Lawyerocracy on Trial

… ☞☞☞ … 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.

This hearing (sub-named Michael McGarvie – Legal Services Commissioner v Harold James Johnson) will be the biggest Australian whistleblowing, corruption exposing, media event of 2012.

48 yo Melbourne-born journalist, whistleblower, political activist & human rights lawyer @JamesJohnsonCHR will lead a Victorian Government Tribunal (and an A-List Roll Call of some of the very good, many of the very bad, and lots of the very ugly of Australia’s ruling legal elite) through a thorough investigation into the absence of professional standards in the Australian legal profession.  The investigations will include the broad intersection of the legal profession with the upper benches of all three branches of State and Federal Government in Australia (benches that these days look like little more than an exclusive lawyers club).

A “who’s-who” of many of Australia’s most powerful lawyers, including current and past State and Federal parliamentarians, ministers, judges, bureaucrats and barristers have been summoned to attend for questioning by the Tribunal. [names and details to be published here, shortly.]

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.


A Quick Introduction to Lawyerocracy on Trial

This must rank as one of the more singularly stupid examples of unelected government officialdom gone wrong, misusing public monies and regulatory powers to pursue a political agenda of silencing a truth-teller and a whistleblower.

Mr Michael McGarvie, the privileged younger son of former Governor of Victoria, Richard McGarvie, and himself the former Chief Executive Officer of the Supreme Court of Victoria and the current, bicephalous Victorian Legal Services Commissioner and Chief Executive of the Legal Services Board is doing his utmost to become the first Victorian government official to be jailed (for up to 2 years) for criminal reprisals against a whistleblower – in violation of section 18 of the the still untested Victorian Whistleblower Protection Act 2001).

James Johnson is highly regarded for his “very high” intelligence, and his “impressive” natural abilities as lawyer, economist, journalist, playwright, filmmaker and raconteur. James is a whistleblower on government and lawyer corruption, a constitutional human rights solictor and barrister of more than twenty-years good standing, including many professional and corporate appointments, including 3 years as Chairman of the Law Institute of Victoria’s GST Taskforce and 5 years as a monthly columnist for the prestigious Victorian Law Institute Journal.

Mr Michael McGarvie and his team of more than a dozen of his staff are illegally harrassing Mr Johnson for a 3rd time, trampling on the most fundamental of human rights, by pursuing yet again the same set of malicious, criminally defamatory, false claims of professional misconduct that were levied against Mr Johnson over 3years ago, and investigated and dismissed by his office and delegates 2¾ times previously.

Ironically (and damningly) at the same time Mr McGarvie and his team are refusing to comply with two sets of Supreme Court rulings (obtained by Mr Johnson in late 2008 and again in 2009) where the Supreme Court confirmed (contrary to the wishes of Mr McGarvie’s Office, and the wishes of his disgraced predecessor Ms Victoria Marles) that his Office was legally obliged to investigate Mr Johnson’s whistleblowing reports on the criminal behaviours of his false accusers. 

It seems that:

  • in blatant contravention of UN and international human rights laws and declarations, far older and ancient English laws of human rights going back to 1215 and 1689 (Royal British laws recognised in the United States and even in places like Guantanamo Bay, but not in Australia), 
  • in violation of the Australian Constitution, and concepts of justice, democracy and
  • and in violation of the rule of law 

Australia’s elite twenty-first century lawyers (3 of whom remain amongst our current 7 High Court of Australia judges) have abolished or treated with ignorance and  contempt (over Justice Michael Kirby’s most powerful dissent) centuries of constitutional human rights to equality under the law.  They have done this, in order to create this unique Australian paradise where Australian litigation lawyers are not only “more equal than other” Australians, but are elevated to a privileged status above and beyond the law.  Why? And how can this be legitimate?

Come along to the Lawyerocracy on Trial on 21 May 2012, 55 King Street Melbourne:

  • To find out if the High Court, and corrupted legal regulatory ‘god fathers’ like Michael McGarvie, Victoria Marles and Steve Marks have all but abolished professional standards for lawyers.
  • And to find out if they can use their regulatory powers and run a protection racket protecting bad lawyers from investigation, and even from public criticism.
  • And to find out if they can get away with taking their protection racket to a new level by defying Whistleblower Protection legislation and Supreme Court rulings, abusing their government powers and public funding to engage in serial reprisals to silence whistleblowers such as James Johnson (all  the while not going after so many other whistleblowers such as former legal regulator Kate Hammond, or former Attorney-Generals or former Supreme Court and High Court Judges, and all the while defying Supreme Court of Victoria orders by actively covering-up and refusing to even investigate open and shut cases of criminality and corruption against James Johnson’s false accusers).James Johnson
    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)

  • James Johnson
    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)


36 thoughts on “Lawyerocracy on Trial

  1. Pingback: Lawyerocracy on Trial, 21 May 2012 « James Johnson

  2. To ensure that Judges/lawyers/magistrates obey the constitution, it’s high time we started jailing those who wilfully ignore it. eg indicting peope without a trial by jury. We need to drive these dreadful people into the sea, and for god’s sake, shut down all the ridiculous “law schools” that are springing up everywhere. (more than 20 since 1989) A preponderance of lawyers is inimical to a free society.

  3. In Tasmania our judiciary is out of control. A recent criminal Court Trial in the Devonport Magistrates Court on the 9th December 2011 witnessed magistrate Michael Brett seriously pervert the course of justice by ordering the clerk to destroy legal documents presented to him by the defendant. This is recorded on the court transcript.
    This flouting of the law is recorded (Hard copy) on a court transcript. When the defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the court and asked for a “Trial by Jury” (See section 80 Australian Constitution} he was ignored and Magistrate Michael Brett pressed o0n to deliver a Kangaroo Court decision.
    The defendant then appealed the decision of Magistrate Brett with the Tasmanian Supreme Court in Burnie. He wrote 2 letters to the Supreme Court asking them if he would receive a trial by jury. Verbally they told him no but correspondence said it was up to the judge on the day to decide. This is clearly wrong because it is up to the Australian Constitution (Section 80 and Section 109) to guide the Supreme Court to their sworn duty to uphold the law. Even after 78b notices were sent out to all Australian Attorney generals the Tasmanian Supreme Court has ignored this constitutional challenge and want to vigorously press on regardless.
    The following is not an exhaustive list.
    Tasmanian EVIDENCE ACT 2001 –
    SECT 4
    4. Courts and proceedings to which Act applies
    150. Seals and signatures
    186. Swearing of affidavits before justices of the peace, notaries public and lawyers
    Note: The Evidence Act 1995 of the Commonwealth includes a provision about swearing of affidavits before justices of the peace, notaries public and lawyers for use in court proceedings involving the exercise of federal jurisdiction and in courts of a Territory.
    188. Impounding documents
    The court may direct that a document tendered or produced before the court, whether or not it is admitted in evidence, is to be impounded and kept in the custody of an officer of the court or of another person for any period and subject to any conditions the court thinks fit.
    196. Proceedings for offences
    Commonwealth Consolidated Acts
    CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 3AA
    State offences that have a federal aspect
    CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 39
    Destroying evidence
    (1) A person commits an offence if:
    (a) the person knows that a book, document or thing of any kind is, or may be, required in evidence in a judicial proceeding; and
    (b) the person:
    (i) destroys the book, document or thing; or
    (ii) renders the book, document or thing illegible, undecipherable or incapable of identification; and
    (c) the person does so with the intention of preventing the book, document or thing from being used in evidence; and
    (d) the judicial proceeding is a federal judicial proceeding.
    Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.
    (2) Absolute liability applies to the paragraph (1)(d) element of the offence.
    Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2 of the Criminal Code .

    CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 43
    Attempting to pervert justice
    (1) A person commits an offence if:
    (a) the person attempts to obstruct, to prevent, to pervert or to defeat the course of justice in relation to a judicial power; and
    (b) the judicial power is the judicial power of the Commonwealth.
    Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.

    The defendant is seriously ill with Hodgkin’s Disease 4b, undergoing Chemotherapy and is being continuously harassed by the police because he had the temerity to advise the Tasmanian Attorney General, Brian Wightman, of the events as well as all the other Tasmanian politicians. Only a few responded to his letters but one remarkable absentee was Attorney General Brian Wightman. Seems, 3 emails plus 2 letters cannot budge him to respond or Laura Giddings premier of Tasmania or Will Hodgeman Opposition Leader.
    Poor Tasmanians. When will they wake up and demand their Constitutional rights to trial by jury.
    These are the offences and the prescribed penalty’s for those who did what Magistrate Michael Brett
    Great work James.
    Best of luck on the day.
    Ray Escobar
    Juries Against Illegal Laws Inc.

  4. Pingback: Whistleblower lawyer exposes legal and judicial corruption « Cairns News

  5. Good luck James. I hope you are successful against the legal services commissioner, Michael McGarvie. In my experience Mr McGarvie is perhaps even worse than the previous Commissioner (if that were possible). This corrupt system needs dismantling and Mr McGarvie and his staff exposed for the criminal fraud they are.

  6. the time has come for the people of australia to make these public servants acountable and uphold our 1901 consitution voted for by ninty percent of australia.bwintle.

    • William Wintle ~ I totally agree with you. The reforms should be National. Laws are supposed to be legislated to prevent the powerful ( corrupt bureaucrats with self – imposed bullying powers) always getting their own ways. In my experience when these corrupt bureaucrats are confronted, they close ranks. Name, shame, fine, sack and disallow government ministers from supporting these bullies!

  7. Pingback: Whistleblower lawyer exposes legal and judicial corruption « Cairns … | Best Law Practice Info

  8. One of the english laws we inherited under our constitution is one where the king proclaimed that lawyers are to help the people to petition the king and therefore they are ineligible to sit in the parliament. So Mr James Johnson I must ask you as a lawyer just what is your real reason to want to sit in our parliament when your ineligible.

    • niksfree: Do you mean to say, with all your heart and lucid mind, that Ms.Gillard, Mr Abbott, Adam Bandt, Nicola Roxon etcetera, etcetera are ineligible to sit in our parliament? All of them are lawyers.This is an horrific breach of our Constitution.

      • Yes this is true no lawyers are eligible to sit in our parliament. The criminals get away with it when asked by claiming they don’t work as lawyers when in office, still this never stops them from making laws to enhance the power of lawyers and judges and to protect them from our Constitutional law which is constantly happening and why judicial reviews and police reviews are a farce.

      • Your amazing knowledge of our constitution is commendable. Thank you for sharing, my ignorance about this is being redressed. I cringe every time I’m reminded that former Lawyers/Members of Parliament who receive massive tax payer funded pensions plus gold perks on retirement continue on practicing as highly paid barristers. I requested one of them, one day, in a letter, to act pro bono for a government abused child but was refused in his reply using fees as the reason. I do not understand why these facts are not made public. Surely, the press could give decent, credible info to the public about non-equitable treatment of all other hardworking people who retire in old age on meagre pensions, often treated as 19th class citizens, considering that they paid taxes all their working lives. I apologise for raving but I’m just blown-over by the facts. Regards!

  9. VCAT cannot force anyone to attend so our Mr James Johnson will be talking to himself. This is turning out to be a political stunt by a man who wishes to be elected to parliament where lawyers are not allowed to sit under our constitution so who is this man kidding I see him as a legal plant to give the people a sense of false hope.

  10. Niksfree you seem to be a bit of a plant yourself. Of course You can summons a person at VCAT. If you are not aware of that I can’t take you seriously.

    • Stephen James ~ Looking forward to reading the transcript. Can’t be there to support James. Hope there are Melbourne Twitter followers who will rally to support him!

    • Peter Nolan~ It’s not just Tasmania, it is national. It seems that greed and power drive these people to psychopathic behaviours and the incredible thing here is that they are above the law because there are no checks and balances. Some of them can commit perjury and it is ignored by the dispensers of the Rule Of Law. James is trying to change the system so that it is safe to have our legitimate cases heard, but he needs all the support from evryone who wants change.

      • Hi Arlen i would like to bring to your attention and others how James Johnson refuses to answer my question of why he wants to be in our parliament when as a lawyer he is barred as his duty is to help people petition the parliament not be the arbitrator as a lawyer whose sworn loyalty is to the bar, who are better known as the banksters.

  11. Correct you can summons someone to appear in VCAT but they do not have to attend they can get someone to speak for them which is different to a chapter 3 court or star chamber which our magistrate courts have become since the removal of justices of the peace from the bench. VCAT is not a trial its conciliation. You mr James should know these differences so why mislead in promoting your day in VCAT and why do you refuse to answer my points about lawyers in our parliament which is the root of our problems with lawyers.

  12. Vcat a running a protection racket – simple, even the Department of justice don’t have the powers to investigate their operations or complaints, Craig Thomspon may as well be the President at Vcat!

  13. niksfree ~ I have faith in this courageous man @JamesJohnsonCHR, who is trying to give people a window of hope to reclaim back their shattered lives, thousands before me and perhaps thousands after me. The onus lies in the cases being heard at the moment by a Tribunal. This public investigation is exigent to the people with interests in these matters because they have been victims.You are probably aware of people ending their lives because of Judicial Abuse, this is happening with NO checks and balances and it exonerates criminality within the judiciary by simply closing ranks. Some of these cases are not made known, publicly. We are talking of serious human rights abuses, how can anybody condone and ignore these facts! It’s good to know that you are following the proceedings, perhaps you can support the matters James is working on! What is justice for anyway?

      • Since when is asking a legitimate question fall into the category of bagging??? Just taking an issue such as James’s to a tribunal is not making it right. VCAT is about facilitation and mutual agreement on an outcome, its not a chapter 3 court where a jury decide’s who is right or wrong. I am not judging anyone as this implies i am imposing my will on another human being which i definitely never do. Please read carefully and not jump to conclusions based on emotions and not facts of law.

      • Fair enough. Was actually attempting to respond to someone else. My point being that Constitutional law in this country has broken down and that we should all be behind anything that anyone does to both expose and rectify the situation.

      • True but we also must be cautious of the many pied pipers out there. I have learnt one thing in life and that we can only change ourselves not others as they have a free will to fix themselves. may i suggest you check out this is put together by people who love humanity and have no agendas.

      • niksfree ~ How do you deal with cover-ups and you are powerless because those who profess, well-heeled people who are taxpayer funded professional bureaucrats, to help the victim are the ones who openly betray him with agenda to STEAL from him. Stealing from a poor victim to give to these corrupt officials is the LOWEST form of THEFT. Every possible access to justice is SHUT. James is making these facts more understandable and perhaps vulnerable people in the future will have the information to equip themselves in their journey. ‘Evil people prosper because good men do nothing’. Well, @JamesJohnsonCHR is a proactive good man!

      • I cannot comment on james being a good man is because i have not seen any evidence to prove it , it appears you have so may I see it. In answer to your other statements it comes down to understanding how our system works by researching and asking questions. I also ensure anyone i do business with signs a contract/agreement with me this is especially important when doing business with Lawyers. I have also learnt we cannot help others but only ourselves as we do not know all the facts involved with others.

  14. I am a Whistleblower who was sued for defamation,, the defamation trial involved perjury, concealment of evidence and conspiracies. The court’s reward was a victory for criminal behaviour. against me. The matter contributed to the suicide of my only child, I have no family, I have taken action against the conspirators and have ended up with a decision against me in the District Court of South Australia by a Judge who took away all my rights as an Australian citizen under the cnstitution. I am a litigant in person, I have been denied all my rights under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, the FOI Act and the confidentiality Act., the decision by a judge who resigned a day after the corrupt decision against me, for his activities with sex workers. Injustice anywhere is a threat to injustice everywhere. I will continue my fight for justice at all costs. A countrymean of mine once said, when they have taken all you have, and you have nothing left, you may as well fight tyranny. I don’t expect justice in this scandalous matter, but I will do my best.

      • Jonah Stiffhausen: Amen to that! I keep on believing that good triumphs over evil. I also subscribe to the Rule of Life that any one, especially men and women with self- imposed powers, who deliberately steal from the poor should not only ‘swing’ but be made to account for their Lowest Form of Theft.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s