Australia – a Nation of Whistleblowers ruled by Governments run by Whistleblockers

… ☞☞☞ … Meet Michael McGarvie the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner. Privilged younger son of a former Victorian Lawyer / Judge / Governor, Michael McGarvie was appointed to the position of Legal Services Commissioner in December 2009 when the inaugral LSC Victoria Marles resigned in disgrace 3 months earlier. Prior to this, Michael was the CEO of the Supreme Court of Victoria for three years. Michael McGarvie and his team of 12 inhouse lawyers are doing their utmost to become the first government officials to be jailed (for up to 2 years on each count) for criminal reprisals against whistleblowing lawyer and journalist James Johnson, contrary to Victoria’s untested Whistleblower Protection Act of 2001 … ☞☞☞ …

On 21 May 2012 the Victorian Government started conducting an inquiry into the absence of professional standards in the Australian (Victorian) 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 resumed on 6 July 2012.  The next scheduled hearing is on 6 August 2012 and then the inquiry continues on 3, 4 and 5  September 2012.  All hearings start at 10.00 am and will be held at 55 King Street, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

This is an open invitation to the media and to the public to attend the hearings.  Come and, look, listen, laugh and learn as leading Australian lawyers, lawmakers, governmen and governwomen (the Australian lawyerocracy elite) are put on trial and compelled to answer questions that they have been avoiding, for generations.


FOR MESSAGES OF SUPPORT – send an EMAIL or log in via TWITTER, FACEBOOK or WORDPRESS to leave a message on this or any of the other posts on this blog.  

The following is my letter of 3 July 2012 to the Victorian Government (4 key publicly-funded, lawyer-dominated government agencies, including the Department of Premier and Cabinet and Premier Ted Baillieu himself), by way of a 3rd revised ‘with prejudice settlement offer’.

For my earlier 14 May posting of the previous ‘with prejudice settlement offer, see:

A Quick Introduction to the With Prejudice (Save as to Price) Settlement Offer

It is impossible to believe the farcical nature of these proceedings.  A criminal reprisal against whistleblower @JamesJohnsonCHR for which the said Michael McGarvie is doing his utmost to be the first government official to be jailed (for up to a maximum of two years) for criminal reprisals against a whistleblower under Victoria’s decade old, untested Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001.

The are also facing a sweep of other criminal charges (for example the kinds oof charges listed in section 320 of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958) that carry a variety of maximum penalties ranging from 5 years to up to 15 years imprisonment.

In keeping with the farcial nature of this illegal and malicious prosecution (and reverse-prosecution by which @JamesJohnsonCHR is putting the LAWYEROCRACY ON TRIAL to fend off these criminal reprisals) @JamesJohnsonCHR a few days prior to the hearing on the 6th of July 2012 I sent a revised (third) “with prejudice settlement offer” to the errant applicant government agency, Michael McGarvie.

You can download a printer friendly version of the 6 page letter (not including its 15 pages of attachments) here.

There is nothing magical about the lawyers slogan “with prejudice settlement offer”.  All it means is that the terms of @JamesJohnsonCHR’s extraordinarily generous, kindly, and mirth-filled offer are made open (therefore “with prejudice) to the Tribunal (and in this case to the State Government Ombudsman Victoria, George Brouwer and to the elected Victorian Head of State, and leader of the Legislative Assembly, Premier Ted Baillieu and Victorian Attorney-General Robert Clark).

I have kept the amount that I have offered to take as settlement (compensation) confidential.  This is not something that I personally agree with.  I am disgusted with the idea that government agents and agencies can brutally abuse citizens and then, for the very few who can survive the beatings and endure to the point of being able to bring pressure and law suit for compensation, be paid out using public monies, rather than the government agent’s own assets being confiscated to compensate their personal victims, and the whole details of how much public monies paid in respect of the private mistakes of those corrupt government agents being kept secret from “we the people”.  However, given that is the way that government “rules” (as oppposed to “works” or even “governs”, just “rules”) in this once great country we call Australia, there is no point me disclosing publicly the settlement figure I require to let the Victorian government walk away from this scandalous, false, and maliciously brought prosecution against me – since the Government will never agree to a settlement figure that has been made public (either exactly or in approximate figures).  That isn’t the way that government is done to us in this country.

The terms of this “with prejudice settlement offer”, are a further damning expose of the corruption, absence of professional skills, absence of professional ethics and absence of professional judgement, in short, the criminality of the “protection racket” tactics of faux legal regulator Michael  McGarvie and his disgraced predecessor, Victoria Marles.  The human rights violating, criminal whistleblocking racketeering of these and other senior bureaucrats / lawers, are once again showcased in this letter.

Set out below is the text of this third “with prejudice settlement offer”. Please be forgiving of any formating errors in the translation from “word” to “wordpress”.

A quick Op-Ed to give some context to the brutal truth of these Whistleblocking crimes and Human Rights violations

Needless to say, shocked by the truth, and the reality of the Whistleblocking crimes and Human Rights violations that these government public servants and their hired members of the Victorian Bar Council are cloaking, covering up and committing against me (as their kind has done to me many other times for half a decade and to many other Australians on a daily basis for nearly 2 dozen decades) has terrified these barristers and government servants.  They have scared themselves stiff (as the packed public galleries duly noted on 21 May and 6 July 2012 and no doubt will witness again on 6 August 2012 and 2, 4 and 5 September 2012).

So scared stiff are they of what they have done (and “will they or won’t they get away with it”) that they refused to discuss this offer with me at the scandalously pre-scripted VCAT hearing on 6 July 2012.  See my media release (previous blog post) here.

To date I have received no response from either of the two barristers, nor from the two (or three or four or five?) Victorian government agencies / manifestations of the State of Victoria that they represented at the hearings mentioned in the opening paragraphs of the letter.

Curiouser and curiouser.  This cotterie of publicly-funded, lawyer-built-owned-operated-dominating Victorian Government agencies, having so far spent upwards of $6 Million of public monies (all wasted, well put into dozens of “lucky” lawyers pockets) in the past 5 years, in their ongoing and bottomless lawfare and whistleblocking endeavours against me.  Their latest shabby and humiliating (of them) efforts are reduced to  this – keel hauling me up on false professional misconduct assertions (hardly even allegations, just bald, unevidenced, unargued assertions) that Mr Michael McGarvie’s team of a dozen plus in-house lawyers have already dismissed 2 and 3/4 times (never having a public duty or statutory power to nosey on in to my private legal affairs in the first, second or third place).  And at the same time these most important, inept and incompetent legal regulators (so, are they “Litigant Commissioner” or “Legal Services (Providers) Commissioner”?) are contemptuous of not one but two sets of Victorian Supreme Court rulings I obtained against them (at my own personal expenditure of dollars and energies).  They continue to assert that while professional standards have to be maintained by me 24/7 in every aspect of my personal and private life.  At they same time they carry those delusions, they live on in denial — asserting that professional standards don’t have to be maintained by legal services providers in their paid and public professional lives.

Plots have clearly been lost here.  And what are we the people to make of the gross lack of civility, manners, dignity and decency let alone the null sets of professional standards of barristers and government officials such as these as are on clear and unerasable display in this public tribunal and on its public records for all to see ..

I am not being governed.  These are not the actions of government.  These are the actions of an organised crime gang that has hijacked the drivers seats and the mechanical limbs of government, abusing their offices of public trust and responsiblity to cloak, cover-up and commit the sorts of attacks on innocent citizens that were the hallmarks of other corrupt regimes such as Hitler’s, Mussolini’s, Franco’s Stalin’s, Charles’ (King Charles I (the first official “crime against humanity” convictee), Charles II’s (reinstated instated son of Charles), Mao’s and Stalin’s – even Australia’s once tweedle-dee tweedle-dum fellow Apartheid nation, Sud Afrika.  I deliberately refrain from listing later 2oth and early 21st century regimes that fit in the same basket.

The curious case of the Lawyerocracy of the Second State of Australia versus Citizen James is just starting to get interesting … 

To be continued …  

James Johnson, Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor

From The Office of

James Johnson

Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor

MAIL: PO Box 6137 Point Cook

Victoria Australia 3030

SMS: +61 (0)401 865 914 (text only)





Tuesday 3 July 2012

Mr Guy Gilbert, Barrister

of the Victorian Bar (John Rosanove Chambers)

Room 0307, 550 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Victoria 3000

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. – Abraham Lincoln


(With Prejudice as to Settlement Figure – NOW $50,000 More than as per my offer made 6th May 2012 & put on VCAT record on 14th May 2012)

BY FACSIMILE: 03 9225 8480

(Telephone: 03 9225 7379) (6+ 3+12 = 21 pages)

Ms Kathleen Foley, Barrister

of the Victorian Bar (Ninian Stephens Chambers)

Room 3817, Level 38, 140 William St Melbourne Victoria 3000

BY FACSIMILE: 03 9640 3107

(Telephone: 03 9225 6136)

AND CC: The Legal Practice List Coordinator

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

55 King Street Melbourne Victoria 3000

BY FACSIMILE: 03 9628 9788

(Telephone: 03 9628 9081)

Dear Mr Gilbert and Ms Foley (cc VCAT)

Michael McGarvie – Legal Services Commissioner v Harold James Johnson (VCAT Matter J134/2011)

I refer to the above matter in VCAT where Ms Foley appeared on instructions from the Victorian State Solicitors Office at a secret all-Government hearing held in my absence on 17 May 2012, and where Mr Gilbert appeared on instructions from the Legal Services Commissioner at the scheduled hearing held in my presence on 21 May 2012.

You will both be pleased to know that I am not a vindictive man. Despite all of the corruption, serious misconduct, bureaucratic apathy, and copious lawyer and judicial abuse I have been forced to endure for several years now, I have not lost my faith in humanity. I continue to believe that even the worst of sinners deserve a second chance and even, in appropriate circumstances, often deserve a third or fourth or even more chances. Education, not punishment, is the only way to address and, over time, to extinguish the causes, the effects, the consequences and the desires to sin.

Illegal, Secret all-Government Hearing on 17 May 2012

The secret all-Government hearing on 17 May 2012 was clearly a scandalous piece of crime. The ring leaders responsible for orchestrating and carrying out that hearing are under investigation and I expect that they will shortly be charged with a list of serious charges, of the kinds described, for example, in section 320 of the Crimes Act 1958, as well as under the State’s Whistleblower Protection laws.

Obviously, the principal ring leaders are Acting President Bowman, and Michael McGarvie. I expect they and perhaps the more senior of their staff actively engaged in the 17 May 2012 hearing process will face serious criminal charges.

It is inconceivable that the ring-leaders would dare to pretend that they did not know the extent of their wrong doings.

It was a great violation of Kable’s Law (“right to natural justice”), Kirk’s Law (“right to fair hearing” and, in particular as in Kirk’s case, “an administrative tribunal’s duty to receive and consider evidence”) and Johnson’s Law (“right to freedom from (reasonable apprehension of) bias”), not to mention my rights and those lawyers duties under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act and the Attorney-General’s Model Litigant’s Guidelines, and the Australian and the Victorian Constitutions, that that the lawyers inside the Legal Services Commissioner’s Office (which I refer to as the “Legal Services Commission” for logical reasons), dared to assert that they had any statutory powers or discretions to make such an Application for Order, as their Application for Order dated 10 May 2012. Let alone that this hearing was scheduled for 17 May 2012. Let alone that it was not listed for hearing on the 21 May 2012 (the scheduled date for the start of 3 days booked for hearings). Let alone that it was not adjourned off from 17 May 2012 to 21 May 2012. Let alone the disgusting efforts that were made to pretend that I had been given fair warning of that 17 May hearing date. Let alone the disgusting efforts by the, swung in for the morning, Tribunal Member who purported to exercise parliamentary and/or judicial powers. A juris non dictor, claiming to have an ‘inherent jurisdiction’ and suffering a delusion of having power to over-write and over-ride very clear Statutory law (an Act of Parliament) – so clear in fact that there was nothing that Mr Bowman needed to refer to the Supreme Court for interpretation or clarification (lacking on grounds of constitutional integrity (separations of powers) any genuine statutory authority or other legitimate capacity to interpret Parliament’s laws, himself).

Everybody who graduates from law school, whether or not they take up the practice of law, knows that administrative bodies such as VCAT administer laws laid down by Parliament. They do not make laws. They do not even have the power to interpret unclear laws. If the Parliament’s laws are unclear, administrators sitting in tribunals such as VCAT have to refer them to a judicial body (a Court) to interpret them. For a member of the judiciary to swing in as an administrator of an executive branch body and suggest that the administrative body has an ‘inherent jurisdiction’ is a crime of stupidity against the Constitutions and other laws and statutes I have noted above. VCAT has no ‘jurisdiction’ because it does not ‘dict’ any ‘juris’. It does not ‘make’ any ‘laws’ it just administers the laws that the Parliament (via Acts of Parliament) and the Minister (via Regulations, Directions and Guidelines) gives it to administer – provided of course that those Acts and Regulations, Directions and Guidelines are valid having regard to constitutional considerations of the kind I have noted above.

A VCAT Tribunal cannot over-write or ignore or point blank refuse to administer Acts of Parliament that it is statutory duty bound to administer. Nor can it introduce a ‘prominent persons’ exception or pre-vetting process into the summons provisions of the VCAT Act. Nor can it order its own Registrar or other staff to disobey the provisions of the Act and obey a different process drummed up (with no parliamentary or judicial powers of government) by the presiding VCAT Tribunal Member, no matter how pretty the toxic pink stickers on the VCAT File “No Summons to be issued etc ..” may look to the non-literate. If Acting President Bowman wants the laws he and his staff administer to be amended that way, he needs to lobby his responsible Minister, the Attorney-General to lobby the Parliament to make those amendments to the Act first (and hardly retrospectively) before he can administer laws of that calibre. Acting President Bowman cannot make laws like that (or any other laws) of his own choosing.

Of course the same points about Kable’s Law, Kirk’s Law, Johnson’s Law, the Whistleblowers Protection Act, the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act and the Constitutions can be said for the same violations of laws that the lawyers inside the Legal Services Commissioner are guilty of violating, by virtue of daring to bring on the Application for Order of late 2011 which sparked this unauthorised, illegal, malicious and vexatious prosecution against me.

That first LSC Application for Order of late 2011 that kicked of this unauthorised, illegal vendetta process in VCAT is also a matter for the relevant prosecution authorities and for competent courts of criminal jurisdiction to attend to in due course.

To think that government and the legal profession have gotten to the stage where government agencies such as the LSC are vexatious litigants, not just vexatious litigants, but vexatious prosecutors. And fellow (non-parliamentary, non-judicial) agencies such as VCAT are going along with the vexation (reinventing themselves with parliamentary and judicial powers they can never have, in the process). That is just an extraordinary indictment of how out of control, and how law breaking rather than law abiding, so many of our government bureaucracies have become (especially publicly-funded, lawyer-dominated) – too far from the eyes and oversight of parliamentary, representative democracy – and running amok for only as long as the people’s elected governmen and governwomen, the parliament will allow them.

Ms Foley, Barrister

I note that Ms Foley is a very junior member of the Victorian Bar (signed the Bar Roll as recently as 21 May 2009). I pause to remark that 21 May is an unforgettable date in the scheme of this scandalous governmen lawfare against me.

Clearly Ms Foley was too junior a member of the legal profession to have been given such a significant political brief. While Ms Foley should have known and should have done better, quite clearly she was used by her client to do things that were wrong that, if she had her time again she would almost certainly (I would hope) not have done.

It is reasonable to suppose that Ms Foley’s lack of experience and impressionability, the likelihood that she would ‘do as she was told’ and not ask too many of the right sorts of questions of her instructors, could have been the major reasons why she, such a junior and unpractised barrister, was selected for that particular, secret, hearing. Ms Foley’s family name and connections might also have been factors.

I guess that goes to the gravity of the misconduct of Ms Foley’s instructors, which again is a matter for the criminal investigations into her instructors, and scope of charges that may be likely to flow against them regarding 17 May 2012.

As regards the secret hearing on 17 May 2012, I ask Ms Foley to supply me with a proper, written apology.

I also ask that she remove from her on-line resume on the references to “Constitutional Law” and “Human Rights” as her areas of practice – at least until she does sufficient things to restore her right to claim to be an upholder of any of those sorts of laws. Apart from ethical issues, there are obvious trade practices issues (misleading and deceptive conduct) associate with making such public claims, where her 17 May 2012 demonstrates a lack of ability and a lack of achievement, and serious violations, in both areas.

Ms Foley should, in future, think twice before accepting any kind of rushed, ‘hand up’ brief from government agencies to act against a genuine Constitutional Law and genuine Human Rights lawyer more than 14 years (and a life time of experience) her senior.

What does one call a human rights lawyer that cares not for, and participates in the human rights violations of, the most basic of human rights of a genuine human rights lawyer?

I invite Ms Foley to have regard to Archer’s Law (see my blog piece “Honor Amongst Thieves” at http://LawyerocracyOnTrial.Wordpress.Comquoting an excerpt from Sir Jeffrey Archer’s novel of that title) which states that: “

good lawyers uphold the principles of human rights (as embodied in the US Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights) in every thing that they do, while bad lawyers (“and I do not mean stupid ones”) bend them, which is the first step towards breaking them.”

I would hope that this humiliating experience of being a human rights violator and double Constitution violator (State and Federal), of allowing oneself to be duped into duplicity and betrayal of virtues and ethics that Ms Foley would no doubt wish to profess that she at all times upholds, will serve in good stead to remind Ms Foley of the importance of obtaining, and insisting on obtaining proper instructions, of getting all of the facts and circumstances of the matter she is advocating rather than relying on what might be a slipshod brief where the vast majority of relevant information was kept hidden from her and from her brief. Ms Foley should have learned, and must surely have learned now, always to question the bona fides of her client – even, perhaps especially, if her client is a team of lawyers from inside an agency of the Australian Federal or State governments.

There was really no excuse for Ms Foley, even such a junior member of the profession and a mere 3 years at the Victorian Bar, not to have insisted (in my obvious absence, and having regard to the obvious importance to my defence from this vexatious prosecution that all 57 sources of evidence be put before the Tribunal) not to have encouraged the Tribunal Member to put the hearing of the application off until the 3 day hearing scheduled for barely “a day [and a half] later.”

I encourage Ms Foley to review the Attorney-General’s Model Litigant Guidelines (she can download a copy via my blog to satisfy herself where her obligation to have counselled her client and sought the postponement of the hearing of that application for a both party hearing on 21 May 2012 (which flows from the case law and legislation I have listed above and is made explicit again in the 2001 Attorney-General’s Guidelines).

In future I trust Ms Foley will advise her government clients of their (and by association her own) obligations to comply with these Ministerial Guidelines, as well as the laws and constitutional duties that I have noted above (Kable’s Law etc etc).

I also request that whatever fees Ms Foley claims in respect of her part in this tardy episode, as they are the bloodiest of blood monies, she should donate them to a genuine grass roots human rights and constitutional defence organisation. And please tell me which organisation will be the lucky recipient of that donation.

Mr Gilbert, Barrister

I note that Mr Gilbert has been practising law since 1975 and at the Victorian Bar since 1981, making Mr Gilbert a practitioner of some 37 years (as against my ‘mere’ 22 years), although Mr Gilbert does appear to have had limited experience in litigation (notably criminal matters). Mr Gilbert lacks any of the billion dollar deals, the commercial and government experiences, that I have enjoyed during my own career. As he is also a CPA, I expect that Mr Gilbert will be well aware of my years of devoted service not just to my clients and to the public, but to the legal profession, including 5 years writing a monthly column for the Law Institute of Victoria Limited’s “prestigious flagship publication” the Law Institute Journal, my dozens of presentations at Continuing Legal Education events all around the country (as far north as Alice Springs and Darwin) and Chairmanship of hundreds of Law Institute Committee Meetings. Mr Gilbert, like most lawyers and CPA’s in Australia of more than 5 years post admission experience, probably knows me by the nickname “Mr GST” which was spontaneously given to me by both the legal and accounting professions on account of my years of work assisting both groups of professionals at the turn of the millennia to deal with the ‘great big new tax’ aka the GST.

I note that Mr Gilbert did not appear for any of the all-Government parties at the secret hearing on 17 May 2012.

Another member of the Victorian Bar, a Mr Patrick Over was, it seems, specially briefed by the lawyers inside the Legal Services Commission for that special secret hearing on 17 May 2012. Mr Over’s culpability is all the higher because of his acquaintance, going back several years, as far a hearings in December 2008 and throughout 2009 as to the 3 years of litigation that have been on foot (so far) between myself (as plaintiff by counterclaim) and the Legal Services Commissioner (as 9th Defendant by Counterclaim) (and see below).

But it seems that Mr Gilbert knew nothing as at 21 May 2012 about the extraordinary, criminal and corrupt events of the secret hearing on 17 May 2012 – until I raised them that morning at the commencement of the 3 day trial.

Indeed, it appeared at the hearing on 21 May 2012 that it wasn’t just the 17 May 2012 secret hearing “a day [and a half]” earlier, that Mr Gilbert knew nothing about. Perhaps Mr Gilbert didn’t know anything about any of the 3 VCAT hearings prior to that (the second deliberately, the third secretly, held in my absence). Mr Gilbert seem to know nothing of 3 years of Supreme Court legal proceedings, my $50 million Supreme Court counterclaim against the Legal Services Commissioner (as 9th Defendant by Counterclaim) and its two secret informants kept hidden from this VCAT proceeding, a Victorian Barrister, the 7th Defendant by Counterclaim, and a Federal Magistrate, the 10th Defendant by Counterclaim.

A scandalous state of affairs that a Barrister of Mr Gilbert’s years would rock up on a Monday morning to prosecute at a 3 day trial, having it would seem only been handed up the brief on the Friday, and with such a lack of knowledge of even the steps that had taken place inside the commencement of that prosecution – let alone a lack of knowledge of the facts and circumstances, years of accumulated events, prior to the initiation of the formal prosecution process.

But, as everything associated with government and lawyers in this affair, it gets worse. Again, it seems that Mr Gilbert’s instructors have deliberately hidden 99% of the truth, the facts, the circumstances, their own monumental wrongdoing and unjustified aggressions – punting perhaps that, by keeping Mr Gilbert and the VCAT itself 99% in the dark, that they will successfully “use the system to get the result you want” – which is what lawyers are supposed to do, at least according to one former, most disgraceful, President of the Law Institute of Victoria. Notably, the Chief Justice of Victoria herself, Marilyn Warren has gone on the public record recently to the effect that such “win at all costs” attitudes do not belong in our court rooms (or, presumably, in our tribunals or other halls or offices of government). But again I touch on things pertaining to the criminal investigations and probable prosecutions of Mr Gilbert’s instructor/s, and Mr Bowman of VCAT, and the others associated with the scandalous 17 May 2012 secret, all-Government VCAT hearing.

Nor did Mr Gilbert know anything about the dozens of proper complaints that I have filed with the Legal Services Commissioner, where the Legal Services Commissioner has refused to investigate, initially even claiming it had no powers to investigate or regulate lawyers over their alleged misconduct in the course of being paid legal services providers. Nor was Mr Gilbert aware of my twice having gotten Supreme Court of Victoria orders confirming that the Legal Services Commissioner did have the power to investigate and to regulate allegations of misconduct by legal professionals in the course of being paid to provide legal services and, furthermore, should be investigating my complaints.

A scandalous state of affairs, that I ever needed Supreme Court rulings to explain such a thing to such a regulator. Made even more scandalous because I needed two of them, approximately 12 months apart. And made even more scandalous because 3 and nearly 4 years later, the Legal Services Commissioner and the lawyers inside the Legal Services Commission continue to treat those Supreme Court rulings with contempt – continue to refuse to investigate what the Supreme Court has clarified, not once but twice, to the Legal Services Commissioner, are complaints that the Legal Services Commissioner can and should investigate.

Yet, via its Application of late 2011, the Legal Services Commissioner purports to have statutory powers to investigate me and to prosecute me over alleged behaviours of mine that were entirely personal. There is nothing in that Application or any of the Prosecution Materials or any of the many years of background events, that relates to anything I have ever done in any professional capacity. Nothing I have done in the course of paid or unpaid work as a journalist, nor as an economist, nor as a politician, nor as a lawyer.

We have lawyers inside a Legal Services Commission that claim not to have the power to regulate lawyers who are doing things as paid legal services providers, and yet they claim to have power to regulate me for being left having to do things in my own private affairs as a result of stupid things done by the lawyers that I hired to represent me, only to have them initiate stupid proceedings and then to drop my case telling me that they “don’t do [these sorts of] cases any way”.

So I, who was left as an unrepresented litigant, with no previous litigation experiences whatsoever (why else would I have hired ‘accredited … specialist’ lawyers to represent me if I could have done the job myself?) can be put under the regulatory microscope, for coincidentally hold legal qualifications and practising in totally different areas of law. In all my 22 years of legal practice, I have never stolen a penny off a client. I have never cheated on my taxes. I have never been prosecuted or charged or investigated for any serious (or even minor) criminal offence. And no legal regulator has ever received a single complaint from any of my many prestigious clients or former clients. And yet I am being charged where there is no ‘crime’, no ‘witnesses’, no ‘informant’, no ‘due process’ (I won’t even go into the ‘no jury’) by lawyers inside the Legal Services Commission who want, with VCAT’s assistance to re adjudicate something that happened in a Federal court (a judicial body) before a judge (with judicial powers far greater than VCAT’s) nearly 4 years ago, which did not raise any suggestion from the federal judge that anything that I did was rude or impolite in any way, let alone unprofessional even if I had been a paid litigator, a litigator with Mr Gilbert or Ms Foley’s court room log of experience), when I was basically spending the start of my first few days in a court room as an unrepresented (dirtied-on and ditched) litigant while I scramble to find legal assistance to take over from my ex-lawyers to represent me.

While all those other paid lawyers who were lawyers and not litigants, they are all out of bounds for any investigation by the lawyers inside the Legal Services Commission.

It is clear to me that Mr Gilbert was duped by his client and simply not briefed anywhere near the standard he should have been.

The lawyers inside the Legal Services Commission have tried to keep 99% of the facts and circumstances (and nearly 4 years of history of their failed dealings between myself and them) secret from the VCAT (the purpose of the secret 17 May hearing). In the same way they have been seeking to keep 99% of the facts and circumstances secret from Mr Gilbert.

That said, I find it unbelievable that Mr Gilbert, a barrister of his experience, could have the wool pulled over his eyes so comprehensively by his instructors inside the Legal Services Commission. Not doubt the short period of time between his receiving his brief and the 21 May 2012 10 am hearing commencement, and some deliberate culpability on the part of his instructors is the reason for that. Mr Gilbert’s instructors number approximately a dozen, though he probably doesn’t know that either – that’s almost a new in-house lawyer for every letter and document issued by the Legal Services Commission, just like it is almost a new barrister / advocate briefed by them for every hearing. just like it is almost a new VCAT Member rolled in for every VCAT hearing. Hardly a proper state of affairs for any government administrative agencies, let alone the Legal Services Commissioner and the VCAT to behave like this.

I also note that Mr Gilbert’s instructor, Ms Tina Stagliano who no doubt drew the short straw positively lied, from her own direct several years knowledge of the matter as to the inception of this prosecution, telling him it was a ‘de novo investigation’. Stuff and nonesense, as this is the same materials that the lawyers in the Legal Services Commission have looked at twice and dismissed twice previously. I have typical incomprensible correspondence from them late last year telling me that they were dropping 3/4’s of their (false and vexatious) allegations on this third jeopardisation. And of course it is the fourth jeopardisation all up, given that the issued were adjudicated (in the sense that absolutely nothing untoward was detected) on the first run through by the federal magistrate (who should hardly relish the fact that his work, or his failure to deal with an imaginary infringement, was shoddily done, in that he missed the imaginary infringement when he adjudicated in the matter the first time round). This is extraordinary stuff.

And I note the absurdity the lawyers inside the Legal Services Commission and Mr Gilbert, at least at first blush on 21 May 2012, think it is appropriate for me to be charged and prosecuted on the basis wholly of evidence that Mr Gilbert is going to lead from the bar table, without any witness statements provided, because no witnesses are intended to be called as part of the prosecution case, because, amongst other things, the staff of the Legal Services Commission haven’t done any investigation, because, as the Victorian State Government Ombudsman noted in his damning 2009 Annual Report to Parliament, those lawyers inside the Legal Services Commission do not know how to do investigations, or what their legal duties and powers are. And this is a clear example of the failures of the lawyers in the Legal Services Commission that the State Government Ombudsman reported some 3 years ago.

Just how and whom am I supposed to be allowed to cross examine regarding the misleading facts that Mr Gilbert is leading from the Bar Table, because he has no witnesses to testify to those facts?

If ever there were a case of a Tribunal being dressed up (and I consider the lawyers inside the Legal Services Commission chiefly responsible for this) as a ‘star chamber’ – secret hearings, no opportunity to cross examine the prosecution case, etc etc, this has to be it.

I am disappointed with some of the inappropriate remarks Mr Gilbert made towards me, but I can see that he was duped as surely as Ms Foley was “a day [and a half] earlier.” Mr Gilbert should have been experienced enough to know that he did not have a sufficient handle on his brief. He should have had too many unanswered questions needing answers from his client. Mr Gilbert should have sought an adjournment at the start of the proceeding on 21 May 2012, in order to get up to speed on the matter. How dare any so-called “man of the law” treat any citizen’s life with such triviality as to “wing it” like that – least of all a senior solicitor and barrister who in all respects save as to the chronological time counter, is far more senior in achievement in the profession than Mr Gilbert is every likely to achieve.

All of these are tactics and failures that I have seen elsewhere in the background judicial proceedings out of which this monstrous, vexatious and totally illegal administrative prosecution has grown.

And notwithstanding my disappointment that Mr Gilbert, like Ms Foley, would act so discourteously, clumsily and disrespectfully towards a fellow, and very senior, constitutional human rights lawyer, I repeat my opening remarks that I am of the opinion that every sinner deserves a second (and possibly more) chances.

I suspect, given the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament by the Victorian State Government Ombudsman (available to download from my blog at http://LawyerocracyOnTrial.Wordpress.Com), and my own investigations of the Legal Services Commission are combinations of deliberate deceptiveness, and just total absence of professional standards (education, knowledge, skill, experience, ethics and judgement) that all-pervades the lawyer-culture inside the Legal Services Commission. Deliberate deception, criminal misconduct of the kinds I have mentioned above, and total absence of professional standards have run fairly rampant inside the Legal Services Commissioner’s office and amongst his legal staff, and have done since its first inception (over the grave of the former, independent Victorian Legal Ombudsman Scheme). This has all been very well documented on official and public records. I have collected copious examples of shoddy lawyering and unethical and ungovernmental practices from the Legal Services Commissioner (past and present) and his staff, to augment the concerns that the State Government Ombudsman blew the whistle to Parliament about in 2009.

Without exculpating Mr Gilbert of some responsibility for things over which he should have exercised some independence and self-mastery, I am of the view that culpability lies first and foremost with the lawyers inside the Legal Services Commission for this “latest” attempted reprisal against me (their third jeopardising of me based on these materials that have no “professional” connection to me, and show no “misconduct” privately, let alone in any professional capacity, whatsoever).

To assist a less adversarial, collaborative approach to this matter, I attach certain documents that I am fairly sure given their deceptiveness did not form part of Mr Gilbert’s brief:

  1. Copy of my “With Prejudice Settlement Offer” of 14 May 2012 – Mr Gilbert, please let me have your client’s instructions as to the status of this offer. You should obtain instructions as to the settlement amount I have offered to accept (as per the “without prejudice” version of that offer I made to the LSC by facsimile of 6 May 2012.

  1. As noted in the banner to this facsimile, I am hereby increasing the “without prejudice save as to settlement amount” by $50,000 more than my last offer of 6 May 2012 / 14 may 2012. Please advise your client’s instructions.

  1. Copy of corresponding, virtually the same, settlement offer I put to the LSC some 3 years ago (January 200912) – the only difference (apart from a change of government, or more precisely, a change of parliament – the bureaucracy and judiciaries yet to show any signs of any change) being that 3 years ago I was not seeking financial compensation from the LSC – not even as 9th Defendant in the $50 million Supreme Court Counterclaim. Back then I was merely (sic) seeking to have the LSC administer its laws properly as it was legally empowered (according to 2 sets of Supreme Court rulings I obtained against it – ask your fellow barrister Mr Patrick Over about those if you can’t get straight or competent or honest responses from your LSC instructors) and legally obligated (again according to those two sets of Supreme Court rulings) to investigate. By the way, Mr Over was one of those barristers that, according to the second of the Supreme Court rulings, the LSC was legally able and dutied to investigate – so somewhat perverse to see him taking up the pitch fork against me for the LSC at the illegal secret VCAT hearing on 17 May 2012.

There is a wealth of facts, evidence and circumstances contained in the 57 summonses that VCAT illegally destroyed at the secret hearing on 17 May 2012. Even reading the contents of documents listed for production by the LSC summonees, Mr Gilbert’s own instructors is incredibly revealing of the corruption and misconduct in these lowly places such as the offices of in-house lawyers of the LSC.

I ask Mr Gilbert to obtain urgent instructions from his clients as to whether my latest settlement proposal is accepted.



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)


4 thoughts on “Australia – a Nation of Whistleblowers ruled by Governments run by Whistleblockers

  1. Appalling amount of corruption, secrecy and cover-ups.
    Unfortunately, Family law is getting away with immunity provisions and s121 of not allowing media to publish serious crimes…..

  2. Corruption kills more Australians than terrorists and illegal drugs, its a elite club of persons without ethic or morals, which are traits that governments seem to fear. New laws need to be drafted that are far more severe and strip the supposed public servants of the pension entitlements.
    Personally I think a charge of corruption should include a mandatory term of 25 years on a chain gang, working in Australia’s hottest area’s. as this crime is destroying our country through lack of basic services and infrastructure.
    Fight the good fight James

  3. My very best wishes for you on Monday…and let us see what else have they planned to block the public and media this time from attending..

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