Lawyers) 351q2l

RESPONSES TO SUBMISSIONS BY LAWYER DEFENDANTS - HARWOOD ANDREWS LAWYERS, DAVID WILLIAM HANLON, (OF THAT FIRM) RICHARD INGLEBY (BARRISTER), BERRY FAMILY LAW, JAMES TURNBULL (OF THAT FIRM), GRAEME DEVRIES (BARRISTER) VICTORIAN SUPREME COURT (MASTERS COURT) HEARING(S) BEFORE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DALY: PROCEEDINGS 9263 of 2008 PART A - HUMAN (WRONGS AND RIGHTS) RESPONSES TO THESE LATEST AGGRESSIONS Overview - A new chapter of 'stolen generations' - Sorry Business – Lack of Jurisdiction – Vexing, Oppressing and Abusing – Culture of Bullying, lying and blackmailing amongst Victorian barristers, and amongst Victorian legal regulatory agencies [sic, sick, sick] 1. As Her Honour will be painfully aware, these proceedings have evolved well beyond Ms Cressy's original fraud – following years of blackmail, theft, burglary, physical assaults and extortions, her fraudulent claims to have been my de facto wife of 9 years in order to extract wealth from me. 2. A thousand times worse, a matter of life, and liberty even, is the fraud perpetrated by the abovementioned lawyers in litigation funding and maintaining and pushing those claims against me – holding my identity, my life, my assets, even my family, to randsom to extract blackmail from me. And ten thousand times worse is the fraud perpetrated against me by the trial judge, in the half-trial in the earliest numbering of these proceedings.

3. As all of the facts and all of the attachments demonstrate, I am devoted to my legal practice and devoted to my children. I want my life back, restored, as it was, as it should be, before these blackmailers and swindlers bailed me up in Ms Cressy's madness.

4. Her Honour is (as I have mentioned several times already and again throughout these responses) as a matter of Court record the only Judge in the Masters Court who is not prohibited from hearing these defendant lawyers applications on grounds of 'perceived bias' (first strand of Johnson v Johnson (no relations) as discussed below). I would not blame Her Honour for taking the view that she must excuse herself from further participation in these proceedings because all of the Victorian Supreme Court are afflicted by 'perceived bias'. Some of them, including Justice Kaye, Associate Justice Evans, Justice Hansen and Justice Cavanough (probably Chief Justice warrant and AJA Coghlin too) are probably [sic] properly excluded on grounds of something stronger than 'percieved' bias. 5. I ask that, whatever rullings or ordings Her Honour Associate Daly may make in this or any other of the 5 fragmented bits of these proceedings, that Her Honour write to the Attorney-Generals, State and Federal, describing whatever concerns she has with these proceedings and adds her MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 1 of 23

voice to mine in the call for the appointment of Victorian and Federal bodies, Corruption and Misconduct Commissions to investigate. The corruption at play in these proceedings, the corruption of powerful and privileged lawyers who think they are above the rule of law (they write the rules after all) is too big for the antiquated and corrupt processes of the Courts to properly deal with. I see this, as I have right from the first Practice Court hearing in February 2008 when Ms Cressy's lawyers showed their inability to it their wrongs (their doggged belief that they could hid their wrongs by destroying my just as so many men have been smashed before me, so that the truth would never come out in Court, in Parliament, or in the media or history or legal books). 6. I ask that Her Honour make some further orders: a. That my service of my Statement of Claim on Ms Cressy's (current lawyers) in December 2008 (namely Berry Family Law) constitutes good and effective service of that document on her for all purposes; b. That my service of my Amended Statement of Claim in the same way in March 2009 also constitutes good and effective service of that document on her for all purposes. c. Appointing a litigation guardian for Ms Cressy pursuant to Order 15 of the Supreme Court rules for the purposes of all extant legal proceedings. 7. I seek the last order (a) to protect Ms Cressy from further exploitation and depravation from Devries and Berry Family Law and (b) so that I may discuss the situation with Ms Cressy and her children with someone independent of these corrupt lawyers, someone who genuinely has at least the capacity to act in her best interests and not their own. 8. The defendant lawyers must have known of Ms Cressy's fraud at all relevant times: a. from contemporaneous evidence available to them of her fraud (as described in my earlier submissions); b. from their abject and total failure to gather from Ms Cressy anything that might be regarded or even misconstrued as evidence 'ing' her wild unsubstantiated allegations against me; c. as may be implied from their (criminal) misconduct during the proceedings to date– even their gross champetry and maintenance – while Victoria is one of only two Australian States where champtery and maintenance is no longer a crime per se – I believe that blackmail and fraud remain crimes in this State too (sections 84 and 85 of the Crimes Act).

9. The LPL(E)C decision to fund 4 separate city law firms and separate city barristers for each of the 4 lawyer defendant/applicants is pretty strong smoking gun evidence that each of them has a different kind and quantum and extent of liability for the wrongs they have done me – different contributions of liability and cross-claims against eachother. If they had a common legal position MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 2 of 23

(eg especially their pipe-dream postulated that they have no case to answer) why would the LPL(E)C quadriply its legal costs? But then why is the LPL(E)C misusing its statutory funds contrary to its statutory objects and functions to protect criminals rather than compensate their victims? Indeed Mr Other, Counsel for Berry Family Law and James Turnbull has kindly itted in these oppresive, vexatious and abusive Masters Court Applications, that his represented insureds have substantial legal liabilities not only to me but to Ms Cressy as well and therfore, according to Mr Other, Ms Cressy's ongoing lawyers, whom he represents, can't possibly accept service of process on behalf of their clients. . I attach copies of a recent Affidavit by Peter Berry of Berry Family Law and I attach a copy of the transcript of Cressy v Johnson (Part 4) where Devries is recorded as alleging that even as recent as 25 June 2009 he and his instructors are Ms Cressy's legal representatives. On 25 June 2009 Justice Kaye sued his efforts exactly 4 months earlier. Without necessity to issue a writ, summons, statement of claim, no discover, no trial, Kaye granted Devries judgement against two companies associated with me, nominally in favour of Ms Cressy but as the correspondence cross-filed across these proceedings shows, to all intents soley benefitting swindlers Berry Family Law and Devries. Legitimate mortgages and security interests cancelled without trial, evidence, notice, even without issue of legal process. Isn't the justice system just smashing in Justice Kaye's courtroom? Rest assured this corruption will be taken up in the Court of Appeal too once my Notice of Appeal is further updated. 10. I have given in briefest outline in my submissions of last month, examples to substantiate each of the above claims. There are too many examples for me to detail them. I give some more examples below in in the accompanying responses to the applications by the defendant List.

11. This corruption scandal triggered by these defendant lawyers makes the Ellen Brokovitch scandal pale by comparison. This Brothel-gate, Lawyer-gate, call it what you will, scandal is now about the basic human rights of Australian citizens not to be persecuted and stripped of their identity, their property, their freeholds, their businesses and income, their children, and other rights and liberties by the corruption and misconduct of profiteering lawyers. Geoffrey Robertson writes in his 'The Justice Game' of the importance of the independence of barristers to protect the basic human rights of citizens against exploitation and abuse by Government (including the judicial arm of Government). But what happens when the Game keepers turn game poachers? What these proceedings demonstrate is that in Australia, and in Victoria, and especially with reference to family law type proceedings, Australian legal professionals are not the game keepers of human rights but are the dominant poachers of the human rights of not just myself (and the 3, 6, 7, 8, or 9 children damaged by these proceedings (counting Ms Cressy twice)) but more than 1,000,000 other Australians (more than 250,000 male parents, dads in distress, and more than 750,000 children. 2,500,000 Australians if you count close blood relatives. I attach MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 3 of 23

another copy of the newspaper articles, Federal Parliamentary Hansard etc attached to my correspondences of 30 May – 23 June 2009 in these proceedings. The death toll for Australian fathers separated by unjust and unconstititional family court govern-mental edicts, the death toll for 'Dads In Distress' in this country is quoted as anywhere between 2 (official) and 20 (unofficial) DIDS every week. The family law courts, its judges and lawyers, are a greater killer of prime Australian men than motor vehicles and the tobacco industry combined. I also attach a copies of the 'preface' and 'afterword' from Geoffrey Robertson's 'wonderful book ... [that] reads like a John Grisham, infused with moral anger' The Justice Game [1998 Vintage Books] from which frightening inferences can be drawn of what happens when family law judges and lawyers turn from game (human rights) keepers, into game (human rights) abs – selling out to fill their pockets on the $6,000,000,000 to $8,000,000,000 annual booty that family law court proceedings deliver up to that despicable branch of the legal 'profession' annually. Small wonder that some forward [sic] thinkers such as Federal Politician, Tony Abbott are proposing the recriminalisation of family breakdowns and divorce. A return to the pre-1975 Family Law Act days? 15% - 20% unemployment for Australian legal practitioners. A social institution that looks at healing broken families rather than breaking them, smashing them all up for ever, to tip their $6,000,000,000 to $8,000,000,00 of assets annually into family lawyers (and bogus List-like psychologists) pockets? Bring it on Tony. Tony may not have the final solution – especially, as Jill Singer notes, almost all family breakdowns (a) result in a mum being shackelled in a miningtown out the back of Broome (where almost all Australian families live it seems); and (b) never result in the man being locked up for sending a birthday card to his daughter – like 'Mick'; and (c) never result in loving, sane fathers being subjected to all manner of false accusations of drunkenness, violence, incest and paedophilia – 'Steve' and I are obviously the exceptions, and as I mentioned during the half-trial, I am waiting for the false accusations of vampirism, canibalism and extra-terrestrialism so that, 'Munchhousen' like I can claim to have collected all possible false accusations. Has Jill Singer ever bothered to read anything written by her Herald Sun colleague Laurie Nowell? But I applaud Mr Abbott for at least contributing to the debate. I attach recent press clippings that demonstrate the current polarised (lack of) broad and deep national conversation that needs to be done (just like with the Aboriginal stolen generation of 30,000 to 50,000) before a human final solution (livable compromise is reached for this conclusion. I attach a copy of 'Sorry Business', a frigthening essay from Robert Manne (March 2008) which indicates the frightening history and obstacles to the apology (a long way from a solution or livable compromise) for the damage of the indigious black 'stolen generation' chapter of Australian history. In the broad sweep of Australian history, things don't auger well for this latest family law / family lawyers post-1975 'stolen generation'. Maybe by 2222 Australian dads like 'Mick' will not be sent to jail for sending their children a birthday wish card. Maybe by 2222 MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 4 of 23

Australian Dads like 'Steve' will no longer be told that they can never see their children again (because that would make 'mummy sad'). Maybe during the 23rd Century Australian dads, who fund, house, feed and clothe (voluntarily or by force of child laws) their children maybe will have at least a few of the same rights as a 21st Century mum's ex- (and pre-birth) lesbian date currently enjoys (see Herald Sun article of 20 March 2009). Maybe. 12. I have great sympathy for Her Honour for being the only Associate Justice in the Masters Court that is not disqualified from hearing these proceedings on grounds of 'apparent bias' as discussed below. I understand, Ms Cressy's original fraud being so outlandish (the truth so unthinkable), and then her lawyers layered on fraud even more outlandish (the truth, dealing with the truth and the consequences that must follow being even more frightening and unthinkable) there is a natural repulsion and desire to go into denial of the reality of the situation. I acknowledge that the truth of these proceedings is going to send shockwaves through all thre branches of the legal profession, and aIl three branches (and all 4 levels) of Government for this Country. But that is not my misdoing. And it is important for the future growth (and hopeful one day, maturity) of this Country that the injustices done through these proceedings so far are arrested and reversed. The public interest in justice being done in these proceedings is enormous as should be obvious from these responses, my earlier submissions and all of the correspondence and attachments filed contemporaneously and previously. 13. A further apology to Her Honour. I apologise that these responses of mine read, with syncopating rhythm, alternately: a. like the summarised findings of a Royal Commission (say a Queensland style Independent Corrruption and Misconduct Commission – well I am an analytical lawyer and probing economist by training, and clearly Victoria is in desperate needs to follow Queensland's lead); and

b. as the script from some manic hollywood story – maybe 'Fatal Attraction' cum 'Pretty Woman' cum ' The Firm'- produced as a collaboration by Jerry Seinfeld and Jerry Springer after being locked up in Cheech and Chong's bong room for a week without sleep or food, with Jack Nicholson and Nurse Ratchit and the staff from 'Cuckoos nest' as companions. Say, that's almost a working-title description of my experience of the half trial conducted by Justice Kaye in December and February just past. Perhaps, since the 250,000 'Micks', 'Steves' and I are given by Family Court edicts false names to match the other falsities of family law court proceedings, perhaps another writer, perhaps J.K. Rowling could supply a working title for this script – Potter Harry and the Half-Wit Judge springs to mind.

14. As I write, I am mindful of the opening chapter of the latest legal treatise, 'How Judges Think' from Richard A Posner (Harvard Professor of Law, Professor of Literature and Professor of MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 5 of 23

Economics, and a US Federal Judge) which describes some of the pressures on a Judge to tow the party line of Her judicial collegues. I attach a copy of a few relevant ages from that chapter. If Her Honour were to grant the defendant lawyers (LPL(E)C funded) lawyers these applications, According to Professor Posner's writings, Her Honour might consider the consequences for her reputation and career, as well as political reprisals (I apologise as I lack present grasp of a more neutral word than this) from her work collegues (a) given the prospects of the half-wit Judge's judgement from the half-trial being covered up by the Court of Appeal and the High Court, and in other forums of Government and media; versus (b) given the prospects of the defendant lawyers soon being found guilt 'beyond reasonable doubts' in criminal proceedings against them. I trust that Her Honour will realise and appreciate my pointing out that she can and must avoid these horns of this dilemna which ought not be thrust at her in the first place, as the applications (seeking to cause her to pervert an already fragmented and perverted injustice) are vexing, oppresing and abusive and totally outside of Her powers as presiding Judge in the Masters Court. 15. I also apologise to Her Honour for my insecurity in often repeating the evidence and submissions I have made. Based on my experiences in the 5 fragments of thesse proceedings, including the traumatic half-trial before the half-witted Judge, I have no confidence that any Victorian Judge will actually listen or accept any evidence (even statutory records like birth certificates, for God's sake). Small reason why I am traumatised by these frightening events. However I do not that Her Honour does of late seem to be willing to receive (and even requesting to receive) information relevant to the truth of these proceedings. It would be a relief to have found a Victorian Judge who is willing to get over the natural instinct for revulsion and denial and the desire to pretent that all Judges and lawyers are 'angels' and that there is never any need for an appellate or other review or investigation of anything ever done by any of them. 16. Bringing these 'big picture themes' back to the present, the conduct of these 4 lawyer defendants is not only civilly wrong, but criminally wrong: a. It is harder to imagine a clearer set of cases of attempts (so far successful) to pervert the course of justice; b. it is harder to imagine a clearer set of cases of malicious defamation (contra section 10 of the Wrongs Act). c. It is harder to imagine a clearer set of cases of misconduct by a set of Australian legal professionals, in violation of their oaths of ission, the laws of this land, and their rights to continue to practice as Australian legal professionals. d. It is harder to imagine a clearer demonstration of the culture of bullying and deceipt that has developed among at least these of the Victorian legal profession (not just Ms Cressy's lawyers, but also some if not all of her lawyers lawyers (Legal Practioners MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 6 of 23

Liability Evasion Committee funded), and the legal regulatory agencies such as the LPL(E)C and the equally shockingly named Legal Services Commissioner.

e. It is harder to imagine clearer demonstrations of breaches of truth in advertising laws than the titles given by the Victorian Government to the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee (actions, speaking louder than words, screaming here we 'hide it', we don't compensate for it) or the Legal Services Commissioner (actions, screaming here, 'we 'hide it, we police for it, not against it'). 17. Each of the four defendant lawyers have made applications to Her Honour's Court seeking to evade going to trial for the wrongs that they have done to me. Each of the four defendant lawyers is represented by a city law firm and a city barrister funded by the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee – a multi-million dollar lawyers blue ribbon extra legal aid paradise for those four city law firms and those four city barristers. A public statutory authority established to compensate victims of rogue and mongrel Australian legal practioners like this sordid bunch of unprofessionals that chooses to apply its statutory monopoly, and hefty revenues to the opposite and unlawful purpose of . Such is the financial damage that these corrupt and unethical mongrels of the legal profession have caused to me that I can't afford legal representation. Where are the public monies to provide a city law firm and a city barrister to protect me? 18. A consistent theme of these applications is the attempt by the counsel and solicitors for these rogue lawyers (the lawyers' lawyers) to off the Trial Judge's decision in Cressy v Johnson (No.3) (on appeal to the Court of Appeal) as a fit and proper judgement, a solid judgement based on proper trial process, proper pretrial and trial procedures, proper discovery and presentation and assessment of evidence. But nothing could be further from the simple, plain and embarrasing truth. As my previous submissions and indeed all of the evidence and transcripts from that half-trial establish beyond any measure of doubt is the simple truth that the judgment was wrong, so wrong in fact, that there will be criminal consequences for these lawyer defendants, (and for some if not most of those lawyers lawyers also).

19. The Masters Court is not a court of appeal from the Trial Division. Nor is the Masters Court a court of appeal from the Court of Appeal. The Masters Court is the lowest of the three houses of the Victorian Supreme Court, with no appellate jurisdiction. The Masters Court (Her Honour Justice Daly presiding as the only Associate Justice on the bench not excluded from hearing a case invovling these lawyers because of close working relationships, apprehended bias according to one of the three key principles of the unanimous Full High Court decision in Johnson v Johnson [2000] 211 CLR 448. [I note without editorialising, merely to demonstrate awareness, that the defendant Ingleby was one of the counsel for the unsuccessful Mr Johnson in thoses proceedings.]

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 7 of 23

20. These applications put Her Honour in the unpleasant and impossible situation of having to anticipate (prejudge, demonstrate prejudice etc) the Court of Appeal determination of the appeal in Cressy v Johnson (parts, 1, 2 and 3). Her Honour strikes me as an intelligent professional woman. She has certainly put more energy into seeking an appreciation of the gross injustices at play here. I trust that Her Honour has enough sanity and common sense to appreciate she does not have the jurisdiction to grant these applications. 21. Her Honour must, within the boundaries of her limited jursidiction, and so as not to interfere with the contemporaneous hearing of these proceedings before the Court of Appeal: a. dismiss these applications by him as vexatious and oppressive and an abuse of process of the Court; b. order that the four lawyer applicants pay my costs of these applications on a full indemnity basis according to usual solicitor-litigant rules; c. order that this part of the proceedings be stayed pending final determination by the Court of Appeal of my appeal against the decisions of Justice Kaye on the earlier part of these proceedings. 22. Clearly the LPL(E)C funded strategy is to smash my spirit, smash my resolve, smash my finances and smash my life-essence by mindless and endless vexatious and oppresive appliations like this. I ask that Her Honour reflect this disgraceful behaviour by my aggressors in Her orders for costs in my favour to be fixed in the highest amount and payable as soon as possible (without set-off) as permitted by solicitor-litigant rules (though I have every reason to believe that my aggressors are clueless as to what those rules require). There would be considerable justice in cost orders payable by the LPL(E)C that could be made available to me in clear funds in time so that I may purchase legal assistance to protect my rights against these abs. 23. My claims against another defendant, List are intricately linked with my counterclaims against the four lawyer defendants, and all 5 counterclaims need to be tried contly. For reasons I have articulated previously, Her Honour has no jurisdiction to make orders that interfere with the deliberations of the Court of Appeal, all 4 lawyer defendants' applications and submissions are basically vexatious, oppresive and abusive demands that Her Honour presume how the Court of Appeal will determine my appeal, which is something that Her Honour obviously cannot do. Accordingly, Her Honour has no powers in respect of any of these applications by List or any of the four lawyer defendants, other than to dismiss the applications as being vexatious, oppressive and abusive. PART B- LITIGANT-SOLICITOR, LAWYER-LIKE RESPONSES

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 8 of 23

A Culture of bullying, lying and cheating and non-regulation of Victorian lawyers by Victoria's lawyers regulators

24. I attach copies of my correspondences with the Legal Services Commisioner making complaints about the misconduct of Ms Cressy's lawyers, and my complaints about the Legal Services Commissioner herself. My complaint material regarding Devries (funnily enough, including a complaint made by him against me – how bizarre) is relevant to my legal claims against him the subject of his present application against me. I attach a copy of the transcript of the afternoon session before Her Honour Associate Justice Daly on 9 July 2009 (the LSC's oppressive, vexatious and abusive costs application against me. Good government indeed). 25. These include the LSC's letters (a) demonstrating that despite being an Australian Legal Practitioner she lacks the legal studies skills of a seventh grader; (b) the LSC's pretending not to have received my complaint about her and about Graeme Devries (despite, like Dhostovesky novel, revealing in the contents of her letter that she did in fact receive them). Oh, I also attach a copy of my contemporaneous letter to the LSC (re-making) my complaints against a number of Australian legal practitioners, including the LSC. I'm sure that the LSC will [not] fully make a fit and proper investigate and make fit and proper findings as to my complaint against herself.

26. I attach a copy of my contemporaneous letter to the Legal Practitioner's Liability Committee (founding client of my law firm in fact) explaining my necessity to issue civil proceedings against her (in her official and personal capacities) as well as my necessity to instigate criminal proceedings against her. I hope that Her Honour, for Her Honour's sake, has enough sense to make a fit and proper judgement here, and resists any temptation to 'flock together' in the collective denial and insanity. I am content to wait as long as necessary for justice to be done. There will be no finality to these proceedings except a just finality. I know that, being the only stable and sane presence in the lives of the (never married) Ms Cressy and her three children (by three different men) despite all of the family law court edicts of oppression, as soon as they are old enough the three children will come looking for me for sanity and protection. Not just the youngest of the three (my alleged daughter, but probably by nurture alone not by blood). But her two half-brothers as well. 11 years ago, former House of Representatives Deputy Speaker, Mr Rocher, gave a speech in parliament warning of 'stolen generation' legal claims against the Government by the 'stolen generations' of children [being the, now 750,000 plus ,children stolen by the family law courts from all with their 250,000 fathers (and a further 1.5M paternal aunts, uncles and grand parents). I fully expect Ms Cressy's three children to issue a stolen generation legal claim. I hope they are not amongst the first 500,000 victims to do so. A Culture of bullying, lying and cheating amongst some (past and present) of the Victorian Bar MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 9 of 23

Perversions of Justicice by Graeme Devries (instructed by James Turnbull of the Law Firm of Berry Family Law) 27. In my submissions of last month I provided in brief outline a compelling demonstration that the 3 part published judgements (not to mention dozens of unpublished rulings) of Justice Kaye handed down in of the Cressy proceedings were a perversion of justice, being the product of an unlawful and corrupt trial process. I have already filed in all 5 contemoraneous fragmented numberings of these proceedings the evidence that I used in the Court of Appeal on 15 May 2009 to demonstrate beyond all doubt that Kaye's judgement is corrupt.

28. At the half-trial, Devries claimed that Ms Cressy was my live-with de facto wife for 9 years. He claimed that she worked as a prostitute for all of this period and that I lived off the earnings of her prostitution (which is a crime under Victorian law). These claims were not set out in her original statement of claim. Only after Ms Cressy gave her (as the judge found) lie filled testimony, only after I cross-examined her, did Devries apply to the Judge to amend her statement of claim to make these outrageous claims. Never did Devries produce any evidence to (even remotely) these claims. I attach copies of Ms Cressy's diaries (dated 2007 – outside of the relevant period for her claim) showing she was prostituting in 2007. I attach copies of Ms Cressy's journal (undated but I believe written after she quit whoring 'for good' so she told me, in 2002 – frightened by her ex-client/boyfriend Cockam's stalking). To the best of my knowledge and belief from mid to late 2002 righ up until mid 2007 I believed for reasons I articulated and demonstrated with hard evidence at the half-trial, that Ms Cressy had straightened up her act and was off the Prostitution Game 'for good'. Both this diary and this journal were produced in evidence at trial and itted by Ms Cressy.

29. I also attach a copy of Ms Cressy's diary of late 2000 and early 2001 showing she had not given up the prostitution game at that time. Having worked as a (under age?) prostitute during most of her pregnancy with her second child (as she has told me) and her third child (as I witnessed, and allegedly my child), these diary entries (which I produced in the Court of Appeal on 15 May 2009) demonstrate that Ms Cressy was working as a prostitute again only some few months after the birth of her third child. What are her children going to think about her when they reach maturity – at 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 whenever, and find out this bit of their family history? Where is the child protection agency when you need it. Is there a child protection agency, or a child protection Minister in the Victorian Government? I have my doubts.

30. Back to the main plot. These diaries and journals demonstrate Ms Cressy's mental and emotional instabilities. But there is a gap – they do not evidence anything of her activities during 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006 or early 2007. If Devries wants to claim that I was his client's MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 10 of 23

pimp daddy, criminally living off her earnings during this period, well surely he needs to put up some evidence? Couldn't Devries subpoena Ms Cressys' bank s? As I discovered on 2 December 2008, he subpoenaed mine, in lieu of a proper pre-trial discovery procedures. Couldn't Devries have obtained Ms Cressy's pay slips, tax returns. I discussed these omission with the Trial Judge. Obviously there is no point in pointing out to Judges of Kaye's calibre that evidence is rather a good thing to have in a Supreme Court Trial, especially where the claims against a defendant are so serious aand extraordinary.

'Where's the evidence'. 'Show me the

evidence'. I spent all of Friday 13 February 2009 making these points, at great personal distress that a Supreme Court Judge (let alone a man like Devries, legally allowed to practise as a barrister, legally allowed to roam free in public) needed to be told these sorts of things. I attach a full copy of the transcript of that day's proceedings. I attach copies of relevant extracts from the transcripts of other days of the half-trial proceedings, all to the same effects. 31. In lie of evidence, in lieu of sanity, Devries postulated: a. Mr Johnson bought lots of properties and stuff during 2002 – 2006 (six in fact). He paid lots of child , or so he claims. He worked long hours. He claims he was a good daddy spending lots of time with his lots of kids (including Ms Cressy's 3 who are not his anyway, except maybe the youngest). b. How Mr Johnson describes himself is too good to be true. So therefore he is a liar.

c. Since he is a liar. His testimony is perjury. Forget about the fact that his testimony is merely in all respects corroborative of the hard evidence, the statutory records, property and banking contracts, statements, applications and independent eyewitnesses that he produced at trial to discharge his almost impossible burden of removing the presumption of guilt against him. Let's say he's a liar. So you, Judge can therefore forget about all of that body of evidence. [Note strand 3 of Johnson v Johnson [20000 211 CLR 448 says, according to High Court Laws that were the parties to a de facto property claim are in dispute, the Judge should give primacy to the independent evidence, and even use the primary evidence to get his bearings before weighing into assessing credibility of uncorroborated litigant testimony – viz the High Court says the law requires a Victorian Supreme Court Judge to do exactly what I begged the Trial Judge to do in my submissions of 13 February 2009, which is exactly the opposite of what the Trial Judge did, because he couldn't possible be expected to deliver a judgement that would put his dear friend and barrister buddy Graeme Devries in the poo now could he – despite what the evidence and the High Court's laws said that he must do].

d. Oh, I attach further copies of my tax invoices for the second half of 2006. I also attach another copy of the Birth Certificate that Devries claimed, twice that I burgled from Ms MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 11 of 23

Cressy, the second time, 25 February 2009, aka (Miss) Judgement Day, even after the Judge reluctantly itted (even referred to Brigginshaw v Brigginshaw on this solitary occasion) , even after I demonstrated with evidence that Ms Cressy was in China the day I purchased that Certificate from the Victorian Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages. Even after the Judge had found Ms Cressy guilty (according to civil standards of proof) of aggravated burglary, concealment of evidence etc.

I attach copies of Berry Family

Law's correspondences, shamefully written to Ms Cressy, and incompetently (as they do) sent to me, confessing they intend to swindle Ms Cressy of all proceeds that they may squeeze from injust judgements against me (a) to offset part of their scandalous legal bills issued to her; and (b) pending a just reversal of those judgements in the appellate Courts. And I attach again copies of the Child letters and other correspodences Ms Cressy left behind in the dog and rat shit and other mess of foodstuffs and waste in my shed when she relinquished her 'Cavanough-Hansen Eviction and Gagging Order' habitation of my Point Cook a week or so before the commencement of the half-trial in December 2008. I remind you good people that these correspondences confirm that in (and prior to) mid-2000 not only did I not co-habitate under the same roof as Ms Cressy, but in contrast to her, Devries and Kaye's fictitious 'devoted and committed' fictional nuclear family, Ms Cressy's oldest (then 4 yo) boy didn't live with her either. Just how much proof of innocence am I supposed to put up to dispose of this corrupt CressyDevries-Kaye court judgement. e. I didn't wish to waste my time (or incur the emotional anguish) of listening to Devries barbaric 'closing submissions'. I now read from Kaye's judgement that Devries mislead the Trial Judge into thinking that there was no evidence produced at the half-trial and the questions of law (see above). According to Devries (and believe or not Kaye actually did this). By declaring my merely corroborative testimony as all lies, Kaye decided he could ignore all of the hard evidence I produced at trial and the total lack of evidence f.

I am sorry but a man who scores 0% out of 100% on a basic test of interpreting the information contained in a Birth Certificate is not a fit and proper person to be a bank teller, let alone to hold office as a Judge of in the highest Court in Victoria. It makes no difference whether he flunks the test deliberately (as I believe he did – he can't be a stupid man) or through sheer (unimaginable) stupidity.

g. Back to the half-witted half-trial and 16 and 17 February 2009, and Devries tells the Judge, 'Hey buddy, its' just a beauty test, whodya wanna believe him or her?' 'Forget about what the law says. Forget about what the evidence proves. Forget about her lack of Now she's on evidence (including her mum's issions and her own handwritten diaires, police reports of aggrevated burglary and theft, a neighbour's testimony of child MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 12 of 23

neglect and abuse and a police escort to a mental hospital for an assessment that never happened) and found by the trial judge to have committed acts of dishonest, including lying to him from the witness box. What hope does a top tier commercial lawyer of 18 years good standing have (even with all of the independent corrooboration of his testimony) of being believed by a Supreme Court Judge, against the uncorroborated testimony of such a stunning witness? 'I am in truth a beautiful liar' she wrote in her brothel journal, amongst details of her scamming of other men. Just who are the mental patients in this cookoo nest? Just how far out on an extremity was this half-wit Judge prepared to go to avoid having to confront the truth about his dear Barrister friend Graeme and the rest of Ms Cressy's merry band of LLB liars and thugs? Just how does the half-wit Judge think that these injustices will remain secret forever? Because his fellow Judges will commit equivalent misconduct to protect him? I don't think so. And the media and general public, in this country, the powers that be in this Government and in foreign Governments wont allow it. The Cressy children (let alone me) won't allow it. Former Federal Judge Marcus Einfeld gets 13 months jail (Struck off as a lawyer last month in New South Wales) for an indiscretion about a speeding ticket – misconduct out of office. Just what sort of 'vacation' are Devries and Kaye (who is after all, Tony Mokbel's trial judge) going to get gov, for their misconducts and misconduct inside judicial office? Truly unbelievable.

32. I always thought, even before my 9 years of University studies in law, and my first 17 years of legal practice, that we had laws, lawyers and law courts to protect human rights, and to protect humans like me from crimes such as aggravated burglary, fraud, blackmail, firebombing, physical and other assaults, extortion etc. It has come as quite a shock to discover how naïve I was in my first 42 years of life. I always thought that defendants were innocent until proven guilty, and were sane until proven otherwise. It has come as quite a shock to discover how naïve I was in my first 42 years of life. I always thought that if a mentally and emotionally disturbed woman (mentally, little more than a malicious child in reality) and a bunch of goldigging, greedy and unethical lawyers want to accuse a man of criminal conduct (such as burglary and theft of a birth certificate, such as living off the earnings of a prostitute – I stand accused and found guilty of both) then no Court would find him (me) guilty without a proper, lawfully conducted trial – oh and stuff like evidence being produced by Ms Cressy and her lawyers to back up the claim. Becoming acquainted last year with the Great Depression era Full High Court unanimous decision in Brigginshaw v Brigginshaw, apart from feeling great sympathy for the late(?) Mrs Brigginshaw whom the lawyers still wont let rest in peace, I though that since these accusations against me are quite serious (even if I am an Australian lawyer of 18 years good standing and therefore amongst the lowest form of life in this class-structured MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 13 of 23

society), then seriously good evidence would need to be produced to establish my guilt. So it cam to me as quite a shock that Judges of Justice Kaye's calibre don't need or ask to see any corroborative evidence. It came to me as quite a shock that barristers of Graeme Devries calibre aren't required to produce any evidence. It comes as quite a shock to me that men like this are allowed to be Judges and lawyers. It comes as quite a shock to me that I produced financial records and eye witnesses to prove my innocence (just as every presumed guilty Australian man must do it seems). It comes as quite a shock to me that I produced reports and expert witnesses to prove my sanity (just as every presumed insane Australian common law trial defendant must now do it seems in the State of Victoria). It comes as quite a shock to me that a Supreme Court Judge, a self-confessed half-wit [whether he deliberately or innocently can't read and comprehend a one page official Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages Birth Certificate[ shuts his eyes to independent financial records, shuts his ears to independent eyewitnesses (including Mrs Deak-Fabrikant, his own nurse, whom I only met for the first time several months after Ms Cressy claims to have ended her bogus de facto relaltionship with me). It comes as quite a shock to me that Justice Kaye and Graeme Devries even bothered with this pretence of a trial. Some Farces are more farcical than others – Must Truth always be wierder than fiction?

33. Why didn't Devries and Kaye just decide, according to Justice Kaye's 'better judgement' on 2 December 2008 to refuse to allow me a trial. Justice Kaye lamented a second time, on 13 February 2009 hat he should have the power to refuse me a hearing. Why didn't they just order up a firing squad, or a drawing and quatering as they did to 'the Kings enemies' back before in Stuart times, before King Charles lost his crown (and a head for wearing it)?, declare me guilty and Oh brave new world of 21st century Victorian law Courts; it has such people in it. These people and proceedings produced a real life farce even more bizarre than the deliberate farce of Lewis Carroll's mock trial (chapter 11 of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland 'Who stole the Tarts'). The Prince of Hearts wasn't presumed (a) guilty and (b) insane, despite his Aunt the Queen of Hearts being a co-Judge as well as plaintiff/prosecutor. The King of Hearts didn't ask the Prince of Hearts if his mummy was home, and could she could and play the grown up and defend your case in your place. Justice Kaye asked me this – see the the transcript for day 2 December 2008 of Cressy v Johnson , which I attach. The Prince of Hearts wasn't forced to turn out his pocketsus under cross-examination to stop the Judge from assuming that there were all sorts of fatal self-incriminating bits of evidence in his pockets. Justice Kaye and Barrister Devries forced me to turn out my pockets (and even drive for 2 ½ hours after Court with a back too sore to sit in Court, to collect my drivers licence so as to extinguish these damning assumptions that serve so well in lie of actual evidence or proper lawful process these days – MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 14 of 23

well in Devries and Kaye's Courtroom plays it seems. I attach for comparison Professor/Judge Richard A Posner's literary comments on Lewis Carroll's mock trial, taken from the current, 3rd edition of his treatise 'Law and Literature'. I also attach for comparison with an earier, actual witchhunt, Professor/Judge Posner's comments on the Trial of Saint Joan. Another useful comparator with another actual witch hunt. I resist the temptation to attach a full copy of Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible' or indeed, any of the transcripts of the Salem withchuntrials, tempting as it is to give you people another real life benchmark and opportunity to see the things that you are actually doing to me through these very comparable proceedings.

34. Devries scandalously fradulent 'mental illness' allegations against me (aided and abetted by List, by Entwhistle too it seems, and of course Ms Cressy) have thankfully been put to rest by this latest inquistion this month by the Legal Services Commissioners delegate, the Law Institute of Victoria. I attach a complete set of my correspondences with the LSC's said delegate on that matter. a. Please note the unlawful, corrupt and biased orders architected by Devries and rubber stamped by Federal Magistrate (and co-defendant) O'Dwyer. Another round of perversion of course of justice and contempts of parliaments and courts?

b. If Mr Gleeson wants to speak about 'a man like Mr Johnson' [gratuitously attack a man who is obviously in poor health and distress] without making a complete dickhead of himself (if that is possible, I make no presumptions as to the truth of Gleeson's physical or mental situations, either way, but welcome all opportunities to substantiate all factual allegations hereby conveyed by me) he would do well to read these materials and apologise forthwith. Perhaps Mr Gleeson might enjoy my List impersonation, based on List's testimony on 2 December 2008 (see attached). According to Gleeson's client, anything and everything (eg 'dickhead' allegations) that anyone (eg, Mr Johnson) says about anyone (eg Gleeson) conveys 'an aspect' of him (that is, Gleeson) that has to be examined in a Court of law. Don't worry Gleeson, apart from a sneaking confirmation that List is a fucked up mad man (as amplified by him in his 'report'), frankly, I didn't get it either. As the attached transcript of his wilting testimony demonstrates, having already exposed this quack List (more allegations and aspects I relish being examined in a Court of law under skillful cross examination) I relish the opportunity to watch or even in and do him again.

He deserves it.

35. All of the evidence, including the seeking Family Law Act orders to protect the 3 Cressy children, with orders for their housing, and schooling at my expense, not just continued paternal relations with me (see attached), the reports provided in evidence at the half-trial by real psychologists, Doctors Marianne Love, and Doctor Michael Clairbrough. Read these Gleeson and MacNamara. I also attach my contravention order application documents against Ms Cressy. MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 15 of 23

Again seeking to protect the three Cressy children. Of course, this being an Australian 'family' (sick, sic, sick) law court, co-defendant Federal Magistrate O'Dwyer refused to hear this application because if he did hear my concerns, the concerns of the children's school principal and their 61 year old neighbour and de facto nurse and carer, poor little O'Dwyer might have had to exercise his powers to put Ms Cressy in jail. I tell no lie. That was his excuse. A violent mum, whose domestic violence extends to her own children, is allowed to continue on her crazy violent way, according to this family law court authority (published somewhere on www under false surnames to protect the guilty judge and lawyers). But if a mum like her makes false claims against a dad like 'Mick', 'Steve' or me, well never mind the facts, never mind evidence never mind findings of her unreliability as a witness – anything and anything to put that man in jail. Perversions of Justicice by Rena Sofraniou (instructed by the Law Firm of Lander & Rogers and all of them funded to the tune of $100,000 to $250,000 by the Legal Practitioners Liability (Evasion) Committee) 36. Firstly, I note that despite the undertakings given by Ms Sofranou and her instructor to Associate Justice Daly on 9 July 2009, and my written reminder to them, they have failed to honour their undertakings to purchase and provide to me the transcripts of the Masters Court hearing that morning. Despite my reminder facsimile. They have still (as of 1 August 2009) failed to do so. This has impeded my attempts to obtain legal representation and all important legal aid funding (govermental and private sources). It has also impeded my preparation of responses to whatever submissions put by Sofraniou et all, whatever lies and deceits spoken by her, to Her Honour Associate Justice Daly on that day. 37. Here are some of the biggest lies and deceipts that Ms Sofraniou (presumably acting on instructions from Lander & Rogers and the LPL(E)C) delivered at the half-trial, and subsequently in the simultaneous Masters Court and Court of Appeal proceedings (Ms Sofraniou is almost a serious challenger to Devries for any competition to find Australia's most lierest lawyer):

a. Lying to Justice Kaye that poor sweet David Hanlon and Harwood Andrews were only good little lawyers doing everything all proper like to protect their geniune and legitimate client Ms Cressy's rights to my assets, even suggesting on 11 February 2009 that they were mere 'collateral damage' (rather than being principals, as initiators of all legal process at the Titles Office and in the Supreme Court and in response to my family law application – racking up for her on credit about $100,000 of legal fees for a single down payment of $3,000 or thereabouts). How funny is that?

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 16 of 23

b.

What's normal and proper about Harwood Andrews turning their back on their 8 year mulit-million dollar working relationship with me (good public authority legal work and money too) in order to play with Ms Cressy at blackmailing some pieces of silver out of me?

c. Extreme champetry and maintenance – yep good and proper. d. Abuse of process – subpoenaing stolen property from the police (none of which was of evidentiary value – despite being available to them it was not used in any of the Court proceedings). What clearer example of an abuse of process than a burglar's lawyer wording the burglar up on what to say to beat an aggrevated burglary charge, and subpoenaing stolen goods off the cops to put pressure on them not to press charges.

e. Forming a judgement that Ms Cressy had a valid claim against me and my assets, based on what – never obtaining any evidence to those claims (refer my 13 February 2009 submissions as per the attached transcript) – even after being warned by someone of value and first name basis to their Chairman and Senior Partner for 8 years that their 'cleint' is a crook (as Justice Kaye made clear in his findings). Ms Cressy's allegations to her lawyers, let alone her allegations against me to List, never at any time had any credibility. Is that why her lawyers shut their eyes and issued proceedings without bothering to hunt for evidence that they knew didn't exist or would have been fraudulently manufactured. f.

Lawyers who can't read correspondence – vide my letters showing my Caulfield East property was fully acquired, maintained and improved with 115% bank finance (almost $20,000 cashflow positive to me). They read this and told her that I was selling the property for a fair price. Excuse me, a June 2006 contract of purchase, misread as if it were a late 2007 contract of sale.

g. Lawyers who 'accidently' withdraw their fraudulent caveat over my assets to screw from me Ms Cressy's legal fees. Then knowingly in breach of section 91(4) of the Transfer of Land Act they an illegal replacement caveat. And then say, aha, Mr Johnson couldn't possible have suffered any loss or damage from our caveat which we stupidly withdrew? Excuse me. h. Ms Sofraniou's assertions (contrarty to the transcripts and the evidence) that the half-trial before the half-witted Judge was all full and proper like etc etc, that it is good for Mr Johnson if we stop these legal proceedings right away (take his rights off him immediately) so that I can get on with my life. Then there's this LPL(E)C lushing up clown's claims that I have brought excessive legal force against poor sweet little innocent Harwood Andrews. This is increadibly sick and corrupt and she should bloody well know

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 17 of 23

it and apologise for it. What planet does this little red shoed idiot learn and practice law on?

i. My favourite is Ms Sofraniou's rendition to Justice Kaye on 11 February 2009 that I am in truth a nasty human rights ab. Please refer to the attached transcript and enjoy. She alleges (and Justice Kaye, in part 2 of Johnson v Johnson gleefully finds) I have abused the human rights of David William Hanlon and also abused the human rights of Harwood Andrews Pty Ltd. ['If Mr Johnson wants to have the right to claim that somebody is not respecting his human rights, he should first prove that he isn't running about ruining everybody elses human rights[ Ms Sofranious seems to assert. Doesn't this sound like a Jerry (Seinfeld or Springer), or (Lewis) Carroll, Orwell, Dickens or Swift? Thank God I'm a Budhist. Without a Budhist sensibility (beginning with a Dhali sense of humour) I'd never be able to muster these sorts of burdens of proof, let alone thank my aggressors – no spiritual gain without material and emotional pain as the Dhali says – for these spiritual growth opportunities]. Back to Sofraniou's 1001 Fables. Firstly, the second of these. Justice Kaye has found as a matter Victorian law, and I think that Victoria may be unique in this, that artifical life forms (namely exempt proprietary companies) have human rights in this State. If only Ms Cressy had included in her list of false allegations against me an allegation that I am an artificial life form, a legal fiction (well Devries did try out the latter as the 2 December 2008 transcript attached demonstrates). So far as I am aware in every other place on earth only humans have human rights. Not kangaroos, not trees, and not artificial and fictitious legal persons. In fact, in many places on earth (including Australia to this day, self-evidently, being human is not enough it seems to guarantee human rights that will be respected by the laws of that place). Secondly, the first. I had no idea that my legal proceedings against David Hanlon (Ms Cressy's original solicitor) were heavy handed. I had no idea that he has lost all his properties, lives in fear of his life (from fire bombs and snail mails, and from a decade of death and other violent threats from Ms Cressy), no idea that Hanlon has lost his credit rating, has been maliciously criminally defamed by a Supreme Court Judge on the world wide web, has lost his credit rating and will go to jail if he sends his children (blood relatives or otherwise). Jesus, I thought the legal action David William Hanlon initaited against me did that to me. I didn't realise its really the other way around. Have I really done all these things to poor sweet, collateral damage innnocent little David Hanlon. Am I imagining that he did this to me? These are extraordinary allegations Sofraniou made against me. Don't Judges of the calibre of Justice Kaye (has he ever read Brigginshaw v Brigginshaw or anything else ever published by the Full High Court unanimously or otherwise – does he even know that the Full High Court exists and what MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 18 of 23

its purpose is – he didn't seem to know what the High Court had to do for Mrs Baumgartner, until I spelled it out to him on 12 February 2009 in weeny weeny words), I repeat, doesn't a Judge of Justice Kaye's calibre require a little weeny weeny evidence in order to make a lot serious adverse findings? Again, barristers of the calibre of Ms Sofraniou are free to make allegations (at least in Kayes court) without having to produce that stuff that begins with e, ends with e and has a renaisance genius (name of leonardo da) videnc in the middle? This is seriously shitty stuff. Sofranniou bloody well knows it and should be struck off for trying it. Even longer for getting away with it. And isn't it mean of me to say so. If only there was something worse that hasn't been done to me for speaking out about it.

j. My second favourite of Ms Sofraniou's little red riding shoe stories is her claims in the Court of Appeal and the Masters Court that she puts under the impressive sounding title of 'res judicata'. I attach extracts from the Non Est Factum Judicat transcripts of Kaye J, that show that this is another misleading and deceptive claim by her. So bad are her claims that I have rights of action against her personaly according to longstanding principles of common law (see below), and for which she is clearly not a fit and proper person to continue as an Australian legal practitioner, let alone as a member of the Victorian Bar's 'Ethics Committee (another truth in advertising law transgression?). Res Non, Non Non Judicata.

k. No doubt Ms Sofraniou will express first time surprise (for the fiftieth 'time claiming that 'I've never criticised her before'). Well if you don't want to be criticised m'lady, don't misbehave in the first place (see (a) to (l) above. If m'lady had complied with her undertaking to purchase and provide to me (free of charge) the transcript of the submissions made by her (and my objections) on 9 July 2009, then I would have attached that transcript to these responses, and highlighted my oft-repeated speech that I don't understand why these people are so prissy about my just criticism of them – especially when one considers their wild and unsubstantiated allegations against me. At least I measure and substantiate. At least I accept criticism and (positive and negative, fair and unfair) as a natural part of professional life. And at least all I ask for is a fair and unbiased hearing. Am I really expecting too much of the laws, lawyers and law courts of these lands?

Just live up to your oaths of ission people, like you are

supposed to be doing. Game keepers not game poachers. Perversions of Justicice by Richard Ingleby (instructed by the Law Firm of Harwood Andrews Lawyers and David William Hanlon of that firm)

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 19 of 23

38. I express my outrage against Harwood Andrews and David William Hanlon above. As regards Counsel retained by them, Ingelby. I attach a copy of my Affidavit of 9 February 2009 which I prepare according to Justice Kaye's directions of 13 December 2009 (or so I thought at least) in order to give Ms Soffraniou and Mr Devries an outline of the evidence I would be bringing forward in February 2009 on the resumption of the second half of the half-trial before the half-wit Judge. Lots of half measures in these 'all good and proper' proceedings. 39. I refer to my outline of the evidence that was the raison d'etre for my subpoena to Richard Ingleby. Need I say more about Ingleby's failure to act honestly and truthfully before Justice Wheelan at that (resumed) first practice court hearing? Oh, the rest of the Affidavit makes a bloody good reality check too peoples.

40. I refer to Ms Cressy's original statement of claim as drafted and settled by Ingleby. How can these lawyers claim that this was issued properly to vindicate Ms Cressy's claims and was not an abuse of process. No evidence at trial to her wild mad claims. Ergo no evidence at the date this blackmail letter was penned and issued to me with the Supreme Court seals affixed. I attach for a giggle a copy of the Amended Statement of Claim dated 4 December 2008 (from memory) and filed the following morning 5 December 2008 - ie amended after Ms Cressy had given her evidence in chief and I had exposed her madness and lies in cross examination of her that day.

41. I also attach a couple of cartoons – lawyers jokes if you like. Take a bow Ms CEO of the LPL(E)C and Ms CEO of the LSC as guardians of the professional standards of Australian legal practitioners in Victoria. . Oh no Miranda. Reading Miranda your rights. This is much better than the Devries version (to his instructor, 'Don't YOU speak to this MAN?') Your articulate letter kindly rejecting my settlement offers, bespeaks the further deterioration of your mental health as betrayed by your body language when we met in April. Well I've proved beyond all doubt, in a hostile and prejudiced forum my good mental health under extraordinary pressure. The proof and demonstration are given in the attached correspondences with the LIV as LSC delegate. How about you Miranda? I encourage you to take up my latest settlement offer, at these great prices and odds, before my legal reinforcements arrive and your hired legal goons do themselves more harm. The odds and prices are only going to go against you. PART C – AN AFTERWORD ON THE ANTIPODIAN INJUSTICE GAME (TERRA LEXUS NULLIS) Perversions of Justicice, breach of statutory responsiblities and other duties of care by Legal Practitioners Liabilty (Exclusion) Committee and Legal Services Commissioner

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 20 of 23

42. I am in the process of amending my Statement of Claim to include claims of the above kinds against Ms Miranda Milne and the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee and Ms Victoria Marles and the Legal Services Commissioner. These Responses and the attachements referred to therein will (as currently drafted by me) be attached to these new pleadings. 43. I am hopeful of issuing and serving these revised pleadings in the next few days, and idealy before the next Court of Appeal appointment on 14 August 2009. 44. I do not feel comfortable doing a bodgy home made futher cut of my pleadings given my lack of knowledge and contrary skills set. Especially since all of my drafting will need to be redrawn by independent legal representation with the requisite professional skills, experience and emotional detachment from the anguish and grief inflicted on me in these prooceedings. But I do not have the luxury of time to leave this to legal hands and eyes more skillful than mine. Perversions of Justicice by four city barristers (instructed by four city law firms) and all eight of these Australian legal practitioners funded by LPL(E)C 45. It is a long established common law principle of the laws of lawyers that if a lawyer lies and deceives a court into granting orders against a litigant, then that litigant is entitled to receive compensation (including costs) from the lawyer concerned. 46. Each of the barristers and solicitors funded by LPL(E)C for Ms Cressy's lawyers persists in lying (in the Court of Appeal and in the Masters Court) suggesting that the half-trial before the half-wit Judge (all allegations of fact that I am happy to prove to beyond the civil balance of probabilities test) was a proper trial, properly decided. Therefore, to the extent that I am not fully vindicated and fully compensated in these existent proceedings (and these lawyers lawyers are properly -educated and/or punished according to proper regulatory standards) I will be issuing legal proceedings against all 8 of them (including the solicitors individually). I believe that there are no immediate statute of limitation barriers to these claims (which no doubt, as history suggests, will continue to grow in coming days), so I am hopeful that I do not need to these perverts in these present proceedings (tempting as the idea is though). I may have the luxury of time and independent legal representation with requisite knowledge and skill set to pursue these claims. 47. What happens when human rights game keepers turn $6bn- $8n dollar human rights game poachers? On top of the grief and anguish I feel in the face of this corruption, on top of the ingratitute, violence and threats against me by Ms Cressy, on top of my grief and anguish for her plight and the plight of her three children, and the dire financial damage to my three Johnson children too (their father and their child striken from them and Mrs Johnson too), I feel humiliated and embarrassed at having to time and time again write these hurt and angry messages to representatives of judicial, parliamentary and executive arms of government. Just how much longer is this corrupt shit going to continue? MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 21 of 23

48. Just when is someone with Governmental powers and responsibilities going to step up, it the corruption that has occurred, the crimes that have occurred, accept that they will not be kept hidden forever, and actually do the things lawfully required to fix.

1. I am also pleased to inform all that, having regard to the patent dereliction of duties by the Legal Services Commissioner to accept her regulatory role as regards barristers and litigation solicitors (not everyone has the brains to year 7 legal studies, so I no judgement on her for that), I am pleased to inform all that Sutton Lawyers Pty Ltd has established a privately funded legal ombusdman scheme Law BusterS. While not saddled with the LSC's statutory responsibilities, statutory funding or statutory powers, Law BusterS at least has the good ethics and private funding and decence to seek to protect Australias non-lawyer citizens from exploitation and abuse from rogue lawyers via all legal channels and forums available. Of course I will leave it to my privately funded law reform agency, One Law Foundation Pty Ltd to do the daring stuff, like advocating that the rule of law apply without discrimination or favour to lawyers as well as non-lawyers, advocating that Australia leave Burma and Chile behind by becoming the third last nation on Earth to adopt a national bill of rights (say on the Victorian, ACT, City of Sydney, or UK or 1960's UN, or 1940s HG Wells versions even. Maybe I take Geoffrey Roberts latest book 'A Statute of Liberty: How Australians can get their rights back' a little too seriously.

Firstly, Australias non-lawyers have never been allowed to have basic human rights.

Secondly, Australias ruling class, Australia's lawyers, would quickly move to special laws (found nowhere else on Earth), create institutions and practices to take those human rights away just like mine have been taken. Isn't that what Gianarelli v Wraith and D'Orta-Edenke are all really about? Radical stuff ain't it. Dreams of laws, lawyers and law Courts that protect human rights – game keepers rather than game poachers. Not in this prison colony. The lawyers will never alaw it.

Harold James Johnson Defendant, Plaintiff by Counterclaim, Appellant and Respondent, Solicitor and Counsel For proceedings No. 9665 of 2007, No. 9263 of 2008, No. 10222 of 2008, No. 3731 of 2009 and No. 3766 of 2009. 2 August 2009

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 22 of 23

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 23 of 23