Sentence First, Verdict After. The Judge laments “The paucity of the evidence”. But mateship amongst bench and bar overrules evidence, due process, human rights and natural justice.
A Dickens of a Carroll – Lawyerocracy on Trial
Charles Dickens or Lewis Carroll would instantly recognise this case. They might well wish to claim it for their own.
This criminally malicious prosecution the Legal Services Commissioner has launched against me, in medical equivalent terms, is the equivalent of an eminent doctor, an eminent research scientist who has never spent a day operating in a surgical theatre in his life, going under the surgeons scalpel (relying on absolutely foolhardy ‘accredited specialist’ advice) for an operation on his little finger, only to wake up mid operation, to find that the surgeons have amputated both his legs. He screams, escapes and, against all the odds, survives. When he complains to the relevant regulatory authorities (which are chuffed full of surgeon mates of the dodgy surgeons) they refuse to investigate the dodgy surgeons and instead initiate malpractice proceedings against the patient.
Despite having a statutory duty to protect patients by investigating their complaints the regulatory agency refuses to investigate the dodgy surgeons. Despite two sets of Supreme Court rulings telling it it can, and it should, investigate the dodgy surgeons, the regulatory authority (chuffed with dodgy surgeons) defies those Court orders and refuses to investigate those who did the dodgy surgery.
In my case, the regulator has issued malpractice proceedings against me despite having no authority in the first place, and despite more than twice dismissing the false claims against the me. Despite the same false mal-practice charges against me being fully dismissed by a Supreme Court Judge contrary to the pleading demands of the more senior of the dodgy ‘surgeons’ and by a Federal Magistrate who initially refused to engage in a witch-hunt against the me, but changed his mind to decide to join in the witch-hunt the day after the Supreme Court Judge refused to.
Why did this Federal Magistrate change his mind about joining the witch-hunt? why on account of having been named as a co-defendant along with regulatory body, and the ring-leader of the surgeons in a $50 million plus malpractice suit which, incredibly to that ‘Caesar who loves judging Caesar’ is not in the least bit troubled by any sense of bias or conflict (or High Court of Australia binding precedents) in continuing to hear a case that had been withdrawn and handing down judgement against a constitutional human rights lawyer of 20 years good standing who was at the same time suing him for and a dozen others by way of a $50 million dollars Supreme Court counterclaim.
Could truth be any stranger than fiction?
Beware the Darling Ides of May
FOR MANY YEARS 18 May has been a day of special significance for me.
18 May 2012 is the twenty second anniversary of my achievement of the position and the responsibilities as a Solicitor and Barrister of the High Court of Australia.
On 18 May 1990, exactly 22 years ago, having passed all the prescribed examinations and attained met all the prescribed conditions I signed on to the Roll of Barristers and Solicitors of the High Court of Australia. For a fifth generation Australian born of honest humble working class stock (The first of any generation to complete High School, let alone go on to complete two graduate degrees at a prestigious university and in prestigious fields of economics (with honours) and law).
Exactly 4 years ago, 18 May 2008, I was in the Supreme Court of Victoria, seeking the Victorian Government’s (the Court’s) permission to sell 6 properties that I owned. These were properties I had bought with my own money (and monies borrowed from 6 banks), registered in my name. So why in a country that pretends to be constitutional, democratic, with respect for human rights, civil rights, political rights and respect for property rights.
So why, as an Australian citizen, living in a free country, did I need the Government’s permission, via orders of a Supreme Court Judge, to liquidate my real estate portfolio? And why, if I lived in a civilised country, did I need to liquidate my real estate portfolio (triggering massive exit fees in selling expenses and Government taxes) in a last ditch effort to prevent my wealth being completely destroyed and the residue looted, by legally qualified barbarians?
Fraud and Extortion – Writ The Lawyer Way
A year earlier (May 2007) I had become the victim of a fraudulent legal claim. I have since learned that the United States these fraudulent claims are called “marriage fraud”. Like something out of a novel by Dickens, a young woman whom I had barely dated a decade earlier, and many years my junior, had turned up on my doorstep. Her mission? She sought to seduce, and when that failed, sought to blackmail me, into starting a live-in de facto relationship with her.
When I resisted her bizarre seductions and her vile threats, she ran off to a firm of Law Institute of Victoria Limited accredited “family law specialists.” Like lawyers out of a Dickens novel, these were lawyers who boasted of being “the largest Legal Aid funded family law practice in Australia”
And like lawyers out of a Dickens novel, these lawyers didn’t bother to gather anything as obvious as background on their new “client” or her outrageous claims. If they had bothered to gather some evidence before issuing damaging legal process they would have discovered that their client and I had never shared the same postcode, let alone shared a marriage bed and, as later borne out in court when her own handwritten personal diaries were read out to the Judge, had a long history and a long list of men whom she had scammed over the years (just never before with an army of fraudulent lawyers at her fore-front).
Within 6 months a mountain of evidence of the crimes this woman and these lawyers were committing was flooding the doors of these “accredited family law specialist” lawyers. This included police reports (their “client” caught red-handed by the police with a dozen boxes of stolen loot from one of her (aggravated) burglaries of my home to steal and destroy the evidence of the fraud of her case), police reports (of her disturbing mental health problems including violence towards her own children). This included psychiatric reports of that domestic violence incident (which the tiny victims only disclosed to me, still visibly in states of shock, a week after it happened). And it included a psychiatrist report obtained for court purposes that recorded all sorts of bizarre admissions and lies, including to the effect that the psychologist was disturbed that she had initially lied to him about some seriously disturbing things, and might have a problem with telling the truth (but nevertheless, like a Supreme Court Judge a year later, he still believed all of the weird and bizarre and uncorroborated other things that this woman had told him – and which he had not obtained any corroborative evidence, or had he even bothered to seek out the “other side” of the “story”.)
In spite of all of this, these “accredited family law specialists” still continued to promote their client’s fraudulent claim, where in truth, they were to all intents and purposes not just a big economic partner, but the only economic party with any interest in the outcome. Even at that early stage, their “client” was just a nominal partner with no economic interest even then in the outcome. And worse her mental health problems demonstrated to police and to psychological and psychiatric workers during those first six months demonstrated that she lacked the mental capacity to either give legal instructions or to receive legal advice. And all of this was actively known by the lawyers, who had actively engaged in lying and other perversions of the course of justice and of police investigations, in order to con the Victoria police out of charging their fraudster client with aggravated burglary – risking a potential 25 years imprisonment (where she might well have got the counselling and rehabilitation that she needed) and risking the total loss of their economic gamble on her to date.
Nor at any time did these puddles of the profession bother to take any money from their “client.” When an exasperated Supreme Court Judge asked me years later (during the process of fragmenting and obstructing my appeals process) “Where did she get the money for all this [legal process].” All I could tell him was that these “accredited family law specialists” had given her enough credit to buy two of my properties off me, outright.
As documents filed in Court showed, these “family lawyers”, and an even more fraudulent and corrupt set of lawyers who took over the championing of her “case” a year later, had gone on to rack up over $400,000 in legals all on credit. What collateral did they get the woman to provide? They got her to execute fraudulent caveat-mortgages over my properties (piggy-backing false mortgagee claims for themselves on top of the false ownership claims they were fomenting for her). No lawful or sensible bank or lending or credit providing institution would grant such an open line of credit to a person like this with zero due diligence on the (total absence of) quality in their collateral.
Thirty years ago, no lawyers would have extended such a line of credit, either. For hundreds of years, such credit provision by lawyers to penniless litigants was a serious crime. Up until a century and a half ago, this sort of ‘maintenance’ or ‘champetery’ could have attracted the death penalty for any lawyers crooked enough to get caught (by other lawyers) and prosecuted (by other lawyers) – ie unlikely even back then to be prosecuted.
Thirty years ago, rather than tackling the root problem of massive costs of litigation, a ‘barrier of access to justice’ created by the lawyer built-owned-operated legal system that puts access to the law, and the protection of legal rights, out of the hands of members of the general public, the lawyers took another path. The lawyers encouraged their parliamentary representatives (who are also lawyers) to pass laws decriminalising the centuries old laws prohibiting lawyers from making heavy financial speculations (gaming and wagering). If such parliamentary decriminalisation laws were constitutionally valid (which is doubtful, without the people’s imprimatur (via constitutional referendum), they certainly didn’t go as far as decriminalising extortion and blackmail – the ancient crimes of barratrie (lawyers fomenting groundless legal writs to extract hurt money from the targeted defendants) still remain very much on the law books today – as do the more modern crimes of extortion and blackmail (section 85 of the Victorian Crimes Act). The obstacles being that it is entirely up to the lawyers to enforce these laws. And what can anyone (even a lawyer) do when the lawyers don’t want to enforce the law?
$400,000 in legals is an extraordinary figure since they didn’t find, and as is demonstrated by the court records certainly didn’t produce any evidence at the trial to justify their actions in championing and maintenancing her fraudulent, desperate and disturbing claims. Instead, no doubt they salivated at the riches of my property portfolio that would soon be theirs. As a basic rule of thumb, family lawyers draw and quarter and get to keep a whole quarter, and usually the biggest quarter of every divorce estate that they process, along with a large amount of general taxpayer funding in legal aid and other court and government infrastructure and monies. More than $40 bn of divorce estates are turned over by the Australian family law chambers and courts every year, along with more than $4bn of general taxpayers funds.
At the end of the court room fiascos, out of my initial assets worth in excess of $2,000,000 all that was left for these fraudulent lawyers to grab was about $150,000 from the proceeds of multiple bank mortgagee and (mostly) court forced sales. Nothing was left to me. Nor did the fraudulent claimant receive a penny (finally realising this, she didn’t even bother turning up for the later hearings or for any of the appeals process). All that she received, all that she was supposed to receive, was a letter from her lawyers, denying that she had been overcharged, and reminding her that they had ‘won her case’ (NB appeal proceedings were and are still in play), advising her that they would not recover out of my assets enough to cover their bill and so she would not be getting anything out of it, and asking her to explain how she was going to pay them the outstanding monies ($250,000) that she owed them. All I can say is she was supposed to get this letter. True to their incompetence and stupidity, these “accredited family law specialists” posted that letter and enclosed invoices to me, instead of their client.
Sentence First, Verdict After. The Judge laments “The paucity of the evidence”. But mateship amongst bench and bar overrules evidence, due process, human rights or natural justice.
The court room fiascos were an extraordinary demonstration of how much process, process, process lawyers like this can produce to fill up their time sheets, without at any time doing anything of substance, such as collecting a skerrick of evidence to justify their and their client’s actions. Over $400,000 worth, on their (probably not, final) tally.
The “case” was rushed to trial, without any pre-trial processes first, on their fraudulent 2 day estimate at a secret hearing I received notice of weeks later, and the outcome of which I couldn’t be told by the Court (despite twice weekly requests) until almost 2 months later. The case took more than the full four weeks that I had estimated to this second batch of crooked lawyers, in my “welcoming brief” to them a year earlier.
Why send a welcoming brief to the opposing party’s lawyers? A rare professional courtesy indeed.
Knowing that they would not get any of “the truth, the whole truth or anything but the truth” from their client or her previous lawyers, I had sent them “the other side” a folder of relevant materials. Instead of a professional thank you for this unusual professional courtesy on my part, I received the most venomous of written responses demanding all sorts of things that were properly to be obtained by way of instructions from his client, not from the party on the other side. Another example of the mountain of shameful professional misconduct by these, also “accredited family law specialists”, that Victoria’s shameful legal regulator cum stand-over protection man for these lawyers, refuses to investigate.
All defendants must prove their sanity to the court before they are allowed to defend themselves against fraudulent lawyers and their fraudulent civil proceedings
This part of the Supreme Court fiasco is classic Lewis Carroll, only more cartoonish.
The first day of this supposed 2 day hearing was devoted entirely to an illegal claim by the woman’s barrister that I was mentally unfit to defend myself. “Oh, Mister Dev, you can’t make an application like that on the morning of the trial. You should have made it weeks ago. And in any event you can’t make that application, only Mr Johnson can make that application if he feels that he is unfit to defend himself.” Nevertheless, having stated the law, the Judge then decided to entertain this insanity investigation, without clearing the court room of witnesses, so a dozen of my witnesses were traumatised and shocked. The Barrister, Mr Dev, sought to have the public trustee instantly take over the running of my defence. When that failed, he sought to have one of his barrister mates “who runs the pro bono section of the Victorian bar association” to instantly replace me to argue my case against him. Towards the end of the afternoon, the Trial Judge ruled “against his better judgement” not to deny me the right to defend myself,
In front of a courtroom still full of witnesses, the Trial Judge ruled that afternoon “against [his] better judgement” not to deny me the right to defend myself against this false claim, brought by massive abuse of legal process without a skerrick of evidence to produce at trial. Within 24 hours the Trial Judge was describing me as “Mr Johnson is a very intelligent man, you could put it more highly than that, with impressive natural abilities as an advocate for someone who says he has never stood up and argued a case in court before …” Miraculously, I don’t know how, this sentence, which the Judge repeated several times over the 20 days that followed, found itself into the published judgements. Most of what was in these judgements, fragmented into 4 parts and the first of which remaining unpublished, was unfit to print. Cicero called it the ultimate tyranny, to be dealt with unjustly by those who have sworn to uphold principles of justice.
It is now (secret, unpublished) law in the State of Victoria that defendants (or, query, is it only defendants with over 18 years post admission qualifications as lawyers and are entitled to charge thousands of dollars a day to defend other citizens) have no legal right to defend themselves in civil proceedings unless they have first survived a snap insanity inquisition, made on the morning of the trial, by the barrister for the plaintiff.
In his attack on me, this dodgy Barrister Dev relied on a shocking psychological report prepared by a psychologist appointed by the Federal Magistrates Court. This report contained alarming statements about the woman that she had admitted. It also included wild, criminally defamatory and mentally ill claims the woman made against me, that I would not only have denied but easily disproved if this unethical psychologist had had the professional decency to raise them with me for rebuttal before throwing them into print. Conveniently having this psychologist in the court room (I had subpoenaed him to rip into him and his unprofessionally deranged and most improper “report”) Barrister Dev put him in the box. His testimony included this outrageous gem of psychiatric diagnosis from a man whose mere psychological expertise is of dubious quality: “Mr Johnson’s psychiatric condition (I was falsely accused of extreme Narcissism) is so deep that he doesn’t know he has it. These sorts of people are very good at hiding their symptoms from themselves and from others. The symptoms might not even show up at any time during the trial.” I believe Barrister Devs point was that in kindness to me I should not be allowed to speak in my own defence because I might suffer a disadvantage from imaginary psychological conditions that mean I might not be able to do justice to my case.
It should be noted that I was reluctantly at court, seeking to have due process, including pre-trial process, and awaiting the outcome of several legal aid applications. I was reluctantly forced to defend myself since all my assets were fraudulently hocked to pay his bills and none of the hundreds of lawyers I had approached would touch my case on the basis “she doesn’t have a case but it will cost you millions to defend yourself.” And was forced to defend myself that day because the trial judge would not put it back to (just my unlikely luck to score the rare judge that did not want to have the rest of that day, and all of the next day, off from court room duties – or perhaps a judge had been ordered that he had to get the case on and over with as fast as possible no matter what).
The other piece of ‘evidence’ that Barrister Dev used to try to snuff out my right to defend myself against his lying claims was a psychiatric report, again unprofessionally prepared, doctored up, to make it look like the claimant and I were a de facto couple, even though this psychiatrist had promised me, as a condition of my engaging in what was anyway an unlawful piece of false evidence manufacturing by the legal system, was that he produce two separate reports. I was surprised because I had been told months earlier that no such report would be produced [I had been wrongly ordered to pay for it and had no funds to do so]. Turns out the report was prepared and certainly in a way that suggested revenge since the writer, to my knowledge never was nor will be paid for it. I asked Barrister Dev for a copy of the report. It should have been given to me months ago when it first issued. He refused to give me a copy. I asked the Judge to order him to give me a copy of the report. The Judge refused to order Barrister Dev to give me a copy of the Report. I finally received a copy of the report via the Legal Services Commissioner, about a year later after enormous effort. On reading the report I could understand the enormous resistance those lawyers and lawyers of government officials had in letting me see the report. It contained a diagnosis of the woman by the psychiatrist to the effect “She is well practised in deceiving people, especially men.” Clearly the lawyers championing her fraudulent claims in the courts, at a time where if ‘she won’ they would be the only ones to get anything, the last thing that they wanted was for my or the Courts attention being drawn to this professional diagnosis, or their knowledge of it at the time that they continued to press her charges regardless.
“The paucity of the evidence”
The Trial Judge spent the first 2 weeks of the trial moaning to the barrister and the fraudster over “the paucity of the evidence ..” They produced two valentines cards that I had sent to their client. I had handwritten messages on both cards. The first dated February 1999 indicated that we were seeing each other at that date. The second, dated February 2000 indicated that we were neither seeing, nor even talking, to each other.
This was hardly any sort of evidence to support a claim that this woman and I had lived together as a ‘bona fide de facto relationship’ for at least 2 years including the period May 2005 to 2007. That was the first thing that these lawyers, supposedly, according to the relevant laws, had to produce evidence to justify bringing their case.
The other thing they had to show was, since they could not get away with claiming a fully-fleshed legal marriage under Australian law (I have for more than 22 years been legally married to a genuine Mrs Johnson though we separated – a de facto divorce -more than a decade ago) was that this woman had made financial or other contributions that enabled me directly or indirectly to purchase my portfolio of assets.
As part of the fraudulent claim filed at the Land Titles Office (to have the Victorian government freeze my assets prior to any judicial process commencing) this fraudulent woman and her lawyers had claimed (no substantiation required) massive financial co-contributions. They also made these claims in their Statement of Claim filed in late 2008 and in their Amended Statement of Claim, filed on the fifth day of the trial (and illegally allowed by the Trial Judge) even after they had finished presenting their evidence less, perjury fuelled (as the Trial Judge found) “case”.
They dropped these claims at trial. They produced no evidence of this woman ever earning or receiving a dollar of income, let alone giving a dollar of money to me. Why did she have no tax returns or bank statements to show income or money flows to her and from her to me? I was falsely accused by Barrister Dev of breaking into her home and stealing her evidence. A clever form of lying that caught me by surprise. A just describes everything the did to B, but pretends that it was B doing it to A? Where was the evidence the Barrister Dev had to make these serious allegations against me, against anybody let alone a lawyer of almost 20 years good standing? Barrister Dev of course had none, but because of his ‘special friendship’ with the Trial Judge (and all of the Judges at Court) he was free to “poison the well of justice” (see below). And poison the well of justice he did on an hourly basis for twenty plus solid days. And truth, justice, as well as my financial and reputational health and the futures and well-beings of all my loved ones, were well and truly poisoned by these toxic, and criminal, outbursts by that criminal and toxic barrister.
The financial contributions claim got to the absurd stage of this woman claiming that she and I would go out for meals and outings and I would always leave her to pick up the tab. Corroborative evidence for this absurd packet of lies, please?
Even after restating these claims in their illegally amended statement of claim (after closing their case with nothing more than bizarre, contradictory and perjured uncorroborated testimony from their “client”) Barrister Dev announced to the court that she was dropping this financial contributions claim.
As to the second part of the claim. I asked where is the circle of family and friends to testify to this supposed relationship? None called. What a bizarre and sad de facto relationship where there was no socialising as a couple or as a family? What about birthday cards, birthday videos, Christmas and family events? None called, just a couple of valentines cards from “last century” that marked the beginning and the end of a casual dating relationship. If no family or friends, what about neighbours, who must have seen something? None called. I had discovered a neighbour of hers, five doors down who was paying morning and evening welfare checks on the children (always playing, hungry half dressed in the cold in the busy streets) and her pack of pets (similarly neglected and running in the streets). She testified to this, and that the woman was a single mum with no males living in the house. She later told me, as did the neighbour right next door, that the woman was always bragging to them about her latest boyfriend, a businessman this or a doctor that. But unfortunately she hadn’t told me about that before the trial so that bit of evidence never got into court. Anyway it is doubtful that it would have made any difference. The Trial Judge ruled that the neighbour was well intentioned.
What about other relationships? Marriage (even a de facto marriage) being a loving union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, surely even a de facto marriage required exclusivity? With my dwindling funds I managed to track down one of her current boyfriends (not the then live-in boyfriend, Yuri, but a 60 year old married man from Toorak, a South Melbourne / Sydney marketing executive by the name of ‘Marc’ – it seems 50 % of executive ). I tracked down an earlier boyfriend from 2000 – 2003 (also an older married man, a Mr Cockram who worked for the Salvation Army of all places, and mentioned with distinction on the list of her victims in her diaries on account of his red hair) and summons him into court. When he appeared, eventually, and denied knowing (not denied, but denied knowing) whether he had ever met her or not (as his wife sat in the corridoor outside of court, while their two young children were presumably at primary school) the Trial Judge leapt at me in rage for wasting his time calling a stranger to give irrelevant evidence in the Court. I also called a police witness, a Senior Detective from the very important anti-crime gang squad, “Purana”, to shine a little light on this woman’s history. The Senior Detective testified that yes, those two were a couple for several years, and Mr Cockram had turned to stalking and threatening the woman after she ended the relationship. The Senior Detective Purana Taskforce testified that he had pleaded guilty at trial (which was news to me, and would explain why he no longer worked for the Salvation Army). She also testified that I assisted the woman and the police to get intervention orders for the woman against Mr Cockram. The Trial Judge ignored this evidence, describing the Senior Detective Purana Taskforce as an ordinary ‘constable’ in his written judgements.
These family lawyers did not need evidence. They didn’t need a case. Their strategy was to rely on vicious, unwarranted personal attacks on me. And, more importantly, close mateship between the bar table (the barrister leading the attacks) and bench (the Judge). It came out in later appeal style hearings lower in the court hierarchy, on the court record, that the barrister was a close personal and business friend of every Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria – except possibly one, a recent appointee a few years my junior, who couldn’t possibly be expected not to be influenced by any pressure from any of her colleagues).
The Trial Judge made no pretext of allowing due process, or applying law and order. He refused to try the case on the basis of the latest version of my $50 million damages counterclaim against the woman and her original barratrying lawyers and a total of twelve co-defendants (including her “new” barratrying lawyers, the Legal Services Commissioner, the Federal Magistrate and 9 others, including two of my banks). He insisted on trying my counterclaim on the basis of the first, 2 page, dot-form document I had filed as a holding claim, at the start of the year, expecting that I would in due course obtain legal representation, litigation lawyers, to draw up and defend me in court, including presenting my counterclaim). Four days later, he allowed Barrister Dev to change his side’s claims, adding more properties and more claims of sources of income for the woman, but not adding any evidence to support the old or the new claims. When the Judge asked me what I thought about this I responded that I thought this was illegal because it denied me my right to fair hearing and justice since I was here to defend myself against claims as written up a year earlier. I also pointed to the “slight” bias, I couldn’t rely on an Amended Counterclaim drawn up 3 months earlier, but she could amend her claims 3 days into a 4 week trial. I said that she had no evidence to support her first set of lies, let alone this second set. I mentioned that she had closed her case so would not be calling any evidence to support this new set of lies. Over my objections the trial judge ruled that I hadn’t objected so he would allow her side to amend her claim on the third day of a four week trial. Six months later the High Court of Australia ruled that it was a denial of natural justice for a trial judge to allow a plaintiff to amend its statement of claim on the third day of a four week trial. That was a fairly emotionless litigation by a university against an insurance company over the insurance policy for a building that had burned down. Chief Justice Shelton French’s written reasons for that decision were eerily identical to the points I had made to no avail to the trial judge in the Supreme Court of Victoria 6 months earlier.
You should not underestimate the contributions made by a home-maker The Well of Justice has Just Been Poisoned.
Shutting his eyes to any semblance of due process, ignoring the most basic of litigation laws and procedures laid down by they High Court of Australia in precedents that, at least on paper, were binding on him to apply, shutting his eyes to the mountain of evidence, this dazzling doyen of justice even shut his eyes to his findings that the fraudster “looked me in the eye, and [she] lied to [him] from the witness box. And [she] will pay dearly for that.” Personally, the $25 he ordered her to pay me in compensation, some sort of judicial joke, being equivalent to a $1 a year for each of the 25 maximum years in jail she would have faced if her lawyers had not perverted the police investigation of her aggravated burglary and stymied her being prosecuted … I think that is a bit of a judicial declaration that crime does pay (having regard to the volumes of evidence that she stole, about ¼ of which she presumably destroyed as it wasn’t recovered by the police) and the massive damage that it did to me, leading directly to me having to close my legal practice on account of the theft of sensitive, cabinet in confidence, government papers and other client records included in her theft. Add to this the unprofessional sport of Barrister Dev asserting, without a shred of evidence required to allow him to make the claims, that I had broken into her home and I had stolen all of her irreplaceable evidence. Even thought the trial judge in his infinite wisdom ruled that he didn’t think that I did this, it certainly added another layer of “poisoned the well of justice” to use a color phrase later applied by the Court of Appeal (Justice Paul Coghlan to be exact) to exactly the same sort of professional misconduct by Barrister Dev towards me. In the absence of anything resembling evidence Barrister Dev of course “poisoned the well of justice” like this on a quarter-hourly basis and in more ways than just this one. For example, while his witness spent barely 4 ½ hours in the witness box, Barrister Dev spent over 2 days summarising her evidence. In reality, Barrister Dev spent these days leading prejudicial and irrelevant “false evidence” from the bar table – the ultimate kind of poison – while I had taken leave of the court, not needing to stay around for those days since I had done all I could to try to bring sanity to the madness. Barrister Dev was encouraged into a third day of this poisonous spray by the trial judge who had abused me for a taking almost a whole day to sum up my 3 weeks full of the real stuff of real evidence and real independent witness’ testimonies.
The Trial Judge refused to apply High Court rules for the measurement of evidence. He clearly refused intuitive plea that the Judge “forget about what he said, forget about what she said, figure it out by looking at the independent evidence, the hard evidence and the testimony from the independent witnesses” – which I later found out is the binding High Court precedent known as Johnson v Johnson  CLR 448 (no relations of mine).
The trial Judge ruled, as he was always going to do, right from the first moments of the case, if not earlier, in favour of her claim that I had been her lovey-dovey, live in de facto husband for a decade (going back to a time before I had even met her). And he reached this judgement solely on relying on the uncorroborated testimony of a woman who had “looked [him] in the eye and lied to him”, who was “well practised in deceiving people, especially men” (said the psychiatrist in a report shown to the Judge but hidden from me), who “had originally lied to me, but then confessed the truth, which I find disturbing and raises questions of her honesty and credibility” (according to a psychologist who was as biased as possible towards her) and who described herself, along side a list of her male victims as “I am in truth a beautiful liar.”
A hollow victory, she didn’t bother sticking around for the judgement. No doubt she had already been told by her lawyers that even if she won she wouldn’t receive a cent and would have to make arrangements to pay the very hefty $250,000 balance of her $400,000 plus legal bill.
One almost has to admire such a crazy and desperate fraudster, and to think that maybe she has proven true to her words, her words “I am in truth a beautiful liar” to have gotten away with such a trial of fraud and deception, including suckering so much in the way of lawyer time and energy and so many fraudulent and improper court rulings from so many sub-standard Supreme Court judges. Surely she deserves something more for such an outrageous accomplishment than to be left hanging at the end with an outstanding $250,000 residual bill owing to such a worthless bunch of legal hacks?
Why would a Supreme Court Judge blatantly break so many High Court laws, so many laws of due process, so many laws of evidence and so many laws of substance as well, to deliver such an obviously improper (perhaps criminally proper), unsound judgement?
Perhaps, just for the thrill of it, just because he can. Remember that this is an unelected government official. It is impossible for him to be fired or removed prior to hitting his mandatory retirement age. (And not so long ago there were no mandatory retirement ages). And the only check or balance to which he is accountable, only on paper of course, is to his fellow judges in the Court of Appeal. What are the chances that they will embarrass him by reversing his judgement on appeal. There are “very little prospects” of that happening, as Chief Justice Marilyn Warren has already, very quickly, prejudiced. Why such “little prospect”, no doubt the trial judge’s fellow judges (especially the practice court duo of Justice Anthony Cavenagh and Justice Hartley Hansen), wanted, certainly are happy with, and perhaps even had a hand in his making this improper and unsound judgement.
Perhaps, and I think this is a more weighty reasons, because of the “sentence first, verdict after” misbehaviours of the two Supreme Court Judges, Anthony Cavenagh and Hartley Hanson in their mid 2008, two day practice court hearing when the issued “eviction and gagging orders” against me. Justice Hartley Hanson even left his mate, Barrister Dev to draw up the terms of the orders, weeks after the second day of that ‘two hour maximum’ practice court hearing had concluded (I had walked out of that process towards the end of the first day, well after the two hours limit had expired, refusing to be part of such an unlawful gathering and process and did not even find out about the second full day hearing until after it had been secretly held and Barrister Dev’s draft court orders were sent to me, bizarrely thinking I would embrace them). If the Trial Judge had handed down a true verdict that showed those practice court orders were unjustified and unlawful on the facts, this would have been embarrassing for his two fellow Justices (who presumably will never be so foolish again as to be seduced into wrong-doing by such a slippery barrister mate as Barrister Dev).
Another weighty reason is because the corrupt behaviours of the barristers raised taboo topics. I had been warned by senior legal professional figures not to fight the claim. This corruption in the court systems is clearly wide spread, as I have since uncovered. It is concentrated in, but no longer solely to be found in Australia’s corrupt, unconstitutional, killer family courts (which fully and exclusively employ about 1/3 of all Australian lawyers – about 30,000 to 40,000 hungry family lawyers and their families, at the expense of more than 1000,000 ordinary, struggling, Australian working class families every year (with indigenous and migrant families measuring disproportionately in the mix). But the lawyer racket is certainly out of the bottle of the family court system and into the broader court and bureaucratic arms of government as well.
“Go get some drugs, sit on a beach, and then get a low stress job with a company or a firm somewhere. And have a laugh because they are not going to get as much out of you as they thought they would … And they are not real lawyers anyway.” I doubt that that senior legal figure of the time would think like that if the shoe and horn of corruption was slammed down on his foot.
“She doesn’t have a case, but it will cost you millions to defend yourself.” is how another senior “accredited family law specialist” lawyer fobbed me off, in the same month that he trumpeted (parroting the words two months earlier of the Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, that “the Australian family law system is the envy of the world.”
The envy of corrupt family lawyers who don’t have it so easy or lucrative or dirty in other countries as they do here in Australia, but hardly the envy of the real world outside of the societies of family lawyers and their courtrooms or the 100,000 families, and $40 billion worth of divorce estates that the family lawyers process, draw and quarter, every year with a precision and profitability (for the processors) unmatched even by the hell holes of Treblinka or Auschwitz, or the hell holes of Nauru and Manus Island, or the hell holes of Northern Territory Intervention.
The net effect is that the judge covered up all of these transgressions declaring (in a piece of near Orwellian propaganda) “you should not underestimate the vale of the contributions of a home-maker”
And who could disagree with that? Only problem being that all the evidence showed there was no home made, and the claimant was certainly no home-maker, not even a shadow of a home maker towards her own children.
Of course the Judge had to discredit me as a ‘liar’ in order to ignore the truth, the real evidence before him. I deliberately refrained from giving any testimonial evidence. I constrained myself to only summarising for the Judge what was in the independent evidence, the eyewitnesses and hard evidence (loan applications, tax returns, fee slips and the like). As I explained when I first put myself in the box to question myself in chief (a scandalous sight to behold with all spare ledges of the witness box surrounded by papers for me to conduct my defence from the witness box, standing upright for days on end on account of acute medical condition and pain I was suffering) I was acutely aware that Barrister Dev’s case had no evidence which showed it to be false, and the only way they had to cover up “the paucity of the evidence” as the judge was complaining about was by irrelevant, false and prejudicial attacks on me personally (to work the judge up to the point where he was willing to give judgement to them despite their case having no evidence, no facts, no merits, and warranting a substantial damages order not just against the penniless claimant, but personally against the pockets of the fraudulent lawyers championing and wagering on her fraud).
So “forgetting about what he said” (as the High Court rules prescribe the trial judge must do in these situation) and especially “forgetting about what she said [especially as “[she] looked [the judge] in the eye from the witness box and lied to [the judge]” left just that one massive body of evidence and independent witnesses that I had provided which fully and overwhelmingly rebutted her “case”. And she didn’t even have a “case” as “the paucity [absence] of [her] evidence”, even without her bizarre confessions, deliberate and accidental, screamed volumes.
And quick as a wink, no matter that the case was immediately put on appeal having regard to the judgement being manifestly unsound, the court itself and a bevy of family lawyers began to rebroadcast this filthy shameful false judgement as support for the legal principle that the contributions of a home maker to a de facto marriage should not be under estimated. [Within a month, even I had seen the case referred to in a typically inept, unconnected Memorandum of Advice from one family law lawyer (a barrister) to another (an “accredited family law specialist” lawyer who did no law and her involvement could barely be put any higher than clerical and post-boxing, at an astronomical hourly rate on her time sheets.]
The lie of the law – an interposed post mortem
In 2004 the then Full Court of the High Court of Australia ruled 6:1 (Kirby J dissenting) that Australia should be the only nation in the world where Australian litigation lawyers are not subject to the same laws of professional negligence as all other Australians, all non-litigation lawyers, and all litigation lawyers anywhere else in the world. Accordingly, since 2004 Australia is the only country in the world where it is against the law to sue litigation lawyers for negligence in the (court room) workplace.
Even in England, where litigation barristers (but not solicitors) were protected by judge laws from being sued for negligent performances courts. Litigation solicitors were never so far up and above the law. And even the English position was fixed, and English barristers and solicitors are subject to the same workplace professional negligence laws as all other Englishmen, since a 15:0 unanimous decision of the English Law Lords, the House of Lords, in 2000.
As recently as March this year, Justice Kevin Bell felt “deeply troubled” at being legally required to abide by a binding Full High Court Judgement precedent, and having to rule that it is against the law Australia for a client of negligent family lawyers to issue legal proceedings suing for compensation. Justice Kevin Bell would no doubt be even more trouble by the misbehaviour of these “family law specialists”, and by the misbehaviours of the Supreme Court judges that made it possible for them to get away with it and to get other government agencies involved in spending millions of dollars of public monies to cover up their collective criminal misbehaviours and bury the truth. Justice Kevin Bell would be “deeply troubled” at the range of lawyer crimes, the outright frauds and blackmails, the barratry, champetry and maintenance that these “family law specialist” lawyers can get away with, and would continue to get away with. And even if the laws of lawyer privilege from law suit were rectified in Australia, the immunity from legal action abolished as it was in England a decade ago, rather than multiplied s in Australia in 2004, these sorts of lawyers would continue to get away with these sorts of behaviours without a change in judicial and broader legal attitudes to recognise these behaviours are wrong and should be prevented and even punished.
I note that my story is not so remarkable. These sorts of frauds and professional misconducts, life altering injustices, are being inflicted by lawyers, especially “family law specialists” on an industrial scale ever court day in Australia. The family law system of courts has been engineered and modified over thirty five years to facilitate this.
What makes my story so remarkable is that so many of these fraudulent and unjust practices have been inflicted in the one set of proceedings, and by all lawyers not just in court rooms, but at levels and branches of government. The second thing that makes my case so remarkable is that I have the legal education to be able to recognise and describe and blow the whistle on what is being done. The third think, the most remarkable thing, is that I have the endurance to survive these continuing attacks. More than a dozen men, women and children, victims of the family law courts, aboriginated by such injustice, die every day in Australia of the trauma, distress, and the homeless poverty that is inflicted on them by these ‘ultimate tyrants’. That this system, designed to ‘bury its victims’ has not yet buried me – even augmented with all of the criminal attacks on me outside of the law rooms and the court rooms- that is the truly remarkable aspect of my story.
Lord have Mercy – Give me the Geneva Convention
I mention above my ill-health during the first weeks of the “trial”. The conditions of my trial were not all that different to stringing down a tortured political or human rights prisoner and slinging them into a kangaroo court martial while riddled with wounds and in no fit physical condition to deal with what was being done to them.
I had spent a sleepless, distressed, night before the trial drawing up a 20 page submission explaining what the matter was not ready to be tried. There had been no pre-trial discovery or other processes. The estimate of 2 days was unprofessionally and criminally absurd. 6 to 8 weeks was more likely. 4 ½ weeks the “trial” eventually ran, only after I truncated my witnesses down to about ¼. Even then, there had to be several later hearings on different dates on account of these lawyers and judges not being competent enough to draw up orders that worked for them properly. There were other proceedings commenced by the mortgagee of one of my principal properties and the two pieces of the proceedings had to be heard together. These were proceedings over my property where I had been living at the time after I paid my tenants to break their lease. This was the property where in a 2 day practice court hearing presided over by two of Barrister Dev’s judicial mates (practice court being restricted to hearing only urgent matters that can be dealt with within a jurisdictional cap of no more than two hours – one hour per party) where the Supreme Court had ordered me evicted from my home, gagged me from talking to my mortgagee and installed the fraudulent claimant in possession with purported powers of sale. Quite the ultimate demonstration of “sentence first, verdict after” as Lewis Carroll puts it in The Adventures of Alice in Wonderland. And I was waiting on numerous legal aid applications to be decided. How ironic, I was derided by Barrister Dev for foolishly representing myself, when I was desperately trying to get legal representation, but he and his crew had blocked this by their criminally fraudulent caveat mortgages forged over my properties, and he was trying to ring in his own barrister mates to take possession of my case from me. I had also been told by the Court registry staff (who certainly knew more than I did about litigation then, and probably now) that the trial wouldn’t start because neither the plaintiff’s lawyers nor I (who could be forgiven for knowing nothing about the process) had filed the relevant certificates to tell the court both sides were ready for trial.
All of this the sense and sensibility was blithely cut down by the trial judge who insisted that the two-day trial must commence at once (via the first day detour into the illegal insanity inquisition).
By early afternoon on the first day I was feeling shooting pains down my spine and was unable to sit down. At the conclusion of court I was unable to drive home. I had to book a hotel room a block from the court, and a block from my Bourke Street semi-penthouse apartment where I had lived for most of the previous 6 years. I spent the whole of that first night unable to sleep, unable to lay down, standing under the shower with the hot water only marginally easing my pain. The next morning, my local doctor being only a couple of hundred metres up the road, and an early riser, I was able to get a 7.15 emergency appointment with him. In too much pain for him to examine me, he told me to go straight to St Vincent’s hospital for emergency and xrays as he feared my spine might explode. He wrote me a referral. However, ever the dutiful lawyer, I held off, lugging my 50 kg of paperwork with me to Court to explain I needed medical attention. I was abused for this by Barrister Dev and by the “impartial” trial judge. They questioned the authenticity of my doctor’s referral, because they couldn’t read the doctor’s handwriting. I was told if I went to hospital I had better be back at court by 2.15 pm “or else”. Barrister Dev needed time to get Bar Ethics Committee clarification of whether he could continue to represent a client with whom he was now joined as a $50 million co-defendant in a counter claim filed by the original defendant. [As if such an ethical question needs to be seriously asked, let alone clarified.]
I then rushed up to the St Vincent’s Hospital, lugging my 50 kg of court papers with me up and into Melbourne trams (excruciating pain) to spend several hours sitting in emergency waiting rooms (as higher prioritised cases kept rushing ahead of me). After a few hours I was given heavy painkillers and antibiotics by an orderly or nurse. These started to ease the pain. I never got xrays. As 2.15 pm approached I decided to take the large boxes of tablets the Hospital staff had given me and rush back to court. Against the medical staff protests, I said I would return for xrays later (I never did). About 3.00 pm I made it into the court room, where I was abused for being late. In pain (later diagnosed as sciatica) that I had never known before, I spent the rest of the fortnight (both in court, and outside court, and when I could drive home on the Friday evening, three night’s later) standing bolt upright, in acute pain.
All very Dickensian (or Carroll) but hardly the best condition to be in to be in when all of one’s life and one’s future is riding on the outcome of such a fraudulently corrupt and biased court contest.
I spent the next 3 days still in the same pair of clothes and shoes (buying socks and underwear from the local supermarket), not sleeping from 6 am on the Monday morning (trial started on a Tuesday) until I managed 3 hours sleep between 5 am and 8 am on the Friday morning. When I read out from time to time (to get it incorporated on the court record “for the benefit of any united nations or human rights watch observers who may read this transcript record one day”) how many hours I had been forced to go with excruciating back pain and with total sleep deprivation (while trying to read over daily transcripts and look up rules and cases mentioned in the day’s proceedings, plan questions, rejig witness appearance times and dates) I was told by a laughing Barrister Dev and a laughing trial judge “you will have to toughen up if you want to be a barrister like us, Mr Johnson”.
“My Judges don’t make mistakes”
On 15 May 2009 I appeared as self-represented appellant in the Court of Appeal. I was seeking to have the Trial Judges orders for the sale of one of my properties (the only one with any positive equity left, and the only one where the mortgage payments were up to date (even a head some) and fully funded by tenant rents). I was seeking to preserve this assets while my appeal against the scandalous trial verdict was heard. When I had asked the Trial Judge to put stays on his orders pending my appeal, he lied to me, telling me I wouldn’t need them. That is the way that the Court system works in Victoria. Shockingly bad orders are made, then rushed to be enforced so that firstly the target has not the means to appeal them to get them reversed, and, secondly, if the target does somehow manage to get back into court to appeal them, they’ve already been executed, so can’t be undone. It makes appealing bad decisions pointless, they’ve already been carried out, even for those who have not been totally aboriginated (stripped of everything) to the point that they can still muster an appeal.
There is no need to feel sorry for the lawyers for only scooping $150,000 for themselves out of the ruin of my multi-million dollars of wealth. I was denied (and continue to be denied) legal aid funding – despite indirect intervention from the then Federal Attorney-General, Robert McClelland and the then Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull. There is a government fund, the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee (a foundation client of mine back in the late 1990s) that is set up to compensate victims of bad lawyering. Instead of a compensation fund however, it operates as an un-means tested blue ribbon legal aid fund to protect bad lawyers from being held accountable for wrong doing (and to prevent pay-outs from the fund). Over the past 4 years some $4 million of public monies so far have been paid into lawyers pockets for defending and covering up the wrong doing of these lawyers, and to obstruct, fragment and destroy all avenues within the legal and political systems by which I am maintaining to bring these lawyers, and thousands and thousands just like them, to justice.
Unlike the, at times 14 and even 15 government funded barristers who were the government funded lawyers for the lawyers who were championing the fraudulent case against me, and were arguing the case against me, shutting down my defence and my counterclaim and shutting out incriminating evidence of those lawyers wrong-doings, I had funded this appeal by getting waivers of court fees, on poverty grounds.
On 15 May 2009 the hearing was suddenly uplifted from the lowest judge in the Court of Appeal to the two highest Judges (the highest court in the land), the “Red Court” of the Chief Justice Marilyn Warren and Justice Paul Coghlan. Chief Justice Marilyn Warren is an alumni of of my own law school (she attended the law school lectures and ruled the squash courts a decade before it was my turn) and was appointed to the bench and to the Chief Judgeship in ## by then Victorian Attorney-General Rob (not Robert) Hulls (a colourful, shadowy figure, former Federal Member for Mt Ida’s “Katter country” and a former member of the opposite political party). Paul Coghlan is an ex-Director of Public Prosecutions and mentor of the now disgraced former-DPP Rapke. Justices Warren and Justice Coghlan are first and second in line, respectively, to succeed as the next unelected Governor of Victoria, when it comes time for the current Governor, His Excellency Alex Chernov QC (himself a former Supreme Court judge) to step down from Governorship duties.
On 15 May 2009 I was opposed in this simple application (let’s get a proper verdict first before we carry out sentencing, not “sentence first. Verdict after” like the Red Queen demands in Chapter 11 of The Adventures of Alice in Wonderland). I was opposed by Barrister Dev.
Regaling the stories of the woman’s criminal activities against me, her aggravated burglary and theft of evidence as judicially found by the Trial Judge, after being caught red-handed by the Police with 10 boxes of undisposed of loot, and after signing sworn confessions drawn up by her own lawyers) earned little sympathy with the two highest judges in the land. Nor did the news that I had been car bombed three nights earlier (reported to me by gleeful police officer in a wake up call at 5 am) just the latest of ongoing attacks on me and my safety.
The Chief Justice, began by “giving me permission” to speak. I had thought that litigants had a right to be heard in our court rooms. And as an officer of that court, as well as the High Court, of nearly 20 years good standing, I thought I had rights of audience on behalf of myself as well as my clients. I was only just realising that the so called “right” to justice in this country is really more of a privilege, a luxury, and not a right a privilege that can be dispensed, or dispensed with, by the judicial branch of the lawyering profession, at their pleasure and without any comeback or checks or balances, constitutional, parliamentary or otherwise.
I asked for an order that the transcript of the proceedings be made available to me without cost because I was unable to afford to pay for it, just like the orders that had been made in the lower levels of the Court (the trial division, and the masters chambers). The Chief Justice of the Court told me she couldn’t’ make that order because she didn’t know how to do it.
I explained to the Justices that the Trial judge had made an extraordinarily frightening run of mistakes, both on basic due process procedural issues) and on assessment of the evidence (factual issues) and on applications of laws (legal issues). I explained to the Justices that the trial judge’s extraordinary judgement and his sentence were unsound, were subject to appeals, and that out in the interests of justice ought not be carried out ahead of a final verdict being handed down by appeal courts (including that court and those Judges themselves).
I presented extracts of the evidence that the Judge had ignored in his sentencing, my fee slips, tax return and banking information showing that I alone had funded my property purchases and mortgage payments (and was earning more than double the income necessary to do so). These were points that were not lost on my banks every time they assessed and approved my loan applications (at least one often two or three loan applications being approved by various banks every year for close to a decade). But Barrister Dev and his mate the trial Judge knew far better than any one or all ten of those banking institutes combined. Chief Justice Warren asked Barrister Dev, don’t ask me why but it was Barrister Dev she asked not me, whether the materials I had just shown her and Justice Coghlan were in the evidence at the trial. Three hundred words poured out of Barrister Dev’s mouth. None of them a “yes.” Nor did he dare utter a “no”. I commented “See, he lied all through the trial process, just like he is lying to you now.” That line of judicial inquiry ended with Justice Coghlan saying the only words he said all afternoon “You’re not helping your case one bit talking like that, Mr Johnson.” To which I replied, “Your Honours, then there’s nothing I say can help my case.”
I also produced to the Red Court more evidence uncovered after the fiasco of the rushed trial, government records disproving her wild claims that we had lived together as a de facto couple. This new evidence even included government records disproving her claim that her eldest child (the eldest of her three children, by three different men), lived with an “us” as part of this imaginary family – she was paying child support to his biological father on account of the child residing with his biological father, she having dumped him there, a troubled 3 year old that she found ‘uncontrollable’ (perhaps as ‘uncontrollable’ as she was). Not that I needed any more evidence than the mountain of evidence I produced at trial to disprove her claims, and especially since the burden of proving the claims supposedly laid on her and her lawyers and they had produced no evidence that I needed to rebut.
I also produced to the Court a copy of the infamous lawyers letter described earlier (and sent to me as standard demonstration of their incompetence) telling their client that she should be happy they won her case … but she won’t be getting anything … $150,000 of their $400,000 bill for services rendered would be gotten out of the residues of my destroyed estates … they disagreed with her claims of overcharging … and how was she going to pay them the balance of the $250,000 she owed them?
Chief Justice Warren informed me from the wool sack that “my judges don’t make mistakes”. She then exchanged sideways whispers with Justice Paul Coghlan, before they disappeared down the rabbit holes to the rear of their mounted benches, synchronised, as their liveried white rabbit person intoned “Aaallrise”.
Forty minutes later, the two highest Justices in the land returned and handed down a judgement written for them, obviously several days before the hearing, to the effect that the Trial Judge’s sale orders should proceed, regardless that they were subject to appeal. The pre-written judgement included the absurd line, there was nothing to indicate that if the appeal succeeded, the plaintiff did not have the resources to pay cash compensation for the loss I would have suffered by the sale having gone through and later verdict showing that the order was unsound.
The judgement also included an extraordinary statement of prejudgement (even without the additional evidence and additional lying and misconduct of Barrister Dev) to the effect that my appeal had no prospects of success. An extraordinary thing for any judges, let alone the two highest judges in the land to say, about a case, without knowing any of the circumstances, without reading any of the papers and without having any idea of the evidence – and given the extraordinary attitude displayed even on this simple application that sentence should not be carried out until there is a final, unappealable verdict, that an unsound sentence should not be carried out for the ulterior motives of destroying the ability for that unsound sentence to be appealed.
The two highest Judges in the land then capped off this demonstration of judicial awesomeness, by indicated to Barrister Dev, in words barely disguised for the process, that good Barrister Dev should go out and see if there was anything on me that he could “find” to shut me up.
Res non judicata
Three months later, 18 August 2009 I was summonsed back to the Red Court of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, by the government funded lawyers for the lawyers for the fraudster on an application.by them that my $50 million damages counterclaim against the original set of “accredited family lawyers” be struck out (ie not heard by any Court at all).
There is a basic principle of legal practice that where a dispute has been heard by a judge (“res judicata”) it should not be reheard a second time by a second judge. The principle is that it is far more important that the quality and integrity of a judge not be questions, than it is for judicial mistakes to be corrected. It is a good thing that members of the medical profession don’t think the same way. Imagine if a first diagnosis is faulty,
What the government funded lawyers for the lawyers for the fraudster were attempting to do here, as I tried to explain to the two highest judges in the land (again) on 18 August was to lie to the Court of Appeal that the trial judge had heard my claims against those crooked lawyers – when he had expressly refused to hear them, saying they would be heard under the second set of proceedings which he (bizarrely) described without bothering to even read as “being totally unrelated to these once.”
Of course they made copious use of Chief Justice Warren’s gross prejudicial comment (without looking at any of the facts or merits of the case) that my appeals had little prospect of success. [No true claim has any prospect of success when it is up before lawyers of such monumental and unaccountable prejudice, incompetence and corruption and subjected to so much procedural judicial fragmentation and other abuses – such as running in different fragments, all at the same time, through all 4 levels of the court and in both directions (junior judges being given the job of hearing appeals against decisions of more senior judges).] Of course they made copious use of Chief Justice Warren’s gross prejudicial comment. Why else on earth would she have dared to say such a legally and judicially outrageous thing?
What these lawyers are trying to do is create a new member of the family of “res judicata” (estoppel, “it’s already been decided”) deceptions as a basis for refusing to let cases they don’t like proceed to trial. In my case, what they are asserting, as I called them on in the Red Court before Chief Justice Marilyn Warren and Justice Paul Coghlan, is a new doctrine of “res non judicata” – even if the judge expressly refused to hear claims on certain issues, we will pretend that he heard those issues (who will remember the difference so many years later) and having ruled it as already decided upon we will rule that we don’t have to hear it (for the first time), err again.
One of the shameful hallmarks of Chief Justice Marilyn Warren’s tenure as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria is the number of times that Chief Justice Shelton French of the High Court of Australia has been left to criticise her subordinate Victorian Supreme Court, and her in particular, for gross delays in the scheduling of hearings and the issuing of judgments.
It is now May 2012. Nearly 3 years later, I am still waiting for the two highest Judges in the land to hand down this judgement on whether a Trial Judge’s gross errors of due process have succeeded in not only him refusing to hear my $50 million counterclaim for negligence and fraud against barratrying, champetrying and maintenancing barristers and solicitors, but it is a sufficient master-stroke to protect my claims being ever heard by any other Trial Judge either, because they can claim (wrongly, but getting away with it) that unheard claims have been heard and therefore can’t be heard (for the first time), err again. Hardly a bedrock set of behaviours for a legal system that is intended to at least appear to serve the ends of justice.
A forced exile
Unprotected by police protection from aggravated burglaries or even car bombings, I had no choice but to leave the State over two years ago. The burglaries against my home (which I had repossessed from the Top 4 bank mortgagee (another former long-time client) along with 3 other mortgagor repossessions in January) continued even after a year after I had been forced into interstate exile.
Revenge of the McCarthyists
Back to the future, on 21 May 2012 I am facing disciplinary proceedings in a Victorian Government agency (VCAT) brought by a failed and corrupt Victorian agency (the Legal Services Commissioner).
The failings of the Legal Services Commissioner have been whistled by many prominent whistleblowers, including lawyers, apart from myself. Two different Supreme Court Judges who ruled that the Legal Services Commissioner could and should investigate my complaints against these barratrying, champetrying, fraudulent and blackmailing “family law specialists”. The former Victorian and Federal Attorney-Generals (when in office), other former and sitting Supreme Court Judges. A damning expose to the then Victorian Parliament by the ongoing State Government Ombudsman Victoria, led to the inaugural Legal Services Commissioner, Victoria Marles resigning in disgrace – though never prosecuted, never ordered to pay compensation to the thousands of victims of her failed reign.
It is a damning indictment of the previous Bracks-Brumby-Hulls government that it did not move to abolish the protection racket pretending to be an industry regulator that the Legal Services Commissioner had not just become, but had been designed to be. The Bracks-Brumby-Hulls government merely allowed its inaugural appointee to the job to resign in disgrace – without investigations and without prosecutions. After a 3 month hiatus, it then moved to transfer the CEO of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Michael McGarvie into the position. Newspaper reports of January 2009 report that the first, and perhaps only, thing that Michael McGarvie did was to meet with Victorian Ombudsman George Brouwer to discuss his damning 2009 Annual Report to Parliament. Whatever was discussed between them, one obvious outcome is that any ongoing review of the operations of the Legal Services Commissioner ,as the State Government Ombudsman promised in his 2009 Annual Report to Parliament was never made public. And in his 2010 Annual Report to Parliament, which is so big that George Brouwer had to have it printed and bound in 3 separate volumes, not once does the State Ombudsmen give a single mention to the Legal Services Commissioner.
It is testimony to the magnitude of corruption that the Baillieu-Clark government has inherited, after 12 years of Bracks-Brumby-Hulls crony appointments and corruption, that even 18 months into its administration it has been too busy to turn its mind to this corrupt and failed legal agency, and to set the clock back by reintroducing the powerful legal industry anti-corruption reforms made by the Kennett-Stockdale government in the late 1990s, including the reinstatement of a Victorian Legal Ombudsman Scheme, as a genuine consumer oriented legal regulator of the Victorian legal industry.
Here I am a lawyer of over twenty years good standing, with a roll call of professional achievements that my critics in the profession do not come close to matching.
In my twenty plus years of legal practice, never a day as a paid-litigator, I have led and trained dozens of lawyers. I have managed hundreds of lawyers and other professionals, accountants, economists and engineers. I have chaired hundreds of committee meetings, and written hundreds of publications and given hundreds of continuing legal education events for members of the legal profession. Very few Australian lawyers can boast a professional resume that comes close to matching mine.
And never in my twenty years of good standing has any legal regulator ever received a single client complaint against me.
Amongst a shopping list of reasons that the legal regulator has no legal authority to engage in this vendetta, this third or fourth re-run by the legal regulator of these false claims against me is not authorised by legislation is the simple fact that I was at the time an abused consumer of legal services, a self-represented litigant after the family lawyers I hired behaved most unprofessionally and then dumped me ($30,000 on the meter later) telling me “and besides I don’t do Supreme Court matters anyway.”.
Not one, but two illegal applications have been filed by the Legal Services Commissioner, Mr Michael McGarvie (privileged son of a former Governor and Supreme Court judge) and his team of more than a dozen publicly-funded lawyers.
Lewis Carroll or Charles Dickens would instantly recognise this case. They might well wish to claim it for their own. This criminally malicious prosecution the Legal Services Commissioner has launched against me, in medical equivalent terms, is the equivalent of an eminent doctor, an eminent research scientist who has never spent a day operating in a surgical theatre in his life, going under the surgeons scalpel (relying on absolutely foolhardy ‘accredited specialist’ advice) for an operation on his little finger, only to wake up mid operation, to find that the surgeons have amputated both his legs. He screams, escapes and, against all the odds, survives. When he complains to the relevant regulatory authorities (which are chuffed full of surgeon mates of the dodgy surgeons) they refuse to investigate the dodgy surgeons and instead initiate malpractice proceedings against the patient. Despite having a statutory duty to protect patients by investigating their complaints the regulatory agency refuses to investigate the dodgy surgeons. Despite two sets of Supreme Court rulings telling it it can, and it should, investigate the dodgy surgeons, the regulatory authority (chuffed with dodgy surgeons) defies those Court orders and refuses to investigate those who did the dodgy surgery. In my case, the regulator has issued malpractice proceedings against me despite having no authority in the first place, and despite more than twice dismissing the false claims against the me. Despite the same false mal-practice charges against me being fully dismissed by a Supreme Court Judge contrary to the pleading demands of the more senior of the dodgy ‘surgeons’ and by a Federal Magistrate who initially refused to engage in a witch-hunt against the me, but changed his mind to decide to join in the witch-hunt the day after the Supreme Court Judge refused to. Why did this Federal Magistrate change his mind about joining the witch-hunt? why on account of having been named as a co-defendant along with regulatory body, and the ring-leader of the surgeons in a $50 million plus malpractice suit which, incredibly to that ‘Caesar who loves judging Caesar’ is not in the least bit troubled by any sense of bias or conflict in continuing to hear a case that had been withdrawn, against a defendant who is suing him for $50 million dollars.
And in the three hearings thus far all of the unjust and corrupt, unlawful practices that were practised in the Supreme Court and in the Federal Magistrates Court are being repeated in this Victorian Government Tribunal that, like its sister government agency the Legal Services Commissioner, is acting illegally in hearing this claim, without any statutory authority to do so, and contrary to legislation that actually makes it a crime to do so.
Of these three hearings, the second one was deliberately scheduled at a date that I could not attend, the third one held secretly, hurriedly, so I didn’t even know about it until after it was concluded. Applications being made against me and orders being granted that neither of the Victorian Government agencies involved has the statutory power to apply for, or the statutory power to grant – a gross abandonment of due process, or law and of order, even an abandonment of the black letter words of the VCAT legislation itself. All by men with law degrees who have sworn to uphold justice.
I look forward to hearing how the Legal Services Commissioner can refuse to hear over 2000 complaints every year from mistreated customers of legal services providers, making him the number one client year in year out, the ‘frequent flyer’ of the ‘regulators’ regulator’ the Victorian State Government ombudsman. I look forward to hearing how the Legal Services Commissioner
can, in most of these case, dare to respond to almost all of those 2,000 members of the public by telling them that he doesn’t have the statutory powers to investigate their complaints, as he dared to respond to my complaints, even after I took him to the Supreme Court of Victoria not once but twice, and got rulings that he not only could, but should, investigate my complaints against my false accusers. And I look forward to the Legal Services Commissioner explaining how he thinks he has the capacity to regulate consumers of legal services, such as myself so far as is relevant for all of these botched and illegal proceedings,
Just how can the Legal Services Commissioner justify initiating malpractice proceedings against a customer and victim (namely me) of scandalously improper legal services providers while refusing, and even defying his statutory mandate and two Supreme Court of Victoria rulings to the effect that he should be investigating the persons who provided the legal services, not the person who suffered harm from them.
But before we get to the substance of these blatant political and criminal reprisals against me for being a whistleblower there are some more recent, curtain raiser corruption events to be dealt with.
The first item on the agenda for Monday 21 May 12 will be another corrupt application (another criminal reprisal) by this failed government agency, the Legal Services Commissioner, Michael McGarvie and his team of ten in-house lawyers for VCAT orders that I not be allowed to summons relevant documents and relevant government officials (99% of them lawyers) to give evidence.
I look forward to hearing how the Legal Services Commissioner thinks he has been given the statutory power to act as the unsolicited solicitor for 57 people, including many with whom he will have had no contact – and how he managed to sign up 57 15 page costs-agreement / retainer – letters with his 57 solicited new clients in such record fast time.
I also look forward to hearing how the VCAT thinks it has statutory power to hear such an outrageous application – designed to prevent me from showing the extent to which I have been blowing the whistle on this corruption in and surrounding the Legal Services Commissioner, and the conspiracy of silence and omission within so many lawyer-dominated government agencies that are charged, at least on paper, with the responsibilities of upholding and applying the law – but instead choose for political reasons to withhold and to misapply.
And I look forward to hearing how VCAT thinks, as in its rubber stamping way it surely will, that it has the statutory power to close its borders to any intrusion of truth or justice into this politically charged, unconstitutional and illegal lawyers-court martial. On what possible grounds could VCAT, a sister State government agency of the failed, protection-racketeering Legal Services Commissioner, think that it can join in the criminal reprisals and political-cover-ups by ever granting such an outrageously crooked ruling to the Legal Services Commissioner (as it surely will).
… to be continued
Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor
(in the) Australian House of Representatives
Constitutional Human Rights Advocate
Solicitor and Barrister of the High Court of Australia
(Celebrating 20 Years of Legal Practice 1990 – 2010)
mail: PO Box 6137 Point Cook Victoria Australia 3030
sms: +61 (0)401 865 914 (text only)