On 21 May 2012 the Victorian Government is conducting an inquiry into the absence of professional standards in the Australian (legal) profession, and at the broad intersection of the legal profession with the upper benches of all three branches of State and Federal government (benches that these days look like little more than an exclusive lawyers club).
This unprecedented and history making trial starts at 10.00 am on Monday 21 May 2012 and will be held at 55 King Street, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Sub-named Michael McGarvie – Legal Services Commissioner v Harold James Johnson, this hearing will be the biggest Australian whistleblowing, corruption exposing, media event of 2012.
This is an open invitation to the media and to the public to attend the hearings. Come and, look, listen, laugh and learn as leading Australian lawyers, lawmakers, governmen and governwomen (the Australian lawyerocracy elite) are put on trial and compelled to answer questions that they have been avoiding, for generations.
FOR ALL MEDIA ENQUIRIES – send an EMAIL to: 21May12@jamesjohnson2020.com .
A Quick Introduction to the With Prejudice Settlement Offer
It is impossible to believe the farcical nature of these proceedings. A criminal reprisal against whistleblower @JamesJohnsonCHR for which the said Michael McGarvie is doing his utmost to be the first government official to be jailed (for up to a maximum of two years) for criminal reprisals against a whistleblower under Victoria’s decade old, untested Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001.
In keeping with the farcial nature of this illegal and malicious prosecution (and reverse-prosecution by which @JamesJohnsonCHR is putting the LAWYEROCRACY ON TRIAL to fend off these criminal reprisals) @JamesJohnsonCHR this weekend sent a “with prejudice settlement offer” to the errant applicant Michael McGarvie.
There is nothing magical about the lawyers slogan “with prejudice settlement offer”. All it means is that the terms of @JamesJohnsonCHR’s extraordinarily generous and mirth-filled offer are made open (therefore “with prejudice) to the Tribunal (and in this case to the State Government Ombudsman Victoria, George Brouwer and to the elected Victorian Head of State, and leader of the Legislative Assembly, Premier Ted Baillieu).
The terms of this “with prejudice settlement offer”, and further damning expose of the corruption, absence of professional skills, absence of professional ethics and absence of professional judgement, in short, the criminality of the “protection racket” tactics of faux legal regulator Michael McGarvie and his disgraced predecessor, Victoria Marles, are once again showcased in this letter.
Set out below is the text of this “with prejudice settlement offer”. Please be forgiving of any formating errors in the translation from “word” to “wordpress”.
James Johnson, Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor
FROM THE OFFICE OF
Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor
B.Ec (Hons). LLB. Mem CLA. Mem MEAA. Journalist. Whistleblower. Independent Documentary Maker
mail: PO Box 6137 Point Cook
Victoria Australia 3030
sms: +61 (0)401 865 914 (text only)
To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. – Abraham Lincoln
We are now living in a world … where whistleblowers are traitors and journalists are enemy combatants. – Christine Assange
5 May 2012
Mr Michael McGarvie – Legal Services Commissioner
Level 9, 330 Collins Street Melbourne Victoria 3000
“With Prejudice Settlement Offer”
by facsimile: 03 9679 8101
( Telephone: 03 9679 8001 )
cc: Special Investigations Unit [Fax No. Withheld]
The Legal Practice List Coordinator
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
55 King Street Melbourne Victoria 3000
by facsimile: 03 9628 9788
( Telephone: 03 9628 9081 )
CC: George Brouwer
State Government Ombudsman – Victoria
Level 9, 459 Collins Street, Melbourne Victoria Australia
by facsimile: 9614 0246
telephone: 9613 6222
CC: Ted Baillieu
Honourable Member for Hawthorn, and Premier of Victoria
325 Camberwell Road, Camberwell, Victoria Australia
by facsimile: 9882 4051
telephone: 9882 4088
Dear Sirs / Madams
Michael McGarvie – Legal Services Commissioner v Harold James Johnson
I refer to the above matter, set down for hearing at VCAT, 55 King Street, Melbourne, starting 10 am on 21 May 2012.
The primary purpose of this letter is to make a “with prejudice settlement offer” – Secondary purposes number below.
1. With Prejudice Settlement Offer
In accordance with VCAT rules and procedures I hereby invite [VCAT applicant] to settle this proceeding by immediately withdrawing it and paying to me the sum of $275,000,00 (Two Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand Dollars).
Note that this offer is not conditional on any kind of apology or admission of wrong doing. Nor is it subject to any sort of calculation or verification or vetting process.
This is an open, with prejudice settlement offer that remains open for acceptance by the applicant (Michael McGarvie – Legal Services Commissioner) at any time up until 10.00 am on 21 May 2012.
For the information of the applicant and the Tribunal, Mr Brouwer and Mr Baillieu, this figure of $275,000.00 is arrived at according to my normal daily rate of $11,000 (which as a rough guide equates to an hourly rate of $1,100.00 per hour (which is a fair and reasonable hourly rate for a commercial, government and constitutional human rights solicitor and barrister of my standing – more than 22 years post admission experience at the highest pinnacle of the profession).
$275,000.00 is of course the equivalent of 5 weeks times 5 such days (ie 5 x 5 x $11,000.00). But please note (and I am repeating myself here) that this with prejudice settlement offer is for the unconditional fixed sum of $275,000.00, period. In particular it is not an offer of a particular sum to be calculated in any particular way, that is, the sum is fixed and not dependent or subject to any tallying of or reference back to a set number of hours or days.
Nor does this sum of $275,000.00 include any factoring of solatium or such, on account of the malicious, outrageous and criminal (see below) nature of this latest instalment of reprisal action against me by the Victorian government (via the agency of the applicant and a multitude of his staff).
Please note that should the matter proceed to hearing and the applicant’s applicant fails, I will most certainly be entitled to costs and solatium, according to Chorley principles. Such costs will need to be calculated by reference to hours engaged by me in communication with the applicant (and his staff) and in assemblage of my response to this malicious, false prosecution.
Having regard solely to the time spent by me in responding to this outrageous application since I first got wind of it in late Winter / early Spring of 2011, you should be aware that my time on the meter is already in excess of $550,000.00.
With solatium, for this criminal interference in my life, my affairs and my schedules, having interfered with the production schedules for fully two of my current documentaries in progress the applicant should factor in a figure of at least fourfold – ie $2,200,000.00 (Two Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars) should he / it dare to take this matter into VCAT on 21 May 2012.
This offer remains open for acceptance by the applicant until 10.00 am on 21 May 2012, unless and until revoked or substituted by written communication from me.
2. Criminal Reprisals against a Whistleblower and (Double) Violations of 2008 and 2009 Court Orders (Supreme Court of Victoria)
I have reviewed what I presume is supposed to be the “charges sheet” and the “prosecution brief of evidence” which was finally served on me, at the Victorian address for service that I organised for the purposes of this matter. For the record I note that these “materials” were finally served on me as late as 27 Marcy 2007, after the third of three hearings in this matter (the second one deliberatively scheduled by VCAT in late February (as opposed to early March) knowing I was unable to attend any hearings in February, and the third one scheduled and held before I was given notice that it was even ‘on’. An extraordinary state of affairs. A proper “charges sheet” and a real “prosecution brief of evidence” should have been given to me ahead of the first mention hearing on 11 December 2011 – not 3 months and 3 hearings later. And on top of this absurdity, I have only gotten to see this stuff, pauce as it is, this week.
I congratulate Michael McGarvie and his staff (with special mention for young Howard Bowles) for doing the utmost to get yourselves sacked. The precedent for this is of course Michael McGarvie’s disgraced predecessor (and fellow Rob Hulls’ installed stooge) Ms Vicky Marles. Vicky was ceremoniously dumped from her role as Legal Services Commissioner after the triple whammy of my damning pair of Supreme Court legal proceedings against the applicant (late 2008 and late 2009), and of course that damning 2009 Annual Report to Parliament by State Government Ombudsman Victoria, George Brouwer. (I see you guys have “brilliantly” included George Brouwer’s damning 2009 Report in your supposed “prosecution brief,” supposedly “against” me.)
Clearly the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner role and office are in even worse hands under the two years of Michael McGarvie’s occupation than they were even under Ms Vicky Marles 5 years of scandalous (and presumably deliberate) ineptitude. I am sure that if Premier Ted Baillieu and his staff were not so preoccupied with corruption elsewhere in the bureaucratic arm of government, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Victoria Police, and now corruption in the “setting up” of the new Victorian “anti-corruption” watchdog (Lord help the people of Victoria) he would have realised and acted on the Legal Services Commissioner farce, shut it down, much earlier than this. Ted’s administration is of course barely 18 months in office. And at least, as a Liberal Party Premier, Ted doesn’t have to worry about offers of “parliamentary seats as hush-up bribes” as is apparently all the rage at the Federal level under Prime Minister Gillard’s labor party administration (of sorts), or the alleged rorting and sex scandles involving Speaker Slipper or “ALP-Independent” MHR Tommo from Dobbell. Lord, and many of the good people in my Federal constituency of Lalor, knows what scandal Tommo from Dobbell or his successor HSU Secretary Williamson might have over Gillard that makes his removal from the House and prosecution unpalatable to her .. parliamentary numbers aside.
Hopefully Michael McGarvie and company’s blunderfully bungling and crooked latest efforts to punish my whistleblowing for reforms will result in Premier Ted Baillieu finally heeding my call that he and his “new” Liberal administration turn back the clock by abolishing your miserably corrupt “lawyers protection racket” organisation and reinstating the independent (of lawyers) former Victorian Legal Ombudsman Scheme of his predecessor, former Premier Jeff Kennett. Hopefully Premier Ted Baillieu will do this, and with a genuine consumer orientated regulator of the calibre of Kate Hamond (or maybe even myself), to clean up the cowboys of the legal industry that you and yours are so hell bent on covering up for and protecting – for reasons that I dare not speculate over or dwell upon).
Not only is Michael McGarvie (and young Howard Bowles) doing the utmost to get fired, I see you are doing your utmost to become the first government officials to get prosecuted and, if so, jailed (for up to 2 years maximum) for violation section 18 of the decade old and still untested Whistleblowers Protection Act. On paper at least, it is confirmed illegal in Victoria since 2001 for government officials to engage in reprisal actions (like this) against a whistleblower.
And on top of this, whilst pursing these false claims against me for a 3rd time, false claims it should be noted that have already dismissed by the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner 2 ¾ times previously, Michael McGarvie and his staff are acting in contempt of of the Supreme Court of Victoria not once, but 2 times. I refer again to the late 2008 and late 2009 Supreme Court of Victoria rulings I obtained against his office to the effect that “yes”, the office of the Legal Services Commissioner should investigate my more than two dozen whistleblowing complaints of professional misconduct (“barratry”, “champetery” and “maintenance”, aka “blackmail”, “extortion” and “fraud”)
Perhaps, so lacking in professional skills, professional ethics and professional judgement is Michael McGarvie (and young Howard Bowles and his colleagues) that they simply do not know that there are no statutory maximum jail terms for those who brazenly hold rulings issued by the Supreme Court of Victoria in such blatant contempt?
And I am being taken to VCAT on false claims that my professional skills, professional ethics and professional judgement are below these dismal standards on show from Michael McGarvie, Howard Bowles and their colleagues? What absolute tyranny, corruption, criminality and farce on their part. Who wants to be part of any professsion that professes people like them in it, let alone the barraters, champeters and maintenancers (the blackmailers, extorers and defrauders) who brazenly attacked me in the first place and set this farce running in the first place?
3. Conduct of Hearing on 21 May 2012
Should the applicant not take up this with prejudice settlement offer before 10 am on 21 May 2012, then I insist that the applicant be required to present its case. That is in according with Full High Court of Australia pronouncements as to the standards of natural justice that even State tribunals, such as VCAT are required to achieve. I give honourable mention to the Full High Court of Australia rulings and judgements in Kable and (unanimously) in Kirk.
Young Howard Bowles made the extraordinary claim to the Tribunal on 11 December 2011 that he had “an open and shut case” against me. Extraordinary that those 4 words seem to mean something completely different to young Howard Bowles compared to what those words mean to rational, sentient English speakers (and English dictionary writers).
At this stage I anticipate calling well over 100 witnesses. I have 57 witnesses for whom Summonses were issued on Friday. After inspection of summoned documents, and depending on the responses to several witness requests, I may well need to issue another 30 or 40 summonses. And I have in the order of 50 to 100 witnesses who are volunteering, most insistently, that I call them to give evidence of the putrid state of public disrespect for members of the legal profession and, conversely, of the restorative public image for lawyers and lawyering that I am generating from my persistent whistleblowing under adversity and championing of the need for major political and legal reforms to clean up the protected, bad lawyers, in the system.
I will need to make arrangements with VCAT for some, likely quite a few, of these witnesses to testify by video link. Indeed, as a non-Victorian for these past several years (for reasons of tragic and appallingly corrupt Victorian government agency abuse (details of which will to some degree present themselves in evidence as part of any defence case), I too may need to appear by video link also given the inconvenience of travelling to Melbourne for these hearings.
Accordingly, if I am required to present a case for a defence, this is going to take months, possibly years, not the 2 days that young Howard Bowles asked for back in February (or even the 3 days set down by the Tribunal Member that day), being the second hearing scheduled knowing that I could not attend.
However, direct application of Kable and Kirk makes it clear that the applicant must in accordance with principles of natural justice (however woefully disrespected in the 3 hearings and process to date) open and complete his case in the allotted 3 days 21 – 23 May 2012. The extent and necessity for more time for assemblage and presentment of any defence I may be required or judge appropriate to bring, should not be seen as an opportunity for VCAT, or its sister government agency (the applicant) to rebuild or restack its “open and shut case” (whatever those words mean to them) as assembled (according to them, but completely hidden from me) as at 11 December 2011.
4. Corruption, Bias and Gross Professional Misconduct in the course of these VCAT proceedings to date
It is also incumbent on me to flag at this stage that I am disgusted with the corrupt, biased and grossly unprofessional behaviours of young Howard Bowles (supposedly on behalf of the applicant) and with the corrupt, biased and grossly unprofessional behaviours of Tribunal Member Levine who presided over the first and third hearings (I am yet to listen to the audio recordings of the second and third hearings, where I was not present).
I will be taking this up with my former colleague, Judge Michael F MacNamara, who is the appropriate person to receive my complaint as he is the VCAT Deputy President in charge of this Legal Practice List.
In my opinion, both Mr Bowles and Mr Levine have displayed such an absence of professional skills, professional ethics or professional judgement, have displayed some disturbing absence of common sense, not to mention civil courtesy, and some terribly disturbing personality traits, that according to Johnson, let alone Kable and Kirk, neither of them appears fit to be serving in any governmental position – especially roles that require the policing of professional standards. Neither gentleman should have any further role in this proceeding, if it goes any further, save of course the unpleasant situation of being put in the witness box
However, I merely mention this as the proper professional expression of these concerns is both beyond the scope of a with prejudice settlement offer letter such of this, and is beyond my limited available time this weekend to articulate.
Suffice to say that I will be writing to Judge MacNamara about this, this week. No doubt he will be stunned and livid at the outrage of seeing my name or anyone of my / our professional calibre from our old and prestigious law firm for that matter, ever subjected to the indignity of being placed upon ‘his’ List.
I commend this with prejudice settlement offer to the applicant, with the most sincere (and rational) expectation that the applicant is far too foolish and dysfunctional (and far too late, now) for the applicant to take it.
Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor
Constitutional Human Rights Advocate
Solicitor and Barrister of the High Court of Australia
(Celebrating 20 Years of Legal Practice 1990 – 2010)