proceedings. These
Page 25
orders were clearly (as the Supreme Court Trial Judge seemed to agree and
indicate on 2 December 2008) a contempt of the Supreme Court. They were also
a contempt of the Federal parliament (since to the best of my knowledge and belief
a Federal Judge cannnot repeal section 121(9) of the Family Law Act, nor any
other section of that or any other Act of the Federal Parliament. My allegations of
manifest bias were vindicated by the fact that these orders, 99% drafted by Ms
1999's barrister Graeme Devries (who is therefore equally guilty of these
perversions and contempts of parliaments and courts) purported to restrain me (on
pain of imprisonment or fine) but did not purport any parallel restraints on Ms 1999
or their architect, Mr Graeme Devries.
(xix) In about November 2008, me being prevented by the 'Cavanough and Hansen
Gagging and Eviction Orders' of June and July 2008 from talking to my Point Cook
mortgagee, ANZ Bank, ANZ Bank seized and sold at auction the backyard to that
property (which was on a separate title). ANZ Bank didn't bother with any notices
or paperwork, They just hired a ciity law firm (Gadens Lawyers) and a local estate
agent and held an auction. I did not find out about this until February 2009 when I
received a knock on the door from the successful purchaser. Also unbeknownst to
me, since Ms 1999 and her three children and one of her boyfriends were living
rent free in my Point Cook house, courtesty of the 'Cavanough and Hansen
Gagging and Eviction Orders' ANZ Bank issued legal proceedings seeking to gain
possession of the house from me [sic]. In mid November 2008 the ANZ Statement
of Claim [initiating the part of the proceedings numbered 9263 of 2008] were
served on me. I didn't know how to respond, given that I would be in breach of the
'Cavanough and Hansen Gagging and Eviction Orders' if I contacted ANZ Bank
regarding their claim. In the end, I decided to respond with a Defence and a
Counterclaim, the latter being a November 2008 revision of my counterclaims
against Ms 1999, David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews. I quickly drew up
a 160 or so page Defence and Counterclaim (it being only a few days now until 2
December 2008), being penniless I lost a week in the process waiting for the
Supreme Court Prothonotary to meet me to waive the $400 or so Court filing fees.
I also filed an applciation (under proceedings number 9263 of 2008) for those
proceedings and Ms 1999's initiated proceedings (9665 of 2007) to be
consolidated [if that is the proper term] and including that pleadings in one
numbered part be treated as pleadings in the other numbered part. That
consolidation application numbered as 9263 of 2008 was listed for hearing on 1
December 2008, whilst the false trial date for Ms 1999'ss initial proceedings
Page 26
numbered as 9665 of 2007 was listed for the following day. I did not have time to
serve the consolidation application on the 13 parties (all of them including ANZ
Bank's relevant subsidiary, being defendants by counterclaim). I was also
concerned about the ongoing effect of the 'Cavanough and Hansen Gagging and
Eviction Orders' [as a dutiful and obedient officer of the Court of 18 years good
standing, not wanting to breach any Court orders, even in the slightest, most
technical way]. Obviously I did not have time to redraw and file the same revised
counterclaims under proceeding number 9665 of 2007. Stupid as that would have
been, I wish that I had done so. I thought best to leave it to the Trial Judge
(whoever that would be) on 2 December 2008 to sort out. I worked through that
night (my chronic back ache not materialising until the following afternoon) on a 21
page written submission, seeking for very solid reasons that the 2 December 2008
trial date be vacated, so that there could be normal pre-trial procedures first,
consolidation of hearings, and pleadings finalised etc...
(xx) 2 December 2008 arrived and the gross human rights abuses, denials of natural
justice (beginnning with Graeme Devries highly illegal and damningy prejudicial
insanity inquistion where I was ambushed to having to defend my sanity in order to
have the right to defend myself against Ms 1999's had her lawyers frauds. The
insanity, corruption and fraud of that day, which set the tone for all subequent days
presided over by the Trial Judge, is described in my current draft Notice of Appeal
attached to this section 35 Notice, so I don't need to repeat any of those facts and
events here.
(xxi) When Ms 1999 took the stand on 2 December 2008 I discovered that she (and her
children and the live-in one of her boyfriends) had vacated my Point Cook house.
During the Christmas break in the Trial (it not being possible to complete the trail
before Christmas because that would have interfered with Graeme Devries'
December holidays) I inspected the Point Cook house. As my January 19 2008
Afffidavit and the exhibits thereto illustrated, on my inspection I found an absolute
mess abandonned by Ms 1999 in the garage. This included three bags of my
property contracts that Ms 1999 had stolen (and lied to the Trial Judge and
previous judges, and to the police and to her lawyers in pretending that she had
returned them to me). It also included more of the stolen loot from Ms 1999's
November 2007 burglary. It also included Ms 1999's journal recording her earliest
days of prostitution (circa 1996 to late 2001 / early 2002 – clearly contradicting her
crazy claims to Dr List that I had forced her into prostitution when she had been
doing this from her mid-teens as her journals recorded, well before she met me).
Page 27
She also wrote in her Journal the extraordinary self-confession of a compulsive liar
and fraudster 'I am in truth a beautiful liar'. I tendered these in evidence in
February 2009 when the Trial resumed, and even read out to the Trial Judge many
of the more startling paragraphs she had written – including her self-confession to
being 'in truth a beautiful liar', but the Trial Judge of course made no mention of
this evidence in his later published judgements (for obvious, if sinister, reasons).
Also, as the Trial Judge directed me to do on 12 December 2008 I filed in early
February 2009 an outline of the evidence and witnesses I intended to call when
the Trial resumed on 9 February 2009. As it turned out, this latter was largely a
waste of time. Whilst all I was doing was trying to comply with the Trial Judge's
directions to me on 12 December 2008 to give this outline of evidence and
witnesses, the Trial Judge announced on 9 February 2009 that he had deliberately
refused to look at this material – perhaps because I provided the outlines in
affidavit form, mistakenly thinking that this was the most appropriate way to do it.
(xxii) On 11 February 2009 the Trial Judge, in an extraordinarily obvious display of gross
pre-judge-ice ruled that Harwood Andrews Lawyers and David William Hanlon, far
from being unethical, blackmailing, champeteringy promoters of Ms 1999's
malicious and fraudulent scheme had been nothing more than very dutiful and
proper solicitors in the best and most noblest traditions of the profession. In short,
the Trial Judge ruled that their actions were not in the least bit fraudulent or
motivated by ulteriour purpose. The obvious problem that he made this ruling
some 14 days before making his (blantantly errant) ruling that there was nothing
ulterior or scandalous or extortionate about Ms 1999's claims. The Trial Judge
was clearly seduced by Harwood Andrew's Legal Practioners Liability EVASION
Committee funded barrister, Ms Sofraniou's submission that I had not
counterclaimed against Harwood Andrews and David William Hanlon for any
legitimate purpose. I had not, according to Ms Sofraniou issued a legal claim
against them out of desperation to protect my property rights, my reputation, my
dignity, but did so out of bloody minded spite because I was (in a bizarrely
misrepresented, sand-pitted toddler fashion) upset because my friends (perversly,
passing Harwood Andrews Lawyers off as my friends!) had been mean to me for
taking on Ms 1999's case. I think, because the Trial Judge had refused to let me
proceed on the basis of my November 2008 revised counterclaim (filed under the
other proceeding number 9263 of 2008) Ms Sofraniou may have also fraudulently
suggested to the Trial Judge that I was claiming that David William Hanlon had
been an equally active perpetrator of the burglary on me on 16 November 2007
Page 28
(though I don't know how anyone with half a brain or even less could have made
that up even on the basis of my February 2008 version of my counterclaim). Ms
Sofraniou also cajoled the Trial Judge into ruling that artificial, non-human entities
have human rights under the laws of Victoria (query whether this is under the
Charter or under Any Other Applicable Laws) and that I am not entitled to assert or
seek the protection of my human rights (under the Charter) unless I first answer
fully to her unsubstantiated allegations from the 'cloak of privilege' of the bar table
that I have not violated any of the basic human rights of David William Hanlon or
Harwood Andrews Pty Ltd [sic]. Emboldenned by Ms Sofraniou's bizarre
submissions, the Trial Judge then went on to uphold her 'no case to answer'
application. In an equally bizarre twist, the Trial Judge held that I had in his eyes
(ears and heart) issued my counterclaim against David William Hanlon and
Harwood Andrews Lawyers for ulterior purposes [not vice versa regarding their
issue of Ms 1999's claims against me]. The proof of the former [but not the latter]
according to the Trial Judge was that I failed to produce at the trial before him any
evidence that Ms 1999's lawyers had failed to produce at the trial before him any
evidence to support Ms 1999's case. Woe that the Trial Judge did not have eyes
or ears or a heart of his own to see, hear and feel that, in his own words 'the
paucity of the [plaintiff's] evidence' demonstrated that David William Hanlon and
Harwood Andrews Lawyers had 'no answer to [the] case' that they had issued Ms
1999's claim against me, without gathering any evidence on which to give Ms 1999
advice or even to form an assessment as to the legitimacy of her claims or the
merits or prospects of her [caveat] claim being upheld in a Court of law. Further,
Harwood Andrews had closed their eyes to the independent evidence piling up on
their doorstep (police reports (September 2007) , neighbour's witness statement
(October 2007), police reports of her aggravated burglary (November and
December 2007), confessions and crazy wild allegations recorded by Dr List
(December 2007), had ignored warnings from a credible source (a lawyer of 18
years good standing, who had known both Ms 1999 and Harwood Andrews
Lawyers for some 8 years a piece – namely me). Worse, Harwood Andrews
Lawyers had fourthly enngaged in something of a vendetta against me – their
preliminary abusive application to the Practice Court (Justice Wheelan himself
telling them it was an abuse of process of the Practice Court), interference in the
police investigation of Ms 1999's aggravated burglary, malicious conduct in the
custody application (actively promoting Ms 1999's criminal defamation of me as
Page 29
reported by Dr List, and adding their own defamations such as accusing me of
forcing Ms 1999's children to sign pre-typed Dickensian documents demanding
contact time with me – these were in fact letters written in crayon by Ms 1999's
youngest boy, in class, pleading to his teacher that he be allowed to spend time
with me, who he knew and still regarded as his 'dad' even though Ms 1999 refused
to comply with the Court orders obliging her to actively facilitate him spending time
with me whenever he expressed the wish to do so. Of course, Harwood Andrews
Lawyers vendetta was mild as it turned out, by comparison to the criminal and
venal vendetta that their successors, Berry Family Law and instructed barrister
Graeme Devries would carry on against me as their successors.
(xxiv) On 13 February 2009 (a black Friday for some) I gave my closing submissions to
the Trial Judge. Unable to respond justly according to law to my submissions, and
despite (manically) singing my praises for my 'natural abilities as an advocate' the
Trial Judge resorts (depressantly) in his written judgement to patronisingly and
disparagingly pretending to try to record them in a meaningful way. Clearly, having
ruled that there was nothing ulteriour or inappropriate in Harwood Andrews
Lawyers promotion of her claim without any evidentiary foundation, contrary to the
evidence piling up on their doorstep, for full blooded champetery and
maintenancer, contrary to warnings from a credible source who was no stranger to
them (me) and even their demonstrated vendetta against me, and having issued
this ruling without bothering to rule on their client's case (firstly, and logically in
order) or even waiting to hear my closing submissions, the Trial Judge had painted
himself into a corner where he had no choice (his own reputation being put at
stake) but to ignore all of the procedural abuses he had allowed (including the
manifest prejudice caused by his illegal hearing of Mr Devries attempt without any
legal standing or proper basis to have the Trial Judge gag me from defending
myself (asking a middle aged, middle class, with Australian borrn solicitor of 18
years good standing if he could bring his mummy to court to speak as an adult on
his behalf in his defence – seriously what can anybody say to this except 'did that
really happen in an Australian Court, before a Supreme Court Judge on 2
December in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Eight AD?'), ignore
applicable laws (including unanimous High Court precedents), ignore the logicial
conclusions of his findings adverse to Ms 1999 that she had no credibility and her
uncorroborated (self-contradictory) testimony could not be relied upon in any way
shape or form, and even ignoring information recorded in statutory records like her
daughter's birth certificate, testimony from independent eye witnesses not to
Page 30
mentiion boxes of recovered evidence that Ms 1999 had stolen from me only to be
recovered in circumstances not challenged by Ms 1999's barrister, not to mention
all of the misconduct of Ms 1999's lawyers in evading normal pre-trial procedures
(such as discovery) and Graeme Devries repeated abuse of his 'cloak of privilege'
at the bar table (falsely accusing me of burgling Ms 1999's evidence, whilst
himself handling documents Ms 1999 had [as the Judge found] stolen from me (is
that handling stolen goods, a crime, Mr Devries]. What else could the Trial Judge
do to avoid making truthful findings that Ms 1999, Mr Devries and all of Ms 1999's
lawyers were engaged in a nasty process of criminal defamation and fraud against
me? So the Trial Judge put himself and his reputation out on an extraordinary limb
(thinking or hoping that I would not or could not appeal against his decision) and
ignoring due process, due laws, due evidence and his own inescapable findings
that Ms 1999 committed substantial perjury, deceipt before his very eyes, and
aggravated burglary, theft and attempted concealment of evidence [evidence that
on an unbiased view was ruinous of her case], the Trial Judge made judgement in
her favour. Ms 1999 failed to produce any evidence as to my net worth, or even as
to the gross worth of my property assets, just as she had failed to produce any
evidence of ever having made any contributions to assist me to obtain or keep
them [The Trial Judge correctly and unavoidably finding that Ms 1999's claims as
per her original caveats to have contributed monies to my acquisition,
maintenance (viz mortgage payments) and improvement of my properties were all
lies]. So the Trial Judge, having no evidence of the value of my assets, and having
ruled that Ms 1999 had made no (positive) contributions did a faulty calcuation of
the value of my six remaining assets, in the absence of any evidence ruled she
was entitled to 50% of them (a bloody huge amount of 'positive contributions' that
she hadn't evidence, and more than outweighed by the evidence of damage or
'negative contributions' that the Trial Judge chose to ignore) at Graeme Devries
urgence allocated her 100% of the net equity of all of the three of my six properties
which had any positive equity and ordered that I underwrite the amount of net
equity from those three best of my six properties, to the tune of $105,000. Thus,
without any evidence of ever making any contributions to any of my wealth [indeed
in the face of all of the evidence proving that she did not ever make even $1.00 of
contributions] and ignoring the negative contributions of $200,000 or thereabouts
in losses she caused just to my Altona property alone, the Trial Judge purported to
give her 50% of my wealth (which was actually negative by this stage due to the
Page 31
damage unlawfully inflicted by Ms 1999 and her lawyers) but in fact handed to Ms
1999 about 150% of my net wealth in realty despite this being matched more than
dollar for dollar by my debts to my unsecured creditors. About a week after
judgement Ms 1999's lawyers wrote to Ms 1999 with their final accounts totalling
more than $300,000 and advising her that whatever proceeds the Court realised
from the sale of all of my properties would be kept by them, so she would (a) not
get a cent of the judgment ordered in her favour; and (b) need to discuss with
them how she intended to pay the remaining $200,000 or so she would be left
owing them [by way of non-judgemental comparisoin, at Ms 1999's hourly brothel
rate, that's 10,000 hours of sex at the going brothel rate of about $200 per hour I
believe, of which less than 50% actually goes to Ms 1999]. Of course,
incompetent to the end, Berry Family Law posted these letters and invoices to me
rather than to Ms 1999. In mid-May 2009, I estimate about a week or so, after
Berry Family Law had their little discussion with Ms 1999 to the effect she would
get nothing out of the judgement but still had to pay them probably $200,000, at
about 5 am on Tuesday 12 May 2009 I received a friendly wake up phone call from
the local police station to tell me that my car had been firebombed in my driveway
an hour earlier (almost burning down my neighbours and their house in the
process). Any one want to guess who might be prime suspect for being behind
that criminal act against me? Several other cars associated with me and/or my
friends have since been similarly attacked (with knives and other objects, rather
than firebombs).
(xxv) Since February 2009 there have been a series of preliminary hearings in the part
of the proceedings numbered 9263 of 2008. The errors of process, malfeasance
by presiding judges (notably Associate Justice Evans, and Justice Hansen (again)
are recorded in my Notice of Appeal from those decisions (being renumbered as
proceedings No. 3766 of 2009) a true copy of which is attached to this Section 35
Notice, so I don't need to repeat the facts of those errors of judgement here.
(xxvi) In mid-April 2008 I received a notice from the Law Institute of Victoria Limited, as
delegate of the Legal Services Commissioner. I attach as Attachment 'D' to this
Notice a true copy of that Information Notice dated 1 April 2009, my letter in reply
(with full attachments) dated 28 April 2009 and the closing 1 page letter from the
Law Institute of Victoria Limited dated 1 May 2009 and dated 26 May 2009 (being
a miserable excuse for a non-apology, but nonetheless confirming that this was
just another (the fourth in fact) of Graeme Devries' and the Legal Services
Commissioner's witchhunt sagainst me, and a copy of my follow up letter to the
Page 32
Law Institute dated 24 June 2009. Now produced and shown to me and marked
'E' is a true copy of the report written by Dr David List referred to in the Infomration
Notice (a true copy of which is annexed to my counterclaim filed under
proceedings number 9263 of 2008) and a true copy of the report written by Dr
Timothy Entwistle (which at the time of writing, I have still not bothered to read,
and am only aware of because of the description of that report in the Legal
Services Commissioner's Information Notice) is included amongst the attached
materials marked 'D'. The Legal Services Commissioner's Information Notice
provided me with notice, including interesting quotations, indicating that
notwithstanding my withdrawal of my custody application on 8 September 2008 for
some reason the Federal Magistrate and the Plaintiff's lawyers continued to try me
in my absence. That trial of me by that Federal Magistrate continued 'in the bear
pit' up to at least 26 February 2009 without any of the participants informing me of
any of those 'hearings' and notwithstanding that I had in December 2008 served
on that Federal Magistrate in December 2008 my counterclaim document filed
under that part of the proceedings numbered 9263 of 2008, being an $11 million
dollar plus Supreme Court law suit in which that Federal Magistrate is named as
the nineth defendant by counterclaim and charged with misconduct in public office.
(xxvii) With the Law Institute's correspondence of 1 May 2009 (acting as delegate of the
Legal Services Commissioner) I became aware that the Federal Magistrate, not
content with the usual abuse of power strategy of declaring fathers seeking to
assert their paternity rights under the Charter and Any Other Laws (including
without limitation the four pillars of the Family Law Act) 'vexatious litigants', the
Federal Magistrate (and nineth defendant by counterclaim in these proceedings)
went much further and ordered not only the brainwashing of an eight year old child
and her two slightly older half-sibllings, but also ordered that I would have to
voluntarily have to put myself under heavy psychiatric institutional treatment (and
come out with my wits relatively intact) before he would allow me to exercise my
rights under section 55C of the Judicature Act (by virtue of having my name on the
Seventh day of May One thousand nine hundred and Ninety entered in the
Regisrar of Practitioners ketp at the Registry of the High Court of Australia
pursuant to that section of that Act) on my own behalf to seek to restablish lawful
contact with my alleged 8 year old daughter, being contact that (a) had had been
forced to surrender the previous May of 2008 under pain that she was being
physically and psychologically tortured by her mother and her half-siblings and
without protection of that Federal Judge if I continued to have any contact with her
Page 33
– even to the point that her life was in clear and present danger and even the
grounds of her school were no place of respite or sanctuary; and (b) in
circumstances where it was apparent that neither this Federal Judge, nor any
other Federal Judge (on pain of being seen to disagree or criticise the nineth
defendant by counterclaim) would ever as a matter of practice grant any orders
allowing me contact with my alleged (now nine years old) daughter.
(xxviii) In June 2008, despite refusing to investigate my misconduct complaints regarding
the Plaintiff's legal representatives (as she is required by law to do) the Legal
Services Commissioner issued a vexatious and abusive costs application against
me – in circumstances where, costs being always within the discretion of the Court
it would never be appropriate for any Court of justice to order a citizen, who has
been beaten and abused and neglected and dehumanised by the unlawful wilful
refusal of a Government entity to do her statutory duty to protect that citizen, to
reimburse that Government entity for its legal costs improperly incurred by reason
of its own deliberate dereliction of duty.
4. (a) There have been no relevant directions made by the Court of Appeal in relation to the part
of these proceedings described as number 3731 of 2009, although the Court of Appeal is shortly
to rule on a vexatious and abusive application by the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee
funded and supported law firm Harwood Andrews Pty Ltd and its employee solicitor David
William Hanlon) (the Second and Third Respondents), seeking orders that Harold James
Johnson, the Respondent, be disenfranchised (presumably, contrary to sections 24, 8 and 10 of
the Charter) from his right to appeal against the decisions of the Trial Judge at first instance
(proceedings then numbered as 9665 of 2007). Attached to this Notce and Marked 'A' is a true
copy of the latest draft of the Defendant's Notice of Appeal in this part of the proceedings, to
which are attached true copies of all of the rulings and orders made by the Trial Judge at first
instance, but only to the (limited) extent that they have been authenticated by the Trial Judge
and excluding his most recent rulings of April and June 2009.
(b) Attached to this Notce and Marked 'B' is a true copy of the latest draft of the Defendant's
Notice of Appeal in the part of the proceedings numbered as 3766 of 2009, to which are attached
true copies of all of the rulings and orders made by the Judges at first instance in the Masters
Court (including Associate Justice Evans and Associate Justice Daly) and in the Practice Court
(Justice Hansen) up to the date of that notice in the context of the part of these proceedings
Page 34
numbered 9263 of 2008. No directions have been made by the Court in respect of the part of
these proceedings numbered 3766 of 2009.
(c) Attached to this Notice and marked 'C' is a true copy of the orders made by Associate Justice
Evans in the Masters Court recording that the original claim brought by Trustee Fiduciary
Services Limited against the Defendant Harold James Johnson in the part of the proceedings
numbered 9263 of 2008 has been settled between those parties without need for adjudication.
(d) Now produced and shown to me and marked 'D'' is a true copy of the Legal Services
Commissioner's Information Notice dated 1 April 2009, my letter in reply (with full attachments)
dated 28 April 2009 and the closing 1 page letter from the Law Institute of Victoria Limited dated
1 May 2009 and dated 26 May 2009 (being a miserable excuse for a non-apology, but
nonetheless confirming that this was just another (the fourth in fact) of Graeme Devries' and the
Legal Services Commissioner's witchhunt sagainst me, and a copy of my follow up letter to the
Law Institute of Victoria dated 24 June 2009.
(e) Now produced and shown to me and marked 'E' is a true copy of the report written by Dr
David List referred to in the Infomration Notice (a true copy of which is annexed to my
counterclaim filed under proceedings number 9263 of 2008) and a true copy of the report written
by Dr Timothy Entwistle (which at the time of writing, I have still not bothered to read, and am
only aware of because of the description of that report in the Legal Services Commissioner's
Information Notice) is included amongst the attached materials marked 'D'.
(f) Now produced to me and marked 'F' are true copies of my submissions to the Victorian Legal
Aid Office (containing useful outlines of key legal issues) asit bothers me somewhat that the
Victorian Government (via its Government agency the Legal Practitioners Liability EVASION
Committee) can fund 4 city law firms and 4 city barristers in order to supress my demands that
my human rights be respected, and yet the Victorian Government cannot (via its Government
agency Victoria Legal Aid) fund a fifth city law firm and a fifth city barrister to present my case so
that there is at least a pretext of matching the funding and legal resources of the Legal
Practitioners Liability Committee and the 4 city law firms and 4 city barristers it has hired to battle
against the man (me) who has been left penniless and therefore lawyerless, to fend for himself
by reason of the misconduct of the lawyers protected by the Legal Practitioners Liability
Committee.
Page 35
(g) In addition to the abovementioned preliminary Court of Appeal application by the Legal
Practitioners Liability Committee funded and supported second and third respondents, they,
along with the four other Legal Practitioners Liability Committee funded Australian legal
practitioners (defendants by counterclaim) have brought preliminary applications in the Masters
Court seeking to deny the Defendant of his right to bring legal proceedings against them for the
damage caused by their vexatious and abusive champetry of the original wild and
unsubstantiated claims made by the original plaintiff Pippin Patricia Cressy. Another of the
defendants by counterclaim, David List is, via the law firm and barristers appointed for him by his
professional indemnity insurer, copying the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee's examply by
making a similar preliminary application in the Masters Court Both the Court of Appeal and the
Masters Court are expected to hand down rulings on these applications within the next week or
two.
Dated: 28 August 2009 ......................................................
HAROLD JAMES JOHNSON
Solicitor, Defendant, Plaintiff by Counterclaim and Respondent
TO: The Attorney-General for Victoria 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne Victoria 3000
AND TO: The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner, Level 3, 280
Lonsdale Street Melbourne Victoria 3000
TO: Trust Company Fiduciary Services Limited – C/- Gadens Lawyers Level 25 600
Bourke Street Melbourne Victoria
AND TO: Pippin Patricia Cressy, Berry Family Law (a firm) and James Turnbull – all C/- Berry
Family Law 162 Ferguson Street Williamstown Victoria
AND TO: David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Pty Ltd – both C/- Lander & Rogers,
Lawyers of Level 12 600 Bourke Street Melbourne Victoria
AND TO: Richard Ingleby of 0403/235 Queen Street Melbourne Victoria
AND TO: Graham A Devries of 1826/525 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Victoria
AND TO: David J List of 276 Park Street, North Fitzroy Victoria
AND TO: Minister for Human Services, Level 22, 50 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Victoria
AND TO: Daniel O’Dwyer of Federal Magistrates Court, Commonwealth Law Courts, 305
William Street Melbourne Victoria
AND TO: Legal Services Commissioner of Level 9, 330 Collins Street Melbourne
AND TO: AMP Bank, C/- Russell Kennedy Lawyers, 485 Latrobe Street Melbourne Victoria 3000
Page 36
Page 37

FORM 1 Regulation 5

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FORM 1 Regulation 5

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FORM 1

1. The Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim/Appellant, Harold James Johnson, gives notice that -

in the cases of:

Potrebbero piacerti anche