Resuming 6 August 2012 – This Lawyerocracy on Trial is beginning to get interesting …

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The illegal Victorian Government invasion of my private and personal legal affairs on the false pretext of “regulating professional legal services providers” “for the protection of consumers of legal services” resumes for a brief hearing on Monday 6 August 2012, before a “trial” continues on 3, 4 and 5 September 2012.

The fact that this is the third (same each time) illegal Government invasion of my private legal affairs – publicly-paid government agents with law degrees engaging in lawfare and whistleblocking against me as a disgruntled customer of teams of paid legal professionals guilty of serious, criminal, professional misconduct in the course of collecting their publicly paid fees who the supposed legal regulator steadfastly refuses to police – barely rates a mention these days.  Such is the roll call of crime and misconduct committed against me by professionally licensed lawyers in private practice and throughout the upper (and many lower) benches of all of the branches of government in this tragic, hiddeously-corrupted lawyerocracy of Australia.  

As I have blogged previously, the last Tribunal “session” (hardly a “hearing”) on 6 July 2012 was an all-criminal affair :

The hearing on 6 July 2012 could not have been any more lawless” James says. “Expecting a crowd of 100 – 200 in the public gallery, these administrators deliberately booked a room with room for less than 50, turned off the microphones (all the better for the media and the public not to hear them) and stationed 3 armed guards at the door to turn away the next 100 or so members of the public who sought admission to what is supposed to be a place of “fair, open, efficient public justice for everyone” – according to the politburo brochures and wall prints and door transfers plastered around a building and rooms deliberately designed to deceive the public to think it is a court and the administrators are judges.”

Obviously VCAT will need more than 3 armed guards at the door to bar public access next hearing. Otherwise we will see more ugly spectacles of members of the public being grabbed by armed security guards and dragged out of the (public) hearing room – while the corrupt government administrators pretend “this is not happening” “this is not happening” and “I see nothing” … there was nothing in their orders for the day telling them how to deal with an armed assault on a member of the public by one of their own armed troopers …”

“… 6 July 2012 and about 60 years worth of crimes committed by 4 out of 4 government officials in under one hour. A pretty big corruption rate even for a place as disgraceful and administrators as disgraceful as these. I am told that 9 members of the regular Victoria Police were called to reinforce the VCAT troopers. But I only saw 5 of them (held the door open for Troopers #4 and #5 I did) as I left level 2 of the building.”

In this country we have all the rights in the world, except of course when the government says so, which is of course whenever we might like to have them,” James says “Kind of like all of us being multi-millionaires except we aren’t allowed to spend any of the money – but it’s the thought that counts.”

You can read about the key points of these illegal mechanics (the illegal tactics and “physical strong arm tactics”) of these Government officialls and their pre-orchestrated 6 July 2012 (non-)hearing as I summarised in my Media Release earlier this month: here . I am yet to write up the illegal processes employed by the Government agents at that “session”. That report will flow shortly.

Lawyerocracy on Trial is about to get interesting …

1. amongst the many things that happened on 6 July 2012:

(a) The Prosecution “closed its case” (whatever those words mean, severally and jointly, in this affair – since the prosecution neither found nor built nor presented any case against me – because even on this third attempt to build something these lawless lawyers and government agents remain empty handed); and

(b) VCAT administrator Mr Smithers set the matter down for next hearing on 6 August 2012 (this coming Monday) with the “trial” to continue on 3 – 5 September 2012.

2. I have retained Senior Counsel and Junior Counsel to provide me with independent legal advice and to advocate my case to and against the Government.

(a) Of course the obstacle here is getting the Victorian Government to acknowledge and to implement my “.. right to have an Attorney appointed by the State …”

(b) as Senior Counsel has elegantly put it to me:

First, It is probably not advisable for you to act for yourself in a matter like this.  It is clear enough from the brief that you are fairly passionately involved, and that generally gets in the way if you are both client and solicitor.  The brief is couched in understandably passionate language ..

(c) Senior Counsel also notes that the Prosecution Materials, the Prosecutions’ “case”:

is short on objective facts.

Senior Counsel and Counsel are quite rightly waiting on two things: (a) for legal aid to be approved (from whichever source first presents itself to me – see below) before undertaking any work in this regard; and (b) for me to engage independent solicitors to represent me (and instruct them). Counsels’ wishes in this regard coincide with my own and with the observations that Mr Smithers made on 21 May 2012 (and I believe that the LSC via its Counsel Mr Gilbert concurred) that I should obtain legal representation in these tribunal proceedings in VCAT rather than deal with them on as an unrepresented participant. So it is nice that there is some thing that we can say we are in heated agreement about.

In short, the Victorian Government agrees that I should not wear all the hats – target, solicitor, barrister, . I should have the benefit of independent, professional legal advice. And I should be represented by a proper, independent legal team for the purposes of these administrative process. After all, these rogue bureaucrats have spent upwards of $6M of public monies on this extreme lawfare and whistleblocking criminal campaign against me. And for the past several years upwards of 150 publicly paid lawyers have been on the case against me. 150 to 1? even adjusting for quality versus quantity, those numbers are pretty damning of the (non-) government mentality of these rogue “servants of the public” and “upholders of justice” (whatever those words mean to these people these days).

As an accused man facing potentially life altering penalties that these administrators (wrongly, and criminally) assert they can inflict on me, the Victorian Government has legal and governmental obligations to provide me with such “Attorneys”. So the only hold up is the Victorian Government, getting its act together and via one of its many manifestations involved in this bizarre process, coming up with the public monies to begin to balance up the ledger – important elements of “fair play”, “unbiased” and “equality under the law.”

3. Below are 3 letters that I wrote to the involved Victorian Government bureaucracies (Legal Services Commissioner (‘LSC’), Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘VCAT’), Victorian Legal Aid Office (‘VLAO’) and the (virtually unknown to the public) Legal Practitioners Liabillity Committee (‘LPLC’), copied to their collective Responsible Minister (Victorian MLA and Attorney-General Robert Clark, ‘AG’) and copied to the ‘Special Investigations Unit’ watching (for now) this crooked process in VCAT:

(a) reminding them of their ‘whole of government’ responsiblities to ensure I am provided with public funding and time ‘to have an Attorney (multiples, in this case) appointed by the State’; and

(b) reminding them that with upwards of 200 witnesses for the defence (including up to 100 ‘prominent persons’ – senior lawyers in all 3 branches of governments, State and Federal that I have been whistleblowing to for the past 5 years) this trial is going to take 100 – 200 – 300 days and expecting legal counsel to come in and get on top of thousands of pages of legal documents, transcripts, evidence, and organise hundreds of summonses, witnesses, presumably a fist full of challenges to legal powers, misconduct, null prosequoi (lack of basis for a prosecution), ulterior motives and improper purposes, is going to take even the best legal counsel months and months (as it has taken 4 years  for the “Prosecution” to drum up its embarrasingly self-incriminating Prosecution Materials against me – without a drop of evidence, informant, witness, or statement in them); and

(c) reminding them of the crimes these bureaucrats and lawyers committed against me, at the secret all-government VCAT session behind my back on 17 May 2012 “a day [and a half]” before the start of a 3 day trial, when they illegally cancelled 57 summonses for substantial productions and documents and testimony from senior lawyers / public administrators exposing the corruption and misconduct, the lawfare and the whistleblocking that these people have been misusing their public powers entrusted to them to cloak, cover-up and to commit these crimes against me.

4. For the legal reasons I have given in these covering letters, it should be a “no brainer” that the Victorian Government, via all of these involved manifestations / bureaucrats should give 100% cooperation and consent to the things I have requested in this letter according to morally and legally binding obligations of “model behaviour” and “best government practice” for government agencies that report to the top Law Officer in their State, the Responsible Minister, Attorney-General Robert Clark.

But of course the whole reason we are in these crooked proceedings is the long and sustained history of these and other lawyers and bureaucrats refusing to do exactly that. It is an odds on bet that they have even hid this adminstrative process from Mr Clark. Well all that is about to change now.

5. The letter to Victoria Legal Aid Office is a damning indictment of how government operates in this State. Bureaucrats avoid their responsiblities and duties to govern according to legal obligations of “model behaviour” and “best government practice” through inaction and omission – as this letter – a chronology of “you haven’t actioned” events. VLAO is amongst other things, the company of solicitors that misused some $6m of public monies in 2002 – 2004 (ie denied about 600 – 1000 impoverished, needy, deserving Australian citizens their “right(s) to an Attorney appointed by the State…”) in order to fund the application to the High Court of Australia on behalf of its own company of lawyers and on behalf of all of the States’ other (hardly impoverished or needy or deserving) 100,000 solicitors and barristers:

(a) to keep the ancient “barristers immunity from legal proceedings”, ie to remain the only country in the world since 2000 where it is against the law to sue barristers who are negligent (and worse) in the court room; and

(b) (a hundred times worse) to create a matching “solicitors immunity”, ie to become the only country in the world, since March 2004 where it is against the law to sue solicitors who are not up to the job and who mess up in the court room:

D’Orta’s Laws: D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid and (a Barrister) – see my earlier Media Release here .

So what are the prospects of this particular company of lawyers, Victoria Legal Aid Office (publicly-funded and government owned and operated, a manifestation of the State and of the executive powers of the Attorney-General as Responsible Minister) complying with legal, constitutional and Ministerial obligations to stump up the costs of my legal defence in these abusive administrative processes, when this is going to expose the

6. The letter to the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee is interesting and a very timely approach on my part.

(a) This statutory agency is the compulsory professional indemnity insurance agency for all legal services providers (all barristers and solicitors) in the State of Victoria. It is a government owned, operated, statutory monopoly. All other professions have to ‘go to the market’, regular ASIC (and usually ASX), ACCC and IFSA regulated publicly-traded insurance corporations to purchase professional indemnity insurances. But not lawyers? A point that is worthy of pondering and expoloring in a separate blog.

(b) Again, it should be a “no brainer” that since the Legal Services Commissioner‘s assertion of powers to investigate and regulate my private legal affairs comes about from the irrelevantly bizarre coincidence of my also being licensed to sell legal services to others, it seems a “no brainer” that even though the Legal Services Commissioner’s reasoning is defective (and contrary to all High Court of Australia laws on the subject) the same irrelevantly bizarre coincidence should trigger my rights to unmeans tested “blue ribbon” legal defence costs (a Bourke Street firm of solicitors and a team of Williams Street barristers). But of course as noted above, law-abiding, “model behaviour” and “good government practices” are not the hallmarks of anything that these involved manifestations of the State have been doing to me or to the countless other victims of lawyerocracy that have come to me for comfort and assistance: see my previous blog – here .

(c) In this letter to the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee there is a useful one paragraph summary of the blackmail, fraud and extortion, triggered by a desperate and deeply troubled fraudster, and run with gusto by two teams of disgracefully unethical, incompetent and criminally-minded “accredited family law specialists.” Again, to the damnation (and probably lengthy incarceration) of the Legal Services Commissioner, Mr Michael Keith McGarvie, his team of a dozen inhouse lawyers etc etc, while he has undoubted public duties and statutory powers and public resources to investigate and prosecute those criminally bent lawyers (and their “Attorneys as provided to them by the State” etc etc) – about 40 lawyers now in total – he refuses (in contempt of two sets of Supreme Court of Victoria rulilngs) to investigate any of that seriously criminal professional misconduct. He quotes old 1993 laws (no longer by name) that wrongly held that under earlier legal regulatory schemes, the legal regulator had no power to regulate a lawyer unless the lawyers client had first successfully sued that lawyer for professional negligence. The logic of that Supreme Court judge (Justice Gray in Delahunty v Mann and Howell) is not just insane, but it was clearly wrecked when Australian’s lost the right to sue their solicitors for professional negligence under the High Court’s D’Orta Laws of 2004. Yet Legal Services Commissioner Michael Keith McGarvie continues to quote those laws (deleting since mid 2009 mention of the Delahunty v Howell and Mann case by name) to upwards of 2000 of the 2500 complaints his office receives of unethical, professional misconduct by solicitors. The man should be investigating, prosecuting and striking himself out – points that I have made in my whistleblowing letters to and about him and his disgraced predecessor Ms Victoria Marles.

Without further ado, here is the one paragraph summary of the blackmail and fraud that triggered this $6M (so far) lawyers picnic for the lawyerocracy, and this crime wave of lawfare and whistleblocking (violations of human rights and crimes against humanity) at me. I follow the paragraph with the text of the 3 letters introduced above (please be forgiving of any formating mess-ups in the translation from ‘word’ to ‘wordpress’) and you can download a printer friendly version of these 14 pages of letters here and a copy of the Victorian State Government Ombudsman’s damning 2009 Annual Report to parliament on the stinking state of affairs of the Legal Services Commissioner (even way back then) at my earlier blog post here.

In April 2007 I became the victim of a very nasty blackmail. A young lady of my acquaintance tried to seduce / blackmail me into moving in with her and forming a de facto relationship. When I resisted her ‘charms’ and blackmails she went off to who must be the most unethical family law practitioners in the nation who, without bothering to test her assertions (ie without bothering to see if she had any evidence to support her wild assertions), and shutting their eyes and ears to various police, psychiatric, psychological reports that started to collect on their door step, drew up caveats freezing my assets at the LTO and then ‘paint by numbers’ drew up a scandalous Supreme Court writ and statement of claim (making all sorts of bizarre, untrue and totally without evidence assertions) to stop the LTO cancelling those caveats. When I threatened to sue those lawyers for fraud, defamation etc, as I subsequently did, and after being warned by Justice Simon Whelan of the Victorian Supreme Court in February 2008 for “trying it on” (running their ‘case’ through Practice Court rather than proper Trial Division processes) the original non-dynamic duo of solicitor – barrister barratriers promptly withdrew, only to have an even more unethical pairing of family law firm and family law barrister take up where they left off. All told these two sets of law firms and barristers sold themselves $425,000 of legal work on credit they gave to this penniless, self-confessed, police, psychiatrist, psychologist and (Supreme Court) Judge -found “beautiful liar” (as she described herself in her diaries at the foot of a list of men she had scammed over the decade 1999 – or so). That same Judge (who moaned to her Barrister (and Old School boy chum of his) of “the paucity of [her] evidence” hourly for the first 10 days of the 21 day trial) ruled in her favour contrary to High Court laws that he should base his judgement on the hard evidence (mountains of independent evidence in documentation, credible witnesses etc etc that I produced as part of my defence), which was followed by a frenzy of rushed calculations that lo and behold worked out so that 100% of the remains of my estate went 100% to her lawyers, 0% to her, 0% left for me. This pitiful blackmailer was left penniless, apparently asserting that her lawyers had overcharged her ($425,000 for legals to produce zero evidence to court just have their client perjure herself (as the Judge found) with inconsistent and unsubstantiated false testimony – which her barrister knew contradicted what she had said on oath in the Federal Magistrates Court only a couple of months earlier). Their penniless blackmailing client was left at the end of the mess she triggered with an outstanding personal debt to her ‘successful’ lawyers who ‘won her case for her’ in the vicinity of $250,000. Meanwhile, my legal practice had folded due to the pressure (confessed, unprosecuted aggravated burglaries, death threats and an unpoliced car bombing etc etc).”

Enjoy …

This Lawyerocracy on Trial is only just beginning to get interesting …

To be continued …

James Johnson

Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor

Constitutional Human Rights Advocate

Solicitor and Barrister of the High Court of Australian

(Celebrating 20 Years of Legal Practice 1990 – 2010)

from The Office of

JAmes Johnson

Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor

B.Ec (Hons). LLB. Mem CLA. Mem MEAA. Journalist. Whistleblower. Independent Documentary Maker

The Crucible” http://wp.me/p1Ay6h-27 || http://wp.me/p1Ay6h-19 “Soylent Green and Gold”

* http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/11509-is-julian-assange-being-denied-due-process

mail: PO Box 6137 Point Cook

Victoria Australia 3030

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

email: james@jamesjohnson2020.com

blogs: http://jamesjohnsonchr.wordpress.com

http://LawyerocracyOnTrial.wordpress.com

web: www.jamesjohnson2020.com

twitter: www.twitter.com/jamesjohnsonchr

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

* http://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/17/australian-govt-says-hands-tied-on-assange/

* http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/truth-of-assange-is-stranger-than-fiction-20120411-1ws4o.html

We are now living in a world … where whistleblowers are traitors and journalists are enemy combatants. – Christine Assange

Tuesday 30 July 2012

Mr Guy Gilbert, Barrister

of the Victorian Bar (John Rosanove Chambers)

Room 0307, 550 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Victoria 3000

BY FACSIMILE: 03 9225 8480

(Telephone: 03 9225 7379) ( 20 pages)

Mr Michael McGarvie

Legal Services Commissioner

Levels 9 330 Collins Street Melbourne Victoria 3000

BY FACSIMILE: 03 9679 8101

( Telephone: 03 9679 8001 )

Legal Practice List” Division

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

55 King Street Melbourne Victoria 3000

Attention: Principal Registrar Jim Nelms

(please bring to Mr Smithers attention and action asap)

BY FACSIMILE: 03 9628 9788

(Telephone: 03 9628 9081)

cc: Mr Robert Clark MLA

cc: Special Investigations Unit

Dear Mr Gilbert, Mr McGarvie and Mr Nelms (cc Mr Clark and others)

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

I refer to the hearing of this matter on 6 July 2012. I look forward to seeing Tribunal Member Mr Smithers’ authenticated orders and written reasons for decision sooner rather than later (nearly 4 weeks having passed since that hearing).

I note that amongst the many things that happened on 6 July 2012:

(a) The Prosecution “closed its case” (whatever those words mean, severally and jointly, in this affair); and

(b) Mr Smithers set the matter down for next hearing on 6 August 2012 (this coming Monday) with the “trial” to continue on 3 – 5 September 2012.

A. Request for Orders (By Consent) that the Trial Date of 3 September 2012 be vacated to no earlier than 3 December 2012 to allow me time to brief incoming Senior Counsel and Counsel and incoming solicitors

The purpose of this letter is to request that the LSC consent on 6 August 2012 to the “trial” date of 3 – 5 September 2012 being vacated, and new dates (not before 3 – 5 December 2012) being substituted instead.

I request this rescheduling in order to have time to instruct and to take advice from my incoming legal representatives on how best to dispose of this unauthorised, malicious and vexatious invasion by the LSC (this time in VCAT) into my private legal affairs.

I have engaged Senior Counsel and Junior Counsel to counsel and to represent me when the hearing resumes later this year.

As Senior Counsel put it to me:

First, It is probably not advisable for you to act for yourself in a matter like this.  It is clear enough from the brief that you are fairly passionately involved, and that generally gets in the way if you are both client and solicitor.  The brief is couched in understandably passionate language ..

Senior Counsel also notes that the Prosecution Materials, the Prosecutions’ “case”:

is short on objective facts.

Senior Counsel and Counsel are quite rightly waiting on two things: (a) for legal aid to be approved (from whichever source first presents itself to me – see below) before undertaking any work in this regard; and (b) for me to engage independent solicitors to represent me (and instruct them). Counsels’ wishes in this regard coincide with my own and with the observations that Mr Smithers made on 21 May 2012 (and I believe that the LSC via its Counsel Mr Gilbert concurred) that I should obtain legal representation in these tribunal proceedings in VCAT rather than deal with them on as an unrepresented participant. So it is nice that there is some thing that we can say we are in heated agreement about.

B. Status of Legal Aid Funding Applications – Waiting, Waiting, Waiting on Bureaucracy

As regards legal aid funding:

1. I attach copy of my self-explanatory letter today seeking explanations (for delays) and funding from the Victorian Legal Aid Office.

2. I also attach a copy of my self-explanatory letter today to the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee (for many years my most substantial and valuable client) seeking access to the richer and clearly eligible legal aid that I am entitled to therefrom under my compulsory professional indemnity insurances – for the rather bizarre reasons only made possible the the LSC’s assertions that my personal conduct as an unrepresented litigant somehow comes within his public statutory duties as policeman of standards of conduct of legal professional (for fee / feeable) service providers. Bizarre, but I guess what doesn’t make any sense for regulatory purposes can, in this bizarre context still stack up for insurance purposes.

The contents of these letters to the VLAO and to the LPLC are privileged and confidential. And as I impressed on 21 May 2012 and on 6 July 2012 I have no intention of waiving any privileges attaching to communications with my legal representatives. Accordingly I have redacted parts of both these letters that are not relevant for the purposes of showing to LSC and to VCAT the bona fides of this request.

At the hearing on 6 July 2012 I was prepared to show Tribunal Member Smithers (ie show only, and not have put on the public record or made accessible to “the other side”) properly redacted copies of some of my pre-6 July letters to the VLAO and others seeking legal aid funding. However, presumably in acknowledgement of my points made on 21 May 2012 that he had no public duty or public power to order me to divulge any such privileged materials (let alone give up my rights to remain silent) Mr Smithers seemed too disinterested (or perhaps too distracted by the extraordinary behaviour by armed / uniformed members of his staff) to press the point.

C. Epitomes of Defence Witnesses, Evidences etc etc

As regards Mr Smithers’ extraordinary orders of 6 July 2012 that I deliver epitomes of evidence of anticipated witnesses for the defence etc etc within (from memory) 14 days. Quite clearly these are issues for me to take counsel. I cannot understand why an independent Tribunal Member of 15 (?) years standing would make such bizarre orders that, as an un-represented party awaiting the engagement of legal representation, it is impossible (not merely impudent and imprudent) that I try to comply with.

As the contents of each and every one of the 57 Summonses that were wrongly quashed by Tribunal Member Bowman in the secret hearing on 17 May 2012 indicate, there is a long history to these affairs between myself and the present LSC and his predecessor (including several Supreme Court proceedings). Incoming solicitors and counsel are going to need several months to get up to speed on all of these (tens of) thousands of pages of documentation.

It is my expectation (subject to incoming legal advice in due course) that my defence lawyers will be calling in excess of 200 witnesses, including upwards of 100 witnesses from Victoria and more exotic inter-States – including the 57 whose evidence giving was wrongly, but not irredeemably aborted at that secret haring of Mr Bowman’s on 17 May 2012.

It is inherent in the nature of whistleblowing that the whistleblower “blows” his “whistle” to “prominent people” [to use Mr Bowman’s terminology, I trust correctly, though of course no such term appears under any legislation that VCAT administers] who are “prominent” on account of being high rank public officials. Of the 57 witnesses who were summonsed (until Mr Bowman’s mass abortions on 17May 2012) to appear on 21 May 2012 (which I expected would be formal appearances for rescheduling to appropriate later dates on an orderly, justice inducing basis) in excess of 85% of them were high ranking government officials to whom I had indeed made substantial whistleblowing reports, multiple reports over a multitude of years – as is patently obvious from the offices held by those persons and especially by even the most casual regard to the lists of documents that they were summonsed to produce to VCAT on or before 21 May 2012 (until the mass abortions “a day [and a half] before the trial”).

I guess it is also inherent in the nature of whistleblowing to be illegally whistleblocked by misconduct and corruption by other high ranking public officials (such as Mr Bowman and others did on 17 May 2012) in order to cloak and to cover up previous rounds and layers of misconduct and corruption that were “blown” in earlier rounds of whistleblowing to such “prominent” public officials. Corruption increases not just absolutely, but at an increasing rate (as per Johnson’s Third Law of Corruption).

It is regrettable (to choose a neutral and rather lame word in the circumstances) that the LSC has decided to hide (and worse) from VCAT 99% plus of the factual background to these affairs which have been going on in various court rooms and other offices and benches and branches of government (dozens of them) for some 5 years now, involving hundreds of bureaucrats (including many, many whose identities are not known to me and will only be revealed by investigations and discoveries) and lawyers in private practice (mostly at multi million dollar public expense).

Some among these 200 plus witnesses will be expert witnesses – experts on legal ethics and legal professional standards and / or the absence thereof since that shameful 6:1 Full High Court of Australia decision in March 2004, D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid and (a barrister), retaining the ‘barristers immunity’ (the only nation since 2000 where this elitist feudal age immunity for barristers continues to exist) and creating a world first (and still “world-only”, for obvious reasons) ‘solicitors immunity’ of ten- to a hundred- fold worse consequences.

Others may include witnesses etc to my private legal affairs conducted in the various court proceedings that the LSC baldly asserts (without anything like evidence or witnesses or facts, and obviously without any investigations whatsoever to find any evidence or witnesses or facts to support those bizarre and unprofessionally conducted assertions) constituted “misconduct” (that the Federal Magistrate in charge and all others present in that Federal Court room 4 years ago totally missed seeing or commenting upon) referable to some sort of professional conduct to be inferrenced over the top of my conduct of my personal legal affairs, as an unrepresented litigant, after my legal representatives dug me in and then ditched me, in disgracefully unprofessional fashion.

Even allowing half a day to only a whole day per witness, this will entail a trial period of 100 – 200 days. So it is not unreasonable to expect that incoming solicitors and counsel, once funding is confirmed from whichever sources, are going to need at least 3 months in which to get fully abreast of all of the relevant facts behind the LSC’s “closed .. case” (whatever it is) against me, let alone the myriad of legal issues triggered by the LSC’s governmentally and publicly publicised myriad of failures, misconducts and corruptions.

Again these are issues for my incoming legal representatives to address VCAT about. They are not things for me to speculate on, sans legal representatives fully experienced and fully briefed and able to deal with these matters in VCAT.

D. My Rights to an Attorney / Legal Aid

My rights to legal aid via the VLAO (and ditto I now realise via the LPLC) are pretty obvious. This is confirmed by the letter (enclosed with my VLAO letter) from the then Federal Opposition Leader, the Hon Malcolm Turnbull AO, repeating written statements made to him by the then Federal Attorney-General Hon Robert McClelland, and similar letters that I received from the Mr Baillieu and Mr Clark (when they were in opposition in mid- 2009).

But again, these are not matters for me to be addressing VCAT on. These are matters for my legal representatives to address VCAT on, once they have had time to be properly briefed.

In addition to pursuing legal aid via the LPC and the VLAO I am also pursuing private sources of funding / benefaction and pro bono / quid pro quo possibilities. But I am not prepared to release any documentation supporting these pursuits, for reasons of privilege and confidentiality. So LSC and VCAT are going to have to accept my word, these words, on this.

While I do not expect it to get so bad, if LPLC and / or VLAO refuse to grant me my rights as an accused man “to have an attorney present, and appointed by the state …” etc then I may need to issue judicial proceedings (if other, eg Ministerial avenues being pursued, fail. This will of course require the VCAT “trial date” to be extended later into 2013.

E. LSC Compelled to Consent to My Request for De-Listing and Re-Listing of (later) Trial Date

I note that the LSC is compelled to consent to this de-listing and re-listing (no earlier than 3 December 2012) .

This compulsion arises, if from nowhere else, under the Attorney-General’s Model Litigant Guidelines.

I set out below a copy of these Guidelines for Mr Gilbert’s, LSC’s and VCAT’s review. And of course they can be readily found online and downloaded. I will not bother to quote particular paragraphs of the guidelines. The are quite well written, almost in plain English, layman’s terms. And of course the whole is more powerful in this regard than the sums of its individual paragraphs and parts.

I note that it is even arguable given these Guidelines that the LSC should be funding both, not just one, side of these proceedings in VCAT.

As a private citizen, in my private capacity, I have already funded in early years (2008 and 2009) two sets of Supreme Court proceedings against VCAT). I was 100% successful on both occasions. The Victorian Government (via various of its bureaucratic agencies) has so far expended in the order of $3 Million on legal practitioners in private practice (Mr Gilbert being just the latest in a long line stretch back 5 years and probably stretching forwards at least as long again) in this ongoing whistleblocking war against me. And the Victorian Government (these same bureaucratic agencies, including the LSC) has probably expended an equivalent value of taxpayers money on internal resources as part of these lawfare campaigns against me.

There are clear public interest issues associated with my whistleblowing activities and the LSC’s (and other government agencies) whistleblocking activities, and the myriad of legal issues created by the LSC’s and staffs’ shameful behaviours (asserting a public duty / power to meddle in my private legal affairs while refusing to investigate the misconduct of dozens of multi-million dollar paid actual legal services providers (as the Victorian Supreme Court has twice ruled that he should investigate).

Having regard to these public interest issues, I ask Mr Gilbert to obtain instructions from the LSC as to whether it is prepared to meet a proportion of my costs for legal representatives (preferably on a dollar for dollar basis, pro tanto, its own fully costed external plus internal legal costs).

I am certainly asking the LSC’s Responsible Minister to order it to do so.

Ironic” is again too polite and unemotional a word to describe the grim reality that I continue to make substantial contributions to and protective of the public well being (or at least I would be if only the LSC and staff would comply with Victorian Supreme Court rulings like they are supposed to). It is not part of my “social contract” (if any, remaining) with the government of Victoria that I as a private Australian citizen fund such important public works while the government of Victoria (via the LSC and other agencies representing the State) fund multi-million dollar efforts to block the realisation of my good public works.

And, if need be, I will request VCAT to make orders on 6 August 2012, ordering the LSC to do so.

I note that VCAT has a public (and legal) duty to assist and ensure that the LSC complies with the Attorney-General’s Model Litigant Guidelines.

In this regard it would be appropriate for Mr Smithers on Monday to agree to write letters to both VLAO and LPLC directing them on the importance that both sides of this proceeding in VCAT be properly and equally funded (at the State’s expense). I have seen this done on other occasions, in judicial proceedings by the presiding judicial officer, where the State was opposed to an impoverished Citizen who required. Indeed, as another agency of government, it would seem appropriate that the LSC itself write letters of this kind to both VLAO and the LPLC in addition to directly funding some of my legal costs (win, lose or “draw” – whatever that might mean in a context such as this). I will certainly be requesting VCAT to make orders to this effect against the LSC on Monday, should the LSC not voluntarily acknowledge and consent (within the spirit and/or letters of good government and / or the attached Guidelines) so to do.

Government needs to run itself from a proper philosophical (and constitutional) framework – and not “rule” by exploiting the unmatchable might of the public purse to wage lawfare such as whistleblocking against fiscally unmatched (and fiscally unarmed) citizens. To do otherwise amounts to tyranny of the most inhumane kind – the very opposites of governing, governance and government.

F. Request for Mr Gilbert to obtain instructions and respond by 10 am Friday 3 August 2012

I request Mr Gilbert obtain instructions from the LSC and advise me of the LSC’s response:

1. (a) Acknowledging LSC’s legal obligation under the Attorney-General’s Guidelines to consent to my request to de-list the “trial date” to no earlier than 3 – 5 December 2012, and (b) so consenting in writing.

2. To my request that the LSC contribute on a dollar for dollar basis (pro tanto its own fully costed external plus internal legal costs) towards my costs of legal representation (win, lose or “draw”).

3. To my request that the LSC write to each of the VLAO and the LPLC directing them of the importance and appropriateness of each of them providing legal aid funding to me (as is my legal right and, for each of them, under public duty to do).

The hearing is listed for VCAT on Monday 6 August 2012. And Mr Gilbert should not need a whole 48 hours to give advice, take instructions and respond to my 3 simple requests (at least one, and probably all three, of which is / are a compulsory ‘yes’ from the LSC).

So I ask for a written response from Mr Gilbert / LSC by 10 am Friday morning (3 August 2012).

Regards,

JAMES JOHNSON

Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor

Constitutional Human Rights Advocate

Solicitor and Barrister of the High Court of Australia

(Celebrating 20 Years of Legal Practice 1990 – 2010)

Enclosures:

1. Attorney-General’s Model Litigant Guidelines (2 pages)

2. Copy my letter today to the Victorian Legal Aid Office (partially redacted)

(4 pages including copy of Model Litigant Guidelines and copy 2009 letter from (then) Federal Opposition Leader Hon

Malcolm Turnbull AO)

3. Copy my letter today to the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee (partially redacted)

(1 page – enclosures are (1) and (2) above)

(ISSUED 2001 – REVISED 2011)

Model Litigant Guidelines

Guidelines on the State of Victoria’s obligation to act as a model litigant

1. In order to maintain proper standards in litigation, the State of Victoria, its Departments and agencies behave as a model litigant in the conduct of litigation.

2. The obligation requires that the State of Victoria, its Departments and agencies:

(a) act fairly in handling claims and litigation brought by or against the State or an agency;

(b) act consistently in the handling of claims and litigation;

(c) deal with claims promptly and not cause unnecessary delay;

(d) make an early assessment of:

(i) the State’s prospects of success in legal proceedings; and

(ii) the State’s potential liability in claims against the State;

(e) pay legitimate claims without litigation, including making partial settlements of claims or interim payments, where it is clear that liability is at least as much as the amount paid;

(f) consider seeking to avoid and limit the scope of legal proceedings by taking such steps, if any, as are reasonable having regard to the nature of the dispute, to resolve the dispute by agreement, including participating in appropriate dispute resolution (ADR) processes or settlement negotiations;

(g) where it is not possible to avoid litigation, keep the costs of litigation to a minimum, including by:

(i) not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the State or the agency knows to be true;

(ii) not contesting liability if the State or the agency believes that the main dispute is about quantum;

(iii) taking such steps, if any, as are reasonable to resolve such matters as may be resolved by agreement and to clarify and narrow the remaining issues in dispute; and

(iv) monitoring the progress of the litigation and, where appropriate, attempting to resolve the litigation, including by settlement offers, offers of compromise and ADR;

(h) when participating in ADR or settlement negotiations, ensure that as far as practicable the representatives of the State or the agency:

(i) have authority to settle the matter so as to facilitate appropriate and timely resolution; and

(ii) participate fully and effectively.

(i) do not rely on technical arguments unless the State’s or the agency’s interests would be prejudiced by the failure to comply with a particular requirement;

(j) do not take advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim;

(k) do not undertake and pursue appeals unless the State or the agency believes that it has reasonable prospects for success or the appeal is otherwise justified in the public interest; and

(l) consider apologising where the State or the agency is aware that it or its representatives have acted wrongfully or improperly.

NOTES

3. The State of Victoria acknowledges the assistance of the Commonwealth in developing these Guidelines. The Guidelines are based on the Directions on the Commonwealth’s Obligation to Act as a Model Litigant, which were issued by the Commonwealth Attorney General pursuant to s 55ZF of the Judiciary Act 1903.

4. The obligation applies to litigation (including before courts, tribunals, inquiries, and in arbitration and other ADR processes) involving State Departments and agencies, as well as Ministers and officers where the State provides a full indemnity in respect of an action for damages brought against them personally. Ensuring compliance with the obligation is primarily the responsibility of the agency which has responsibility for the litigation. In addition, lawyers engaged in such litigation, whether Victorian Government Solicitor, in-house or private, will need to act in accordance with the obligation to assist their client agency to do so.

5. Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR) means a process including but not limited to mediation, early neutral evaluation, judicial resolution conference, settlement conference, reference of a question to a special referee, expert determination, conciliation, and arbitration.

6. Where State of Victoria Departments and agencies are involved in disputes with other State of Victoria Departments and agencies, they are expected also to adhere to the ‘Guidelines for the conduct of disputes between different public sector bodies within the State of Victoria’, approved by Cabinet on 11 February 2008.

7. In essence, being a model litigant requires that the State and its agencies, as parties to litigation, act with complete propriety, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards. The expectation that the State and its agencies will act as a model litigant has been recognised by the Courts. See, for example, Melbourne Steamship Limited v Moorhead (1912) 15 CLR 133 at 342; Kenny v State of South Australia (1987) 46 SASR 268 at 273; Yong Jun Qin v The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs(1997) 75 FCR 155.

8. The obligation to act as a model litigant may require more than merely acting honestly and in accordance with the law and court rules. It also goes beyond the requirement for lawyers to act in accordance with their ethical obligations.

9. The obligation does not prevent the State and its agencies from acting firmly and properly to protect their interests. It does not therefore preclude all legitimate steps being taken to pursue claims by the State and its agencies and testing or defending claims against them. The commencement of an appeal may be justified in the public interest where it is necessary to avoid prejudice to the interests of the State or an agency pending the receipt or proper consideration of legal advice, provided that a decision whether to continue the appeal is made as soon as practicable.

10. The obligation does not prevent the State from enforcing costs orders or seeking to recover costs.

11. The obligation should be observed in conjunction with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2010and, in particular, the paramount duty and overarching obligations imposed by Chapter 2 of that Act.

From The Office of

James Johnson

Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor

B.Ec (Hons). LLB. Mem CLA. Mem MEAA. Journalist. Whistleblower. Independent Documentary Maker

The Crucible” http://wp.me/p1Ay6h-27 || http://wp.me/p1Ay6h-19 “Soylent Green and Gold”

* http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/11509-is-julian-assange-being-denied-due-process

mail: PO Box 6137 Point Cook

Victoria Australia 3030

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

email: james@jamesjohnson2020.com

blogs: http://jamesjohnsonchr.wordpress.com

web: www.jamesjohnson2020.com

twitter: www.twitter.com/jamesjohnsonchr

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

* http://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/17/australian-govt-says-hands-tied-on-assange/

* http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/truth-of-assange-is-stranger-than-fiction-20120411-1ws4o.html

We are now living in a world … where whistleblowers are traitors and journalists are enemy combatants. – Christine Assange

30 July 2012

Legal Practitioners Liability Committee

Level 31, 570 Bourke Street

Melbourne Victoria 3000

Attention: ########################

by facsimile: 03 9670 5538 ( 20 pages including this one)

telephone: 03 9672 3800

URGENT

Dear ##################

APPLICATION FOR LEGAL DEFENCE FUNDING (UNDER PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCES)

I attach for your information a copy of my letter today to the Legal Services Commissioner, its legal counsel, Mr Guy Gilbert of the Victorian Bar, and the Mr Jim Nelms, the Principal Registrar at VCAT.

I also attach for your information a copy of my letter of even date to the Victorian Legal Aid Office.

No doubt you will find the history of this matter quite shocking.

In April 2007 I became the victim of a very nasty blackmail. A young lady of my acquaintance tried to seduce / blackmail me into moving in with her and forming a de facto relationship. When I resisted her ‘charms’ and blackmails she went off to who must be the most unethical family law practitioners in the nation who, without bothering to test her assertions (ie without bothering to see if she had any evidence to support her wild assertions), and shutting their eyes and ears to various police, psychiatric, psychological reports that started to collect on their door step, drew up caveats freezing my assets at the LTO and then ‘paint by numbers’ drew up a scandalous Supreme Court writ and statement of claim (making all sorts of bizarre, untrue and totally without evidence assertions) to stop the LTO cancelling those caveats. When I threatened to sue those lawyers for fraud, defamation etc, as I subsequently did, and after being warned by Justice Simon Whelan of the Victorian Supreme Court in February 2008 for “trying it on” (running their ‘case’ through Practice Court rather than proper Trial Division processes) the original non-dynamic duo of solicitor – barrister barratriers promptly withdrew, only to have an even more unethical pairing of family law firm and family law barrister take up where they left off. All told these two sets of law firms and barristers sold themselves $425,000 of legal work on credit they gave to this penniless, self-confessed, police, psychiatrist, psychologist and (Supreme Court) Judge -found “beautiful liar” (as she described herself in her diaries at the foot of a list of men she had scammed over the decade 1999 – or so). That same Judge (who moaned to her Barrister (and Old School boy chum of his) of “the paucity of [her] evidence” hourly for the first 10 days of the 21 day trial) ruled in her favour contrary to High Court laws that he should base his judgement on the hard evidence (mountains of independent evidence in documentation, credible witnesses etc etc that I produced as part of my defence), which was followed by a frenzy of rushed calculations that lo and behold worked out so that 100% of the remains of my estate went 100% to her lawyers, 0% to her, 0% left for me. This pitiful blackmailer was left penniless, apparently asserting that her lawyers had overcharged her ($425,000 for legals to produce zero evidence to court just have their client perjure herself (as the Judge found) with inconsistent and unsubstantiated false testimony – which her barrister knew contradicted what she had said on oath in the Federal Magistrates Court only a couple of months earlier). Their penniless blackmailing client was left at the end of the mess she triggered with an outstanding personal debt to her ‘successful’ lawyers who ‘won her case for her’ in the vicinity of $250,000. Meanwhile, my legal practice had folded due to the pressure (confessed, unprosecuted aggravated burglaries, death threats and an unpoliced car bombing etc etc).

The upshot of all this is that I have spent the past 3 years in forced interstate exile, living out of two suitcases. I couldn’t live in Victoria while not protected by law or by the long arm of the law. My “home” continued to be aggravated burgled even 2 years after I no longer lived there. All this was a far cry from the old days at Minter Ellison, or my many years (up to about 6 months after the fraud began) of living in a 23rd Floor Bourke Street penthouse and Torquay beach house.

All sorts of judicial obstructions (Supreme Court proceedings splintered, obstructed, running through all 4 levels of the Supreme Court at the same time in, at last count, 6 different numbered parts and being sent downwards more often than upwards on appeal (since Masters Chambers judgements are generally not printed that is the appellate jurisdiction of choice for the Victorian Supreme Court judiciary). This lawfare, and all this whistleblocking of my rights to protest and speak up about the injustices (which I have discovered occur on a wholesale basis every day in the courts not just in Victoria but throughout Australia) have so far cost the Victorian / Australian taxpayers about $6 Million (tipping about $3 Million into the pockets of solicitors and barristers as every bit unethical and vile as the two sets of family lawyers who carried the original blackmail scam against me).

The Legal Services Commissioner protests not having jurisdiction to police paid legal services providers engaging in criminal misconduct in these proceedings (a point that we have argued twice in the Supreme Court and I have been 100% successful on both occasions). And on this basis (quite in contempt of both sets of Supreme Court rulings) the current Legal Services Commissioner refuses to investigate more than 3 dozen complaints I have made against the original blackmailers lawyers, those lawyers’ lawyers, and those lawyers’ lawyers’ lawyers, the majorities of those lawyers misconducts being funded at $6 Milllion of taxpayers expense.

Yet while denying powers that it clearly has to regulate lawyers in respect of (paid and unpaid) legal services that they provide (ie to clients), the Legal Services Commissioner purports to be some sort of omnipotent “litigant commissioner” with power to intrude in my private legal affairs, where I was dug into legal proceedings by yet another set of hopeless family lawyers who, initiating the stupidest of proceedings in the family law jurisdiction (not even getting them in the right level of the court hierarchy to begin with) then ditched me, telling me that they didn’t do that kind of legal work anyway, leaving me as an unrepresented litigant, a bunny for the slaughter, double jeopardised across State and Federal courts at the same time.

The latest recurrence of these illegal whistleblocking activities (we are talking criminal reprisals against a whistleblower, not “just” violations of my basic human and other legal rights and dignities supposedly protected under natural, international, constitutional, federal and state laws) is this surreal summary prosecution that the LSC has issued against me in VCAT of all places.

I have retained Senior Counsel and junior Counsel to represent me so as to best dispose of this VCAT process. It is wrongly brought, but brought it is never the less. And I require legal representatives with relevant experience and expertise in such matters to defend me. Amongst other things, the VCAT Tribunal Members, who obviously have never dealt with anyone with any sort of top tier law firm experience before are incapable of hearing anything that I say, let alone administering the statutes and Ministerial Guidelines that they are supposed to administer, let alone comply with binding High Court precedents that they, the litigators with dozens of years of litigation practise supposedly behind them, are supposed to know about without me, the top-tier commercial and government lawyer having to tell them (without being heard by them) what the can and can’t do according to binding High Court laws.

As Senior Counsel put it to me:

First, It is probably not advisable for you to act for yourself in a matter like this.  It is clear enough from the brief that you are fairly passionately involved, and that generally gets in the way if you are both client and solicitor.  The brief is couched in understandably passionate language ..

Senior Counsel also notes that the Prosecution Materials, the Prosecutions’ “case”:

is short on objective facts.

Senior Counsel and Counsel are quite rightly waiting on two things: (a) for legal aid to be approved (from whichever source first presents itself to me – see below) before undertaking any work in this regard; and (b) for me to engage independent solicitors to represent me (and instruct them). Counsels’ wishes in this regard coincide with my own and with the observations that Mr Smithers made on 21 May 2012 (and I believe that the LSC via its Counsel Mr Guy Gilbert concurred) that I should obtain legal representation in these tribunal proceedings in VCAT rather than deal with them on as an unrepresented participant.

I find it staggering that the LSC is asserting some omniscient and unlimited power to police me in my private legal affairs whilst at the same time asserting no power to investigate dozens of legal professionals whose misbehaviours were undeniably in the course of receiving millions of dollars (mostly public monies) for providing legal services. And continuing to make those assertions, despite being in contempt of not one but two sets of Supreme Court of Victoria rulings.

What can you say about a legal regulator who denies he is a “Legal Services [provider] Commissioner” while asserting that he can be a “Litigant Commissioner” instead? I guess the Victorian State Government Ombudsman said everything that can be said in his damning 2009 Annual Report to Parliament.

And whoever heard of a police agency making a decision to prosecute before and without conducting any investigations? So I am being summarily tried without proper process, on an attempt by a statutory agency (the LSC), in a non judicature (a fellow statutory agency of the LSC, ie VCAT) as the LSC wishes to have re adjudicated again (for the fourth time) something that happened in a Federal judicature four years ago, something that happened without incident or suggestion of any professional capacity to my part and without incident or suggestion of any misconduct by me in my personal capacity.

Given that I am once again the victim of a huge mess that the Legal Services Commissioner has created for itself (wholly at my inconvenience) I require funding for my legal defence costs.

As regards my application to the Victorian Legal Aid Office for for a grant of legal aid funding, I may have been wasting my time trying to educate them up on what they are supposed to do re providing me a grant of legal aid funding.

The sole basis that the Legal Services Commissioner is claiming this omniscient power to police me in all of my private (and non professional affairs) is the irrelevant coincidence that I hold legal qualifications and twenty two years of continuous good standing and practising certificates.

I guess I should be grateful that the musicians, journalists and economics unions don’t feel that they have such omniscient regulatory powers over ever aspect of my life so I am not facing the same sort of malicious – but then my whistleblowing on corruption in music is non-existent and my whistleblowing on corruption in journalism and economics are mild and medium-mild respectively, so I am not as on the radar as I am for whistleblocking as for my whistleblowing on corruption in the legal profession and its intersection with all the upper benches of all 3 branches of government (at all 4 levels) in this country. I’ll let you ponder where the 4th level of government lays.

It is as if (to adopt a medical analogy) my being a medical degreed doctor specialising in extraterrestrial diseases who has never seen the inside of an operating theatre before, and would never be found there in any professional capacity, having received dud professional advice from a surgeon that I needed to have a lump removed from my toe, woke up mid-operation to find that the surgeons had amputated both my legs at the hips. I screamed (natural enough thing to do), I escaped (an amazing feat for someone debilitated and immobilised) and I reported the professional misconduct of the surgeons to the medical practitioners board. But there I found that the board members were all old chums of and just like the dodgies who did the surgery. So they decide not to go after the dodgy surgeons (who are left to predatorate and plunder the unaware consumers of surgeons’ services). Instead they go against me (the legless patient) on the pretext that I have a licence to surge even though I’ve never actually surged and, hells bells, I was the patient on the operating table (ie in the class of persons that the regulator is supposed to be protecting, not persecuting).

The point of this is that the coincidence of my holding a practising certificate doesn’t give the LSC any basis for being under any public duty or having any exercisable public powers to do this to me ( to come at me again with these illegal whistleblocking reprisals, for the third time on the same materials, with the LSC having dismissed these false accusations 2 ¾ times previously over the past 4 years). The improprieties of the LSC and its delegates behaviours on those past occasions is a whole separate chapter for a whole separate part of the trilogy (major motion pictures pending).

But the coincidence, and the LSC’s reaction to it, is sufficient I am told to bring me inside the cover of my professional indemnity insurances with the LPLC for the purposes of having the LPLC meet my defence costs (all of which will be recoverable from the LSC, in the unusual circumstances of this malicious, vexatious and unauthorised prosecution).

Please advise me of the usual arrangements to apply for the LSC to fund my defence costs. Please let me know what guidelines apply so that I, Counsel and instructing solicitors can

As you will see I am under some pressure at the moment, given that the process in VCT is listed to resume “at trial” on 3 – 5 September 2012. I am awaiting consent from the LSC to vacate these dates and re-list it no early than 3 December 2012. With the LSC and his staff adamant that they do not have to comply with Supreme Court of Victoria Rulings, etc etc, without direct Ministerial intervention (which is being looked into) I cannot be confident that the LSC staff will not simply thumb their noses at the Attorney-General’s Model Litigant Guidelines (as they have done time and time again, the worst of these being their secret Government agency only hearing in VCAT behind my back on 17 May 2012).

This process in VCAT is scheduled for a directions hearing on Monday 6 August 2012. At the last directions hearing on 6 July 2012 the LSC prosecutor “closed its case” (whatever those words severally and jointly mean in the bizarre context of these whistleblocking and reprisal proceedings – it is beyond me). This means that when the trial does resume it will be for the opening of the defence case. And on account of the LSC deliberately hiding from VCAT 99% of the facts behind this LSC prosecution, my legal team will have substantially more work to do than the LSC prosecutor did – the LSC not having a properly written charge sheet, not calling any witnesses etc etc – so very Alice in Wonderland incompetent.

And this was such an obvious blackmail, such an obvious fraud, that the relevant legal authorities should have stepped in and nipped in the bud rather than inflaming the situation with increasing rounds of lawyer / government misconduct and corruption – all of which generated a $6 Million cost to the public purse – and a $6 Million transfer of monies into lawyers pockets. A scandalous abuse of public resources, and 5 years of the lives of myself and many other innocent people whose lives have been irreversibly changed as a result of all of this government funded lawyer misconduct and corruption.

Please advise me what more information (if any) you require and what the scope and guidelines are for the LPLC to fund my defence costs against this malicious and vexation, whistleblocking prosecution that the LSC has launched against me.

Obviously I am keen to get the ball rolling with counsel and with instructing solicitors, as quickly as possible. Even with the “trial date” put back to 3 December 2012, incoming solicitors and counsel will have a lot of work to do to get on top of thousands of pages of transcripts and documents and almost 5 years of legal, bureaucratic and other government processes that have been going on concurrently (including in Federal and State Courts).

So please advise me what I need to do in order to start access LPLC funding for my defence costs.

I await your urgent instructions.

Regards,

JAMES JOHNSON

Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor

Constitutional Human Rights Advocate

Solicitor and Barrister of the High Court of Australia

(Celebrating 20 Years of Legal Practice 1990 – 2010)

From The Office of

James Johnson

Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor

B.Ec (Hons). LLB. Mem CLA. Mem MEAA. Journalist. Whistleblower. Independent Documentary Maker

The Crucible” http://wp.me/p1Ay6h-27 || http://wp.me/p1Ay6h-19 “Soylent Green and Gold”

* http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/11509-is-julian-assange-being-denied-due-process

mail: PO Box 6137 Point Cook

Victoria Australia 3030

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

email: james@jamesjohnson2020.com

blogs: http://jamesjohnsonchr.wordpress.com

web: www.jamesjohnson2020.com

twitter: www.twitter.com/jamesjohnsonchr

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

* http://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/17/australian-govt-says-hands-tied-on-assange/

* http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/truth-of-assange-is-stranger-than-fiction-20120411-1ws4o.html

We are now living in a world … where whistleblowers are traitors and journalists are enemy combatants. – Christine Assange

30 July 2012

Victoria Legal Aid Office

Applications for Grants of Legal Assistance

by facsimile: 9269 0348 (11 pages including this one)

telephone: 9269 0210

URGENT

Dear ########################

APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE

I refer to my urgent “Application for grant of legal assistance” (std form plus copious attachments), dated 23 April 2012.

I also refer to my urgent 13 page facsimile of 11 May 2012.

I refer to my urgent 11 page facsimile of 14 May 2012.

I refer to my urgent letter of 30 June 2012 informing (amongst other serious things)

“This matter comes on again VCAT for a mid-trial directions hearing Friday 6 July 2012…”

And I refer to my urgent letter of 4 July 2012.

Please provide me with a written explanation of how it has come about that VLAO has so far failed to make a decision on my application for grant of legal assistance and my rights to be legal aid funded.

I have engaged Senior Counsel and Junior Counsel to counsel and to represent me when the hearing resumes later this year.

As Senior Counsel put it to me:

First, It is probably not advisable for you to act for yourself in a matter like this.  It is clear enough from the brief that you are fairly passionately involved, and that generally gets in the way if you are both client and solicitor.  The brief is couched in understandably passionate language ..

Senior Counsel also notes that the Prosecution Materials, the LSC’s / Prosecution’s “case”:

is short on objective facts.

Senior Counsel and Counsel are quite rightly waiting on two things: (a) for legal aid to be approved (from whichever source first presents itself to me – see below) before undertaking any work in this regard; and (b) for me to engage independent solicitors to represent me (and instruct them). Counsels’ wishes in this regard coincide with my own and with the observations that the relevant VCAT Tribunal Member Mr Smithers made on 21 May 2012 (and I believe that the LSC via its Counsel Mr Gilbert concurred) that I should obtain legal representation in these tribunal proceedings in VCAT rather than deal with them as an unrepresented participant.

This should have been the easiest of applications for VLAO to approve. In this regard I attach yet another copy of the letter I received in mid-2009 from the then Federal Opposition Leader, Hon Malcolm Turnbull AO (concurring with views expressed to him by the then Federal Attorney-General, the Hon Robert McClelland) that there is strong public interest in the conduct and outcome of the broad sweep of these judicial and non-judicial proceedings (which must include this latest LSC prosecution against me in VCAT) that the Victorian Government (via the VLAO) should grant legal aid funding for my side of these proceedings.

Government needs to run itself from a proper philosophical (and constitutional) framework – and not “rule” by exploiting the unmatchable might of the public purse to wage lawfare such as whistleblocking against fiscally unmatched (and fiscally unarmed) citizens. To do otherwise amounts to tyranny of the most inhumane kind – the very opposites of governing, governance and government.

I attach a copy of the Attorney-General’s Model Litigant Guidelines. Quite obviously, VLAO is required to think and act on a “whole of government basis.” Quite obviously if the Victorian Government (via any Government agency) is funding one side of a judicial proceeding or a tribunal or other government process these Guidelines require the Victorian Government (via some other Government agency) to “play fairly” and fund both sides of the proceeding or process on an equal and like basis.

Presently the process in VCAT is listed to resume “at trial” from 3 September 2012. I am awaiting consent orders agreed by the LSC (as it is legally obliged to do under the attached Model Guidelines) for the resumption date to be put back at least 3 months to allow me time to brief, receive advise and give instructions to my incoming legal representatives. Obviously there is nothing I can do to action the proceedings with legal representatives in the process of taking over the conduct of the affair on my behalf.

Please advise me of the status of my legal aid funding application.

Regards,

JAMES JOHNSON

Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor

Constitutional Human Rights Advocate

Solicitor and Barrister of the High Court of Australia

(Celebrating 20 Years of Legal Practice 1990 – 2010)

Enclosures:

  1. Copy Letter from the then Federal Leader of the Opposition, Hon Malcolm Turnbull;

  2. Copy Attorney-General’s Model Litigant’s Guidelines

… ☞☞☞ … A lawyer’s lone crusade for the past three years advocating to overturn an unjust law, where citizens in every country worldwide, except Australia, can sue both solicitors and barristers who are negligent in court proceedings, has landed him in strife with the law fraternity. “In April 2007 I became the victim of a very nasty blackmail. A young lady of my acquaintance tried to seduce / blackmail me into moving in with her and forming a de facto relationship. When I resisted her ‘charms’ and blackmails she went off to who must be the most unethical family law practitioners in the nation who, without bothering to test her assertions (ie without bothering to see if she had any evidence to support her wild assertions), and shutting their eyes and ears to various police, psychiatric, psychological reports that started to collect on their door step, drew up caveats freezing my assets at the LTO and then ‘paint by numbers’ drew up a scandalous Supreme Court writ and statement of claim (making all sorts of bizarre, untrue and totally without evidence assertions) to stop the LTO cancelling those caveats. When I threatened to sue those lawyers for fraud, defamation etc, as I subsequently did, and after being warned by Justice Simon Whelan of the Victorian Supreme Court in February 2008 for “trying it on” (running their ‘case’ through Practice Court rather than proper Trial Division processes) the original non-dynamic duo of solicitor – barrister barratriers promptly withdrew, only to have an even more unethical pairing of family law firm and family law barrister take up where they left off. All told these two sets of law firms and barristers sold themselves $425,000 of legal work on credit they gave to this penniless, self-confessed, police, psychiatrist, psychologist and (Supreme Court) Judge -found “beautiful liar” (as she described herself in her diaries at the foot of a list of men she had scammed over the decade 1999 – or so). That same Judge (who moaned to her Barrister (and Old School boy chum of his) of “the paucity of [her] evidence” hourly for the first 10 days of the 21 day trial) ruled in her favour contrary to High Court laws that he should base his judgement on the hard evidence (mountains of independent evidence in documentation, credible witnesses etc etc that I produced as part of my defence), which was followed by a frenzy of rushed calculations that lo and behold worked out so that 100% of the remains of my estate went 100% to her lawyers, 0% to her, 0% left for me. This pitiful blackmailer was left penniless, apparently asserting that her lawyers had overcharged her ($425,000 for legals to produce zero evidence to court just have their client perjure herself (as the Judge found) with inconsistent and unsubstantiated false testimony – which her barrister knew contradicted what she had said on oath in the Federal Magistrates Court only a couple of months earlier). Their penniless blackmailing client was left at the end of the mess she triggered with an outstanding personal debt to her ‘successful’ lawyers who ‘won her case for her’ in the vicinity of $250,000. Meanwhile, my legal practice had folded due to the pressure (confessed, unprosecuted aggravated burglaries, death threats and an unpoliced car bombing etc etc).”
… ☞☞☞ …

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Resuming 6 August 2012 – This Lawyerocracy on Trial is beginning to get interesting …

  1. What is JUSTICE when we cannot speak about INJUSTICE.
    This is not just one man’s fight as we are all facing the same someday. This is all for one!
    We need to make our stand now because the longer we wait the more difficult it will be to return to a democratic run government.
    We should abolish VCAT, being a government run department, as it defies our constitution rights.to have our matters adjudicated before a Court of Law.

  2. I dont care what system is in place, so long as it is open to public scrutiny. it needs to be transparent, as public are much better at beig informed at the level of corruption, degree of cover ups that take place behind closed doors………….

  3. Family courts are highly secretive and non transparent, and much abuse and cover up takes place here, and children and parents are intimidated and suffer abuse by the professionals….

  4. My thoughts and prayers are with you, I am involved in a case where I blew the whistle on a senior member of Workcover, very similar to yours, I was sued for defamation, I am now sueing Workcover for breach of the WBPA, breach of the FOI Act and breach of confidentiality. I have been in court seeking justice for the past 14 years, my chances of any justice is like snowballs in hell.injustice anywhere, is a threat to injustice everywhere, you might as well fight tyranny. Good Luck and God bless

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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