These Aussie Lawyers need Nuremberg-style trials and punishments

” #auspol #auslaw #ausmedia These lawyers need Nuremberg-style trials and punishments for their Nuremberg-style crimes (INCLUDING “crimes against peace”, POSSIBLY “crimes against humanity”, and DEFINITELY most of the conspiracy, corruption, misconduct, contempt and perversion charges listed in sections 320 and 321 of the Crimes Act (Victoria) and sections 18 – 20 of the Whistleblowers Protection Act.”

http://lawyerocracyontrial.com will resume in mid to late January 2013. Please follow “The 21 May Project”@21May12 for updates on hearing dates (will be in Melbourne, Australia).

The fellow on the left is Mr Michael Keith McGarvie, Victoria’s self-confessed, less than 10% of Legal Services Comissioner (bless his little lawyers socks).  And in any historical comparison of bad guy lawyer / bureaucrats this privileged son of the late Victorian Supreme Court Judge and Governor of Victoria Richard (Dick McGarvie), prominent member of Australia’s hereditary lawyerocracy and brother of Victoria’s Bar Ethics Committee Chairman Richard McGarvie (jnr.) QC is certainly batting in the same league as infamouse Nazi lawyer Hans Frank.

I have this week filed 3 separate appeals in the unconstitutional star chamber known as the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

If you want to know why the Victorian / Australian legal professions, and the State and Federal Governments that they control by birthright want me dead (literally to die homeless of poverty, or better still some more violent ending such as the aggravated burglaries and even a car bombing that I have so far survived), you might like to read the following which (formal parts omitted) is the shorter (largely just a narrative) of the 3 appeal documents I filed this week. At the foot of this blog I have included the (3 pages) proposed orders that I have been asserting since 3 October 2012, and which I will continue to assert (along with other more obvious Constitutional grounds) in the hearings this month and throughout 2013 and for all of the foreseeable future.

Kind regards to you for reading this far.

Please be forgiving of the formatting glitches in the translation from word to wordpress.

I guarantee you will be well-rewarded for reading the remainder of this message as well!

James Johnson
Journalist Whistleblower Law Reformer

The best way to contact me is via Terry and Sue at
FRIENDS OF JAMES JOHNSON  http://FriendsOfJamesJohnson@hotmail.com 
who will be able to pass your message on to me.

…………………………………..

 REASONS FOR APPLICATION

GENERAL OVERVIEW

  1. Lawyers play up and profit with fraudulent marriage claim – In April 2007 I received a visit from a young lady whom I had befriended in 1998.
  1. The young lady was an unmarried mother of three children by three different fathers (two of them unknown). I had dated her, off and on, during 1999. She had a turbulent personality, a frightful history, and lived in very insecure circumstances. Over the years after 1999 I had stayed in contact with her and her family, becoming a financial and emotional benefactor and guardian, a non-live with / non-biological father figure for her three children who were close in ages to my own three children.

    1. The purpose of her visit in 2007 was to proposition me to move in and live with her and her children on a de facto basis. I politely turned down her offer. That is, I declined to start a de facto marriage relationship with her – much to the evident relief of my then girlfriend. I was totally oblivious to what the consequences would be. Within a month she had gone to “the largest (Government) Legal Aid Funded Family Law Firm in Australia” (their Senior Partner’s shameful words, not mine) with a pathetic, false, two-part claim that she had been my live-with de facto wife for the decade since 1998, and that she had made significant financial contributions to my personal wealth and assets. She was claiming 50% of my assets. Actually, she was claiming more like 150% but that’s a more complex story. Anyway it was a huge claim for a 0% investment – a claim that had no justification in fact or in law and which warranted a stiff jail term for her and her (legally qualified) accomplices under relevant Crimes Act provisions (extortion and blackmail).
    1. She gilded her lies by claiming that I was the biological father of her youngest child. She had raised her two youngest children to believe that I was both their biological dad. I didn’t mind the lie, as this gave much needed stability both to them, and to their older half-brother. She also gilded her lies by claiming to have been a wonderful step-mother to my three children. Solid government, eye-witness and other independent evidence (which these lawyers conspired to keep largely hidden from and by the courts) shows that she was a neglectful, abusive and unsatisfactory mother to her own three children (including a history of physical and emotional violence and even frequently abandonning them). The evidence also shows that she never had any involvement in the lives of my children (for obvious reasons).
    1. Despite being penniless, these “gentlemen” of the law gleefully took on her case. They did so without insisting on any evidence or doing any investigations – which would have shown how fraudulent, criminally fraudulent, her claims were. They also closed their eyes to her obvious mental health problems, later managing to hide many of these, and to significantly downplay the worst of them, for court purposes designed to cash in on her / their claims. Presumably they took one look at my assets (as recorded on a Victorian government database) and with an eye to the public monies they could collect via dysfunctional legal aid system, they were quite happy to play along. In fact they deliberately closed their eyes to the mountains of police, psychiatric and other reports, on top of their own failure to investigate or demand she provide anything to support (ie disprove) her claims.

    1. The Victorian Government provided some early funding to these “gentlemen” of the law, out of public legal aid moneys, again without any investigations or demands for evidence (which would have shown that her stories lacked merit).

    1. The first I found out about this fraud which within months would completely ruin my life, and ruin the lives of my children and their mother (my genuine ex-wife)) was when I recevied a letter from anonymous bureaucrats in a Victorian Government agency telling me that they had frozen my assets – without any judicial proceedings or government investigations that would have dismissed her / her lawyers claims. The alleged legislation which these bureaucrats relied on to freeze my assets is used by lawyers every day – sometimes to do good, but often to do bad, and always to do a shameful profit for the lawyers themselves. Recent decisions of our current Full High Court of Australia have confirmed that such alleged Acts of Parliament, and executive government actions freezing citizen’s assets without a trial first ie (a proper judicial process of investigation and judgement) are unconstitutional. Yet these false laws (Acts of Parliament) and processes date back to pre-federation (Colonial and convict) eras and are hardwired into our legal and banking systems. Never mind our more recent (1900) Federal Constitution, and fundamental constitutional rights (including supposedly binding High Court of Australia judgements and rulings) that our bureaucrats and State judiciary (all lawyers) choose to misread and to ignore.

    1. In 5 years (so far) of court cases that have followed these lawyers applied their process (a process that results in huge payouts to them at taxpayer and client and other parties’ expense) despite there being no basis in fact or in law for them to do so, and despite their processes and laws being wholesale human rights violating and blatantly unconstitutional. I still find it unbelievable that such lawyers exist, let alone being free to roam and menace the public, let alone to be protected in their wrongdoing by other lawyers (the judges they appoint, the parliamentarians they appoint, and even the bureaucrats such as stand-over protection man Michael McGarvie – disguised as a regulator of legal services providers for the protection of consumers). This States Whistleblowers Protection Act and Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act are operated by lawyers, bureaucrats and judiciary so that they become instruments of entrapment and persecution (of whistleblowers) rather than genuine laws of protection genuinely applied.

    1. These lawyers carried out their whole dirty and inappropriate process without ever getting from her one item of evidence to support her claims, which were pure bullshit, pure blackmail. In 5 years of court cases (so far) these “gentlemen” of the law booked up over $400,000 in legal bills, all on credit, backed against fraudulent mortgages that they had their “client” sign over assets that were 100% mine and none of her or their business whatsoever.

    1. Not only did they fail to gather any evidence from their “client”, they ignored police, psychiatric, psychological and other reports demonstrating her fraudulent, thieving and violent habits and the extent of her mental and other health problems. These lawyers even went as far as interfering in police investigations of serious crimes, telling lies to the police to get the police to not press aggravated burglary charges (a major felony supposedly carrying a maximum imprisonment of up to 25 years) against their “client.” This was after she was caught red-handed via executed police search warrants, with boxes of evidence she had stolen from me – a futile attempt to bolster the prospects of her false and desperate claims by trying to destroy all trace of the evidence that would quickly expose her / their blackmail scam. These lawyers would later lie to judges (both outright lies and by even more powerful lies by omission), abusing the system to commit their crimes, cover up their tracks and more recently, to persecute me for (still) stand up and (still) speaking the truth.

    1. She needn’t have bothered with that piece of aggravated burglary. Through my mortgage-broker I obtained duplicates of my borrowing, income tax and banking records (a decade’s worth of stolen records). It didn’t matter that she had no evidence to justify her false claims. But the truth (even facts stated in birth certificates and other official government records) were either excluded from / by the Judge, or were ignored all together. No amount of evidence, no amount of pleading for due process and proper application of laws was going to result in justice being done. All that was required was for a half-convincing con-artist “well practised in deceiving people, especially men” (one of the court psychiatric reports) and who could “look [the Judge] in the eye from the witness box and lie to [him]” (the Supreme Court Judge’s words). The Trial Judge dramatically (mockingly) added “… and you will pay dearly for that.” At $25 in unmeasured civil damages (against true damages of hundreds of thousands of dollars that the Trial Judge refused to hear about) rather than 25 years imprisonment (that the police still refuse to prosecute despite the Judges’ findings), the Trial Judge demonstrated to fraudster and her corrupt lawyers alike that crime certainly did pay (and was a bargain) in his court room. Her police record (and handwritten confessions) for serious dishonesty and violent crimes, were likewise hidden from and by the court. With this dysfunctional and ethical court process, built-owned-operated by lawyers to maximise the confrontations, designed and used to draw out and inflame the proceedings and maximise the controversy to extract as much of the litigants assets as possible to maximise the returns to the lawyers (and where the lawyers sitting as judges are old school mates of the lawyers championing the fraud) the outcome of the case.was never in doubt. The Trial Judge (appeal pending) and many of his fellow Judges during the extremely inadequate and abusive pre-trial process had gone to extraordinary lengths (their corruption all recorded on their own court records) to cover-up the truth, to cover-up for their old school mate barrister who was processing the fraud through their courts.

    1. I became the victim of these classic display of “hit the man”, “hide the issues” and ’empty his pockets” which is the dominant culture in which Australia’s law courts, government bureaucracies and parliaments., operate. Hearings became a farce where the truth (relevant facts, relevant laws and relevant (due) processes) were abandonned in riotous orgies of crimes, corruptions and cover-ups. It was only later in the piece that I learned that the outcomes of these hearings were never in doubt – the judges were all best mates with the lawyers who carried out the process, and were eager to protect and cover up their corrupt court rooms, their “we’ve always done it that way” corrupt processes and their corrupt barrister mates.

    1. In short, I became the victim of an obvious, fraudulent legal claim by a police- proven, psychologically- reported, psychiatrically- diagnosed, judicially- found and self- confessed compulsive liar which was carried out by lawyers who were not just incompentent, not just unethical, but were criminal, and obviously well practised in their craft of using the courts systems.

    1. My life has been criminally invaded by these fraudsters and by a system that is set up to profit from them. Dickens in Bleak House reported his findings that the English legal only made sense once you realised that the system was designed by lawyers for the sole purpose of maximising profits for the lawyers. A German Jewish Insurance Lawyer by the name of Kafka reported, posthumously, his identical findings from long participation in the Kafkaesque meanderings of the legal processes in the German, Weimar Republic. If Dickens or Kafka had observed first hand the Australian legal system, let alone been subjected to its corruption and misconduct to the extent that I have, they would most certainly have written their reports in much stronger language.

    1. Millions of dollars (somewhere around six million dollars to date) of public monies have been misused by powerful bureaucrats and other lawyers (who should be serving serious time behind bars, not sitting in positions of power at corrupt public expense) to perfect and coverup the corruption and misconduct, and to engage in round after round of criminal reprisal actions against me for blowing the whistle and exposing them for their crimes of misconduct and corruption. While I have been an abundant source of employment and income for those dozens of government-funded- and government-salaried -for-life lawyers, process working away without regard to the inappropriateness and non-applicability of their processes to my situation, I have endured the worst poverty and other economic sanctions. I have endured being completely stripped of my assets, my income, my identity. I have been forced into internal (interstate) exile on account of violent crimes (aggravated burglaries and even a car bombing) that the police refuse to prosecute. The more recent crimes the police even refused to investigate – to the extent that I stopped reporting them (and presumably they stopped reporting them to me). And my children and family have been thrown into abject poverty as innocent collateral damage in these corrupt legal proceedings which they have never had anything to do with them, either.

    1. Over 100,000 new Australian families (100,000 dads, 100,000 mums, and 300,000 children, let alone 100,000 of their other family members like grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc) are processed, like feedlot cattle, by 30,000 Australian “accredited family law specialist” lawyers every year in Australia’s unconstitutional, killer family courts. In these law courts and lawyers offices and lawyers government departments their $40Bn of family assets (divorce estates) are drawn and quartered in a drawn out process that typically takes up to 10 years, fueled by upwards of $4Bn (probably triple of that) in missused public monies all taxed off the same sorts of hard working Australian families. Riches for the lawyers and their families, but the damaging social consequences are almost inconceivable. Negative social outcomes include a direct link to an average of somewhere between 7 and 12 suicides a day (7 dads, 2 mums and 1 child under 18) and the pyramid of self-harm, psychological harm, poverty and poverty related crimes and wasted opportunity and human potential that props up such a stinking set of statistics. And all this lawyer enrichment is done under the phony political slogan of “in the best interests of the child”. Most children of the family court, after living in the shadow of a decade or so of emotionally immiserating litigation “grow up” (ie turn 18) while the litigation (battle to draw and quarter the family’s assets) goes on.

    1. I was mangled through that same crooked process (a twenty-first century monetised financial market version of Auschwitz and Treblinka except operating on a much bigger scale for a much longer time frame) of Australia’s corrupt (family) court processes. These courtrooms are the transaction rooms, economic engine and feed bowl for 1 in 3 and perhaps 1 in 2 of Australia’s 100,000 lawyers (4 or 5 times as many lawyers as our economy and our population size can justify). I was mangled through this process in most criminal and human rights vilifying fashion despite there never being any basis in fact or in law for me ever being dragged there in the first place – and to much harm to many and benefit only to a few handfuls, and then more handfuls and even more handfuls, of lawyers.

    1. This would rank as an extreme case of workplace bullying – except that the court rooms are their workplace not mine. In 16 years of professional practice with the top 1% of international Australian law firms I had never spent a day in a court room. This was not my workplace. It was as alien to me as it would be to any non-lawyer. More alienating perhaps (though I don’t believe it is right to rank, or ‘comparatively value’ tortures or other evil situations) because I had decades of education as to how justice systems are supposed to operate. But that was all Orwellian public relations propaganda as divorced from the reality of how and why the Australian legal and political system has been built, owned and operated (and by and for whom) as the processes and decisions I was subjected to were divorced from the reality of the facts and the laws and processes that were supposed to be applied to them.

    1. What I want most is to have my life, my career, my wealth, my income all wrongfully stolen turned around and restored to me so that I can begin the long road of healing for my children. And then I want to protect other and future generations of Australians from the same ongoing lawyer corruption and human rights abuses through the radical reform of having non-corrupt and non-lawyer citizens from all walks of life appointed to the majority of senior government, judicial and parliamentary positions. To be governed by public minded trustees in public office appointed on merit, instead of being ruled by self-interested and self-serving tyrants, all lawyers, appointed essentially through hereditary processes (disguised as merit for public consumption). And then I would like to see Nuremberg style investigations (headed up by non-lawyers just as legendary US Federal and Nuremburg Head Prosecutor Judge Robert H Jackson was not a lawyer) against those bureaucracts and other lawyers responsible for these decades of attrocities against families and ordinary Australians. Is it right to compare Australia’s unconstitutional, killer family court process with the Nazi gas chamber and dental gold stealing schemes of the 30s and 40s? Well in a stirring speech in the House of Representatives on 17 June 1997 the then Federal Deputy Speaker likened them to “stolen generation” attrocities – only the numbers are tens of times bigger – and all but denounced the then Chief Justice of the Family Court, Alastair Nicholson as guilty of crimes against humanity for the processes and outcomes of the Family Court system “for which he is ultimately responsible.”

    1. All the legal profession (which for generations has had a near hereditary monopoly on all the upper benches of all the bureaucratic (government), judicial and parliamentary branches of government in this despotic little lawyerocracy of Australia) want to do is to perfect the crimes by covering them up and blasting me into financial, emotional and historical oblivion. Gandhi was not wrong when he said that “poverty is the ultimate instrument of torture”. Orwell was not wrong when he described the processes of government (penultimate line of 1984) as “The truth was erased. The erasure was lost. The lies became truth.” [punctuation added]. Having endured 5 years of abject poverty and interstate exile for safety reasons, clearly the government’s usual methods of “poverty torture” are not enough for the lawyerocracy to rid themselves of me and my whistleblowing. So they hatched this scandalous whistleblower reprisal seeking, in the words of government submissions of May 2012 to dealing me a lifetime ban from practising law and to impose impossibly high financial cost burdens on me.

    1. Not being content just to tell the sob stories, I have extensively researched the history and extent of corruption in law and in government in Australia. I have become publicly and politically active. Keen to introduce reforms to root the corruption out of the system. The remedies are not difficult. Step one is to turn the clock back to 2005 and make make lawyers subject to the same laws as they make for every body else (In 2005 Australia became the only country in the world where it has ever been illegal for clients to sue solicitors who muck up in the courtroom – since 2000 Australia has been the only country in the world where barristers are immune from professional negligence laws). Step two is to turn the clock back to 2004 (for Victorians) and have lawyers regulated again by an independent (non-lawyer) consumer orientated regulator rather than the hideous old-boys protection and standover racket regulator that was reintroduced to Victoria (as a result of political pressure and political-insiders from the lawyer class). Step three would be to again abolish and outlaw the Law Institute of Victoria Limited (formerly known as Victorian Lawyers RPA Limited), a cess-pit of extra-government and other corrupt, illegal and criminal activities – just as the Victorian Government attempted to do in 1997 only to have its reforms more than reversed by its successor (lawyer dominated) government in 2005.

    1. And now I find myself being persecuted, facing not one but a concocted orchestration of two different lifetime bans from a cartel of lawyer-built-owned-operated and publicly-funded government agencies, in McCarthyist, witch hunting hysterical circumstances, concocted by corrupt lawyers at the highest levels in the judiciary and bureuacracy for continuing to seek justice for myself and my family at the personal level, and for restored laws and institutions of law and order, at the macro level. Meanwhile the human rights industry, the rest of the legal establishment and the parliamentary establishment (looking more and more like what it is, a sub-set and puppet of the bureuacracy / legal establishment) refuses to see or hear or do anything about it – except to provide unlimited funding and resources to the witch hunters and their propaganda artists.

  1. Fraudulent Supreme Court Property Proceeding – Recapping (paragraph 1) In May 2007 I became the victim of an obvious, fraudulent legal claim by a police- proven, psychologically- reported, psychiatrically- diagnosed, judicially- found and self- confessed compulsive liar.
  1. Only the lawyers profitted from this fraud. The young lady who sparked it received nothing for the troubles she caused. She was supposed to get a letter from her lawyers telling her that they won her case, that she would not be getting anything as by the time the court sold up my assets there would not be enough to cover her legal expenses of $400,000. In the letter these lawyers wrote her they resented her suggestion that they were overcharging. And they they wanted to know how she would like to pay the outstanding $250,000 or so she owed them for winning her case. She was supposed to get this letter. But these lawyers, true to their incompetence and corruption, posted the letter and their invoices to me, where I quickly produced them in Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) court documents, where they fell before the uninterested deaf ears and blind eyes of the top two judges in the State – both of whom, with their carefully crafted judgement written up before the hearing even started, were clearly and audibly in corruption and cover up mode.

    1. As substantial bodies of judicially filed evidence demonstrate, compulsive lying was perhaps amongst the least of her serious criminal and mental health records. The first news I got about this claim was when I received a notice from a government agency telling me that it had frozen all my assets. Despite (for obvious reasons) having no evidence to support her false claims this penniless fraudster apparently had no difficulty in attracting the attention of “Australia’s largest legal aid funded family law firm” (their shameful words, not mine). These “accredited family law specialists” were willing to provide her with more than $400,000 of (excessively charged) legal services entirely on credit, supported by fraudulent mortgages they forced this woman to sign – mortgages over assets that belong in name and in fact to me, not to her. Six months later, when I sought to have the government orders freezing my assets set aside, these blackmailing lawyers drew up a Supreme Court writ containing their “client’s” wild and unsubstantiable allegations that she had been my long-term de facto wife and that she had made substantial contributions towards my not insignificant property portfolio. When I sought to tell these lawyers and to show them that their client was a fraudster, the most I got from them was a “go and get a lawyer.” These “accredited family law specialists.

    1. I had been a confirmed bachelor since my genuine marriage (to the real Mrs Johnson) collapsed in the mid to late 1990s. The real Mrs Johnson and I had married in 1989. When our marriage hit the rocks we had lived “in separate bedrooms at opposite ends of the family home” at first for several years before I finally moved out of our matrimonal home at the end of 1998. Once we / she had recovered from the initial shock of separation, the real Mrs Johnson and I remained good friends and co-operative co-parents for our three children. Neither of us had any necessity or recourse to lawyers at any time to sort our post-separation property, financial or parental responsibilities. All of this truth was documented in evidence in court proceedings described below and which had nothing to do with the real Mrs Johnson and my/our three children, nothing that is except the life-destroying consequences of them being innocent collateral damage in the financial holocaust that this fraudster and her equally fraudulent lawyers and legal system unleashed on me.

    1. My relationship with this false Mrs Johnson can be described simply. We met in late 1998 and dated “off and on” during much of 1999. Our “romantic” relationship was bookended bya pair of Valentines Day cards I sent her in February 1999 (a few months after our first date) and in February 2000 (a few months after we ceased dating altogether). Bizarrely, the fraudster and her blackmailing lawyers presented both Valentine cards as their sole “hard evidence” in their fraudulent Supreme Court property claim against my assets. Hardly relevant evidence to support her false claim of a 2 year plus de facto relationship expiring in May 2007 or the second essential part of her / their false claims that she made substantial contributions towards my asset base (see below). As I pointed out to the Trial Judge, if this relationship had existed, where were the loving birthday and christmas cards? the family photo albums and family videos? the testimony from wide circles of family, friends, acquiantances, neighbours? There were none, because there was no such relationship. The Trial Judge constantly lamented to his barrister mate (her barrister) “the paucity of the evidence” [as in “give me something, anything, so I don’t have to look so bad in giving judgement in your favour, mate”], before giving judgement to his mate on a bizarre cocktail of unsubstantiated lies concocted as facts while turning his eyes away from applicable legal tests and the facts as clearly demostrated by the mountain of independent, incontestible, hard evidence that I had supplied.

    1. At all relevant times we each had our own separate households. We did not share the same postcode, let alone any matrimonal home. The only time we lived under the same roof was a brief period in late 2001 to early 2003. When I met this fraudster she was living with one of her then two children (by two different men) in rented accommodation made available to her by the Salvation Army under a “young women in distress” crisis temporary accommodation program. In 2001 she was facing eviction by the Salvation Army who, she told me, were demanding the premises back, to provide crisis relief to other “young women in distress.” As she had nowhere else to go, I reluctantly agreed to let her and the two youngest of her now 3 children (by three different men, only the youngest two living with her at the time) live under my roof. 6 months after moving under my roof she reclaimed her eldest child from his biological father she had abandonned him to years earlier. The circumstances of that “abandonment” and subsequent “rescue”, to the extent that she reported them to me, were disturbing to say the least.

    1. Two legacies developed from the period that I housed this woman and her children in my home during the second half of 2001 and up to the first half of 2003. The first was that I continued, even post-2003 to be a “non-live with, (non-biological)” father figure towards all three of her children and, truth be told, towards the woman herself. She lied to the youngest two, raising them to the ages of 7 and 9, respectively, to believe that I was biological dad to both of them. Secondly, via a cocktail of blackmails and threats (including threats against her own children and threats of self-harm) and out of genuine compassion and generosity, I became a substantial benefactor and protector towards her and all three of her highly at risk children. The woman herself had suffered horrific abuse and neglect as a child and adolescent. I could see the fragile state of her own pre-school age children. This was most notable with her eldest child who was distressed and at risk in the extreme. But all three children showed signs of distress and insecurity. I was determined to break that cycle of abuse and neglect and see that her children were given the stable and secure childhood that she, their mother, had never had. My benefaction included funding her household and providing substantial care and support to her family. Under my care and substantial support, I thought for many years from 2003 that this woman had finally, genuinely turned her life, and her children’s lives, around. Complements of her fraudulent legal claim and her other collateral criminal activities circa 2007 – 2009 I now know that this was all just another one of her fraudulent scams.

  1. Client-icidal Federal Court (Child Protection) Proceeding: Just like any other member of the public hit with a law suit, having no interest or experience in litigation myself, reeling at the woman’s betrayal of my years of generosity and support, and reeling at the grossly unprofessional and unethical misconduct of these lawyers who were all too ready to carry her extortion demands into court, I did “go and get a lawyer”.
  1. I hired an LIV accredited “family law specialist” lawyer (solicitor) who hired several more lawyers (barristers). I hired her / them to protect me. However, my lawyer and her colleagues had other things in mind than protecting me and my assets. Getting her own hands on a substantial slice of my assets.

    1. In September 2007 my lawyer initiated child protection proceedings in the family law jurisdiction, telling me above my dismayed protests (and contrary to all of the curbside legal opinions I had obtained from family lawyers like her, years earlier) that even as a non-biological non-live with father figure I was “a person knowingly concerned in the welfare” of all three of this woman’s at risk children. While the application that my lawyer drew up had me seeking 50% custody of all three of this woman’s children (which matched what the children themselves wanted and the woman was on the record as also wanting – at least in respect of her youngest child whom she had always claimed was biologically mine)nd that, while the application.

    1. I have no doubt that my lawyer acted in a small part (maybe 2%) out of a genuine concern for the safety and well-being of the woman’s three children. But I can safely say that such genuine and noble concerns were such a small part of her overall motivations in initiating those proceedings that they can be ignored. I am left with no doubt that her own profit / loss ambitions ranked most highly in her motivations. Three months later after running up $30,000 in legal bills my lawyer ceased acting for me. Apparently she stopped acting for me just prior to Christmas 2007, judging by volume of the unreturned phone calls I made to her office. Only she waited until a flurry of unanswered phone calls and correspondences from me during January and into the first week of February 2008, after I received the first notice of Supreme Court heearing, to tell me she was no longer my lawyer adding helpfully and defeating the whole purpose of my retaining her services in the first place that “[she] don’t do Supreme Court matters, anyway.” Within weeks of my lawyer abandonning me I uncovered court documentation showing that my lawyer could not have done more to betray me (and to lush up her pockets at my expense) than via this client-icidal custody application. Not only had my lawyer misconceived this application, not only had she badly drawn it up, she had even filed it in the wrong level of the court. So much to being an “accredited … specialist.” On top of this had made a series of bizarre demands of the process and other lawyers (all helpful to the fraudsters cause) that I would never have consented to, and did these all without offering any advice or taking any instructions from me.
    1. Above all, what my lawyer had done was exponentially inflame my risk by giving this fraudster and her unethical and conniving lawyers a second platform, a well-worn and corrupted one at that, to fabricate false expert reports (little more than defamation and hearsay) suggestive that her de facto claims were genuine. And my lawyer had given her family law colleagues on the opposite side of the case opportunity to falsely obtain significant (at the time) government agency support, financial support in the form of legal aid funding and the equally bizarre and criminally unconstitutional inclusion of multiple government lawyers (weight of numbers) including a bevy of criminally defamatory, hearsayist and even in places fabricated reports from so-called “experts” whose behaviours and competencies were every bit as poor and disturbing as the lawyers themselves (solicitors, barristers and judges) driving the process.

    1. In June 2008 I was forced to cease practising law, as a consequence of the weight of these unwarranted judicial and other proceedings against me, including the latest of this woman’s aggravated burglaries and other criminal acts of violence against me, and in the immediate aftermath of particularly shocking, corrupt “procedural” hearings in both the Federal Magistrates Court (in April and in May) and in the Supreme Court of Victoria (in May and in June).

    1. In October 2008 it being painfully obvious to me just how fraudulent, corrupt, lawless and even unconstitutional the family law courts were, I withdrew that application and quit those proceedings entirely.

    1. I had attempted 5 days earlier to file an application in those proceedings but the Registry Staff refused to accept it, claiming that “it was too close to the hearing date” so I would have to just tender the paperwork on the day. I neverthe less sent copies to the parties and the court by facsimile so they would not be surprised. Instead, it was me who was surprised when the fraudsters barrister tabled some 60 pages of submissions and proposed orders that, to this day, I have still not seen or bothered to read (for obvious reasons).

    1. At that hearing on 8 October 2008 before Federal Magistrate Daniel O’Dwyer, I made 3 parts to my application. The first was that he lacked jurisdiction to hear such a complex matter, so the “final hearing” had to be vacated and the proceeding lifted up to the Family Court proper. FM O’Dwyer had admitted this submission was correct, when the same submission was made by Victoria Legal Aid lawyers (in the guise of “Independent Childrens Lawyers” – when they are neither “independent” of government / court nor lawyers for the “children”) in May 2008. The second part was that he had acted in a biased manner which disqualified him from further involvement in the proceedings (whether it was uplifted or kept down in the Federal Magistrates level of the court system). There were two parts to this (apprehended / actual) bias application (in refusing to hear evidence of the woman’s contravention His Honour’s Court Orders following a violent beating she had given to her children (AFL Grand Final Day, September 2007), not to mention her aggravated burglary of me (November 2007), dismissing both witnesses (the School Principal and her neighbour from a few doors down, a retiremed Psychiatric Nurse and concerned citizen who had been keeping a ‘welfare check’ on the three neglected children (feeding them and the woman’s equally neglected pet dogs) unbeknownst to me, for the better part of a year or more). FM O’Dwyer dismissed those witnesses, on the grounds that if he heard my application against the mother, if she was guilty of those things, he might have the power to send the mother to jail – and he couldn’t do that now could he ..? Much to the dismay and evident fury (at the system) of both concerned, professional and independent witnesses. The second part of the bias application was that since the mother, the youngest of her children and I were in heated agreement that, in the mother’s words as recorded in the court documents “had no problem with [daughter] spending [equal] time with James, week about, eventually.” FM O’Dwyer should have made those orders back in May 2008 and in July 2008 when I sought them. [This would have removed enormous pressure off the 3 children and, amongst other things, might have put an end to the violence her middle child was demonstrating against his younger half-sister at home and in the school grounds ( as in “I don’t have to listen to you. I don’t have to listen to anyone. I can kill [sister] any time I want to..” and bruise and bitemarks all over the little girl’s arms, legs and body)]. The third part of my application was that I was not legally represented, having need of independent legal representation given my zero litigation experience and, I was still in discussions with Victoria Legal Aid, after approaching dozens of solicitors and barristers who all rejected my case (for political reasons / fears of retribution), I was still in discussion with the Law Institute of Victoria Limited (having just met with the then President of the Law Institute, Mr Tony Burke and the then Chair of the LIVL Family Law Section). While acknowledging that it smacked of “Caeser judging Caeser” (which is a basic violation of the constitutional convention that no man should sit in judgement over themselves) and ignoring his previous admissions and scandalous misbehaviour in May 2008. I now know, from other victims of FM O’Dwyer’s injudicious misconduct in judicial office that his “Caeser judging Caeser” is a standard response he throws out to these sorts of bias, lack of jurisdiction applications that are almost par for the course for unrepresented litigants (representing lawyers would never dare cross the Judge, their fellow lawyer, by making them) on a daily basis. At no time did FM O’Dwyer make any reference or give any suggestion that there was anything improper, let alone anything unprofessional about the substance of me making these applications, or about the way that I made them. When he, predictably, refused all parts of my application and insisted that the trial must go ahead there and then (“we have lots of unrepresented men in our courtrooms every day and they all conduct their own case without lawyers” he mocked me – and them) I bid him good day, withdrew my application and walked out. To this day I do not understand why he and the government-salaried lawyers continued with hearing a withdrawn application, except so as to pad out their time-sheets for a couple of days, and ring up the cashregisters at my expense. Despite legislation prescribing that costs orders against an unsuccessful / withdrawing party are to be the exception not the rule – the dominant culture of these places is that such orders are par for the course. Lawyers (solicitors, barristers, judges) who revel at misreading and ignoring the Constitution apparently think nothing of ignoring the black and white print of unconstitutional (even when fair) Acts of Parliament drawn up (by lawyers) in violation of the Constitution.
    1. I heard no more about these proceedings until the Legal Services Comissioner / Legal Services Board / Law Institute of Victoria Limited (originally known as Victorian Lawyers RPA Limited) came witchhunting after me in April 2009, in an illegal reprisal against me based on the unsubstantiated false allegations and materials on which the Legal Services Commissioner has warmed up (for a third or fourth attempt) in this vexatious prosecution againts me. On that occasion I was compelled to submit to a psychiatric assessment based on a horribly biased set of briefing materials. When I was unequivocally cleared of the trumped up accusations of mental health problems (falsely accused of suffering from narcism of all things), the Legal Services Comissioner and its illegal delegate the Law Institute of Victoria Limited promptly abandonned that attack – whilst refusing to do their government and statutory duties and investigate and protect me from my false accusers.

  1. Supreme Court Proceedings (Defamation, Negligence, Fraud, Misconduct) Defensive Counterclaim

  1. During December 2007 there were encouraging signs from the woman’s solicitors that suggested that they had realised the crimes that they were committing by assisting her extortion attempt. They persuaded her to release one of my properties from her caveat. This allowed me to organise a $2,000,000 refinancing over 4 properties, to remain financially above water. They also discharged their lawyers caveat over the most valuable of my properties, a near beachfront house and land at Altona Beach worth between $750,000 and $1,000,000. But then in February 2008 I received notice of a first Supreme Court hearing in the property fraud claim. This led to me finding out that my lawyer “didn’t do Supreme Court matters anyway” and I was left stranded after a 6 week hiatus as an unrepresented litigant. It also led to finding out that these lawyers were still pressing on with the fraud (despite the police reports, psychiatric reports and psychologist reports that piled up on their doors prior to Christmas). Two months later I found out that they had accidentally released their lawyers caveat on my Altona property. They simple, in clear contravention of the relevant Titles legislation (which is unconstitutional anyway) illegally registered a replacement caveat for the same claim over the same land – which the Victorian government authority unquestioningly accepted – inviting me to take it (the authority) to court before they would themselves comply with their legislation and remove it.

    1. At that point, the evening before that hearing, I sat up and drew up a holding Supreme Court counterclaim seeking damages from those lawyers for defamation, negligence and fraud and for being accessories after the fact to the woman’s aggravated burglary in November the previous year. This was something that my lawyer should have done – if she had been up to the job. This was a civil claim for damages. Their professional misconduct was also prosecutable under the Crimes Act. The document was little more than a holding document, a set of dot points, drawn up one sleepless night by an unexperienced and unenthusiastic unrepresented non-litigator lawyer, intending to put the truth on record – a wake up call to the incompetent and unethical – in the expectation that having been burnt with my previous choice of lawyers I would engage replacement legal representatives with the right skills and ethics to draw up the documents properly. This resulted in the first set of lawyers ceasing to represent her. While I couldn’t find lawyers to take mortgages of my own assets as security to represent me, this woman had no trouble it seems in getting replacement “accredited family law specialist” lawyers, solicitors and barristers who were even more criminal and unethical than the first lot.

    1. In November 2008, weeks after I withdrew and walked out of the misconceived child protection application my lawyer initiated in the Federal Magistrates Court, up against unjust timelimits despite still not having I filed a revised Amended Defence and Counterclaim in the Supreme Court of Victoria property fraud proceedings. This included The Legal Services Commissioner (at that date, Ms Victoria Marles – who resigned in disgrace ten months later), the barrister, Graeme Devries, the Federal Magistrate Daniel O’Dwyer and a particularly nasty and disturbing psychologist, David List, along with ten others including banks and bureaucrats and other lawyers. These four gentlemen, the seventh to tenth defendants by counterclaim are of course the prosecutor and (other) three false accusers on which the Legal Services Comissioner has based this malicious and vexatious VCAT prosecution against me – without them coming forward to give evidence or be cross-examined, and without any investigations and without any other evidence being put before the VCAT to support their wild, defamatory and malicious (and mostly unfathomable) false allegations against me.

    1. I summoned FM O’Dwyer to produce documents and testify in these VCAT proceedings to (amongst other things) question him about this, his decision to make complaints about me in February 2009 (I don’t query he made a scandalous false complaint against me, but the contents and the dates are corrupted and not properly established). That summons was one of the 57 that VCAT threw out, at the secret, rushed, unscheduled all-Government hearing on 17 April 2012 (held behind my back, “a day [and a half” before the VCAT so-called “trial” was scheduled to and did commence on 21 May 2012) where I was banned from being allowed to call witnesses to defend myself against whatever the false allegations against me are, this time. I believe it is clear that this was a payback false complaint filed by FM O’Dwyer in gross abuse of his judicial office and powers, as a reprisal for having joined him as a co-defendant with the Legal Services Comissioner, the barrister and the disturbing psychologist in the $50 million dollar fraud, misconduct and defamation counterclaim in November of 2008. I say this as FM O’Dwyer had resisted his pal and co-defendant Barrister Graeme Devries’ exhortations to join with him in making such a false complaint back in July of 2008, telling Devries on that occasion “I have been invited to engage in a process already underway for some time, to undermine Mr Johnson. I am not prepared to do that.” The Supreme Court record shows that Barrister Devries tried the same thing in the Supreme Court the day before making his repeat “strenuous urgings” of co-defendant FM O’Dwyer, striking the common chord with FM O’Dwyer the second time. The day before the Supreme Court Trial Judge had rejected his pal Devries’ overtures (after a good 45 minutes of indulging his exhortations), telling him “I’m not prepared to do that” and giving me bronx praise in his shameful judgment by describing me as “a very intelligent man. You could put it more highly than that … with impressive natural abilities as an advocate for someone who has never stood up and argued a case in court before …”

  1. McCarthyist Government (VCAT) Proceeding:
  1. Living in interstate exile from Victoria since early 2010, I only became aware of this VCAT proceeding against me when, by a miracle, Australia Post redirected to me interstate a letter sent to me by VCAT enclosing a single page notice of Hearing on 12 December 2011. I was not served with any paperwork, which is quite contrary to the rules for summary prosecutions in any criminal law process – whether judicial or tribunal. I made this point at the hearing on 12 December 2011 where Mr McGarvie did not attend, but sent a staff lawyer from the Legal Services Board (which is probably not even his relevant agency for the purposes of this prosecution). So probably there was no appearance by the prosecution at any of the first three hearings. More disgracefully, when I pointed out that I had not been served with the summons and prosecution brief (a gross neglect of due process that should have been another fatality to the prosecution) I was accused (without any basis or evidence to back up the scandalous accusation) of lying. Such misconduct is, as the Supreme Court pointed out in Bailey Aluminium Products v Rees (Supreme Court of Appeal 14 May 2009) grossly unethical and grossly unprofessional. In that case, the Court of Appeal ruled that two senior barristers, including Legal Services Commissioner Michael McGarvie’s brother Richard McGarvie QC (then and still the Chairman of the Victorian Bar Ethics Committee) had “poisoned the well of justice” requiring a re-run of a $500,000 Jury Trial by making just such outbursts. But as a McGarvie, a barrister and a QC neither he nor his fellow QC have been investigated or prosecuted despite such extraordinary findings. They were not even docked a dollar of pay for their misconduct. Fresh barristers had to be hired and paid for the repeat event. Like Mr McGarvie’s Legal Services Board employee solicitor, Barrister Graeme Devries had done this sort of poisoning and much much worse hourly through the 20 plus days of the Supreme Court property fraud trial, and throughout the other courts proceedings too, with no ill-consequences to him, either). When the documentation was finally served on me after the third hearing in this proceedings (which again should have been another grounds of fatality to this vexatious and criminally conspired prosecution) they comprised an over-stuffed A4 Lever Folder with over 500 pages of sequentially numbered pages (turgid false allegations, alleged court documents bearing no signatures or seals and other documents carefully cherry-picked and distorted out of context) – not the sort of paperwork that could ever have fitted into the solitary DL sized envelope I received from VCAT notifying me of the 12 December 2011 hearing.

    1. I have mentioned the secret all-Government hearing on 17 May 2012. On 21 May 2012 I appeared for what I thought was the fourth hearing (the second one I could atttend from interstate – not being told about the third until it was all over, and the second hearing being deliberately scheduled in February rather than a week later in March so that I could have attended). I and 120 members of the public who turned up to observe the corruption at work found out that there had been the secret hearing a day a day and a half earlier striking out my summons of the best evidence (original documents from govenrment records plus the testimony of the recipients themselves) to expose that I am indeed a whistleblower on the crimes misconduct and corruption that I and others have suffered, to protect those bureaucrats and judges (all of them lawyers of course) from the embarrassment of having to testify as to the truth of what they had done and what they had turned blind eyes to, and what they had refused to do. Every one of the 120 who turned up had stories to tell of suffered horrific abuse and harm at the hands of bad lawyers, only to have their complaints to the so-called regulator, the Legal Services Comissioner summarily rejected on the basis of standard, legally incorrect and criminally scandalous letters to the effect that he does not regulate lawyers who are litigators, lawyers who administer wills and estates (at fees and under wills charged and drawn up by them as family lawyers) etc etc. The VCAT Member, Jonathan Smithers promptly adjourned the hearing, on the invitation of the second of a pair of external legal aid barristers hired by the dozen lawyers in the Legal Services Commissioner’s office who had handled the prosecution up until the secret hearing of 17 April 2012. The adjournment was a recognition of my rights under the Constitution as confirmed by a line of authorities in High Court cases to, in effect, my Miranda Rights to have a defence lawyer appointed to defend me at the State’s expense. [Given the complexity of the case, due to the dirty tactics of the government agents and agencies, and they having more than a dozen visible lawyers on the case, with a strategy of “hit the man”, “hide the issues”, “empty his pockets”, “don’t bring or allow him to bring in any evidence”, clearly even if I was the best litigator and self-representer in the world of lawyery I would need a team of at least that dozen or more lawyers to present my side of the stories on an equal and fair footing.] VCAT Member Jonathan Smithers also told the prosecutions’ external barrister that the Legal Services Commissioner would need to explain why it was prosecuting me while not investigating any of the complaints I had filed about the crimes and misconduct of the lawyers acting for the woman, and the lawyers (mostly government-funded and/or bureaucrats) who had been covering up for them. VCAT and Legal Services Commissioner staff were visibly shocked by the large number of concerned members of the public (most of whom I had never met before) who turned up in show of support for me. The hearing had to be put in the largest room in the building (which had room for about 140 in the public seating area) and at the conclusion of the hearing the VCAT and Legal Services Commissioner participants, in a show of comeradery, escaped out the back door normally reserved just for use by the presiding VCAT members.

    1. For the hearing on 6 July 2012, VCAT made sure it would not have the same degree of public scrutiny of its affairs in this proceeding. Firstly, expecting an even bigger crowd, it booked the hearing for a room that accommodated barely 45 people. Secondly, three armed security guards were placed on the doors to keep the public out – once the first 40 or so people were let in. This resulted in more members of the public being turned away than were allowed to enter the hearing. There were also two peacable members of the public assaulted, physically grabbed by an equally terrified VCAT armed security guard and dragged out of the hearing room (a sign of how many people were outside trying to get in). For multiple reasons of wrongdoing that day, the VCAT and Legal Services Commissioner staff present in action showed that the VCAT slogan “fair efficient justice for all Victorians” is just a political slogan void of any truth or substance whatsover. It also became even clearer to me just how unconstitutional and outside of the operation of the proper laws and government practices of the State of Victoria / Commowealth of Australia both Government agencies are.
    1. The purpose of the hearing on 6 October 2012 was for directions, depending on whether the State (via the equally dysfunctional and corrupt Victorian Legal Aid Office) had granted my legal aid application. As at then, and to this date, I have still not received any response or acknowledgement of my rights to legal aid, whatsoever. Officially, this was for VCAT to determine whether the revised trial date of 3 – 5 September 2012 could be maintained – clearly impossible even if Victorian Legal Aid had been cooperative rather than recalcitrant. With over 200 witnesses, 5 years worth of court transcripts and correspondences and public reports to review, any incoming legal team (needing a dozen plus lawyers) would need months to get trial ready. I had pointed all this out at the previous 21 May 2012 hearing. Instead, the prosecution used this directions hearing to close its case. Remarkable since it had not produced any evidence, or witnesses to testify and be cross examined. And ts prosecution materials were nothing but turgid false allegations, full of hearsay and draft court documents (at best) and false court documents at worst (the FM Dwyer materials bearing no signatures or seals of the Federal Magistrates Court and bearing very suspicious out-of-whack dates). At this point VCAT should have struck out the case, it not having been initiated within 12 months (well it had, but on the first jeopardy which was dismissed, not this second or third jeopardy prosecution), it being unwarranted and it being left with want of (no) prosecution. I believe sections 75 and 76 of the VCAT Act are the relevant powers VCAT required to act this way. Instead Senior Member Smithers allowed the prosecution to rewrite its charges (still unsubstantiated and illegible, false allegations and hearsay where they were decipherable at all). When I the non-litigator pointed out to these litigators on the bar and at the “bench” that this was illegal, even in a civil matter to allow the complaint to be rewritten on the third day of a four week trial (quoting relevant, unanimous Full High Court authority from memory), Senior Member Smithers paused to ask me what page of the 2009 Commmonwealth Law Reports the judgement was published (GRE Insurance v Australlian National University) before allowing the amendments – contrary to the High Court law on the subject (in Chief Justice French’s words) I had come to answer one set of charges (whatever they were, which were shown to me barely a month earlier) and it was a denial of my right to a fair hearing if I had to prop up without fair notice and preparation to answer to some different set of charges – without even bothering to read the High Court judgement on the point (the law that he was breaking). On top of this, Senior Member Smithers made no mention of his May 21 requirement that the Legal Services Comissioner explain his failure to investigate my complaints against lawyers within his regulatory scope (as noted above and in my written submissions for hearings in September and October 2012 – notably the hearings on 5 and 10 October 2012.

    1. I decline to say anything further about subsequent hearings after 5 October 2012 which I was precluded from attending (for financial and physical safety reasons and to avoid being subjected to false allegations by government agents that I was participating, self-representing myself, “lawyer with a fool for a client” -type jibes that I have nonethless been subjected to by VCAT and LSC staff (and others before them). I insist on my rights to remain silent – certainly until I have obtained satisfactory independent legal advice at the States’ expense according to my constitutional rights as an Australian citizen. I do note that I was represented on a limited basis at the hearings on 5 October and 10 October and on other occassions (but not the afternoon of 5 October shambolic combined Supreme Court Practice Court / VCAT Presidential hearing hastily thrown together) by defence non-lawyers for the limited purposes of stressing my rights to adjourments to obtain independent legal advice and representation at the States’ expense, and for the purposes of requesting stays on any orders made adverse to me (pending taking actions, properly advised, to have them reviewed and repealed). I stress that my non-lawyer defence representatives had no authority from me whatsoever to represent me at that hybrid Supreme Court Practice Court / VCAT Presidential hearing hastily thrown together on 5 October 2012 – which I didn’t know anything about until days later. That whole session (for which VCAT still refuses to make the audio transcripts available to me) was a frightening demonstration of bureaucratic and judicial unconstitutional misconduct, in a word “tyranny” at its very worst.

  1. Basis for Application for Rehearing

    1. I make this application for rehearing under the special laws that apply to matters in the so-called “Legal Practice” list – a right to re-hearing which is generally not available to most other kinds of hearings in VCAT – namely section 4.4.21 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 and Schedule 18 item 46C of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Act 1998.

    2. I understand from what I have read in materials published by VCAT that there is no fee for this Application. If I am wrong in this understanding, I note that as a Health Care Card concession holder (gratis of the exile and poverty status these crimes and corruptions have thrown me in) I am entitled to concessional waiver of any fees.

    3. I understand that this application under these statutory provisions, allegedly, must be brought within 21 or within 28 days of final orders (there is some confusion in the materials published by VCAT). There are corruptions in the dates (not just the contents) of the last orders that I have seen issued in these proceedings. They are dated as 14 November 2012, though served under cover of a letter purporting to be dated 13 November 2012 (a clever little time travel if both dates could be true). However I did not receive them until 30 November 2012, making today 21 December 2012 allegedly the earliest possible date at which the State (VCAT or the Legal Services Commissioner) might dare rase a limitations of action point against me.

    4. On that hypothetical I note:

      1. First, as State government agencies, VCAT and the LSC are required by law (including Ministerial orders as “model litigants”) to play fair, efficient and just and not raise such time limit arguments to defeat substantial injustive being repaired;

      2. Secondly, I have other rehearing rights in VCAT under at least two other VCAT Act provisions, which have 28 days or more time-limits;

      3. Thirdly, at law, time limits do not apply where it is impossible to comply with them – still awaiting legal aid I am entitled to by constitution and by High Court law, and the appointment of independent defence lawyers funded by the State is surely the ultimate impossiblle to comply, so as to invoke the operation of these laws;

      4. I am drawing this Application up in unjust circumstances to accommodate unjust timelimits (which for above reasons are probably not legally applicable) without the legal representation I am legally entitled to at the State’s expense, in the expectation that this Application will need to be substantially rewritten, suplemented or replaced once my defence lawyers have had a time to review the evidence, the transcripts, the proceedings etc etc (just as the Legal Services Commissioner was wrongly favoured and allowed to do at the surreal VCAT hearing on 6 July 2012).

 …………………………………………………………..

ORDERS SOUGHT

(ie ORDERS SOUGHT in Submissions for and Hearings on 5 October 2012

and at subsequent hearings in Matter J134/2011)

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

LEGAL PRACTICE LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO. J134/2011

CATCHWORDS

Legal Profession Act 2004; professional misconduct; unrepresented litigant who himself is a qualified legal practitioner; whistleblower; free speech; Constitutional right to make protected disclosures of alleged crimes, misconduct, corruption by legal practitioners, by judicial officers, by legal practitioners in public office; misconduct in public office; legal proceedings commenced for ulterior purposes; power of Legal Services Commissioners duties powers with respect to regulation of private legal affairs of registered legal practitioners; whether proceedings in Legal Practice List are civil or criminal proceedings; burden of proof in Legal Practice List matters; constitutional validity / invalidity of VCAT; VCAT Members purporting to exercise judicial and non-judicial powers,whether constitutional; “separation of powers”; “concentration of powers”; lawyerocracy; power of VCAT Members to exclude “prominent persons” from being summonsed to give give evidence and to produce records; whether Legal Services Commissioner must furnish evidence to VCAT or prove allegations, or simply making allegations without evidence is enough to enable findings of guilt against accused; whether charges against an accused must be intelligibly written so that accused can understand and identify evidence to rebut charges; sub judice – whether Legal Services Commissioner should; whether Legal Services Commissioner is obliged to comply with orders and rulings of the Supreme Court of Victoria or is free to disregard them; State Government Ombudsman’s Annual Report to Parliamment of 2009; Failure of Legal Services Commissioner to regulate conduct of litigation lawyers; Victoria’s “Less than 10% of Legal Services, Commissioner”; Is failure of Legal Services Commissioner to investigate allegations fatal to success of prosecution; criminal reprisals against whistleblower; rights of indigent unrepresented litigant, albeit holding legal qualifications entitled to legal aid funding, especially where reluctant to self-represent on account of negligble litigation training or experience; “across all of government” responsibilities of State government agencies to ensure and assist litigants to obtain legal aid funding and or independent legal aid representation; whether Legal Services Comissioner can prosecute legal practitioner for misconduct when same parties are party to Victorian Supreme Court proceedings; whether alleged misconduct by qualified legal practitioner in his private legal affairs (where originally independently represented) in federal judicial proceedings, where federal magistrate did not raise any concerns at hearing of any misconduct (professional or private) by the unrepresented legal practitioner gives rise to estoppel, objection to jurisdiction / objection or administration arguments; Anschun v Melbourne Port Authorrty; bona fides of Federal Magistrate making referal to Legal Services Comissioner against unrepresented litigant who holds qualifications to practice law, 6 months after hearing and 3 months after that litigant initiates Supreme Court of Victoria counterclaim and damages action against him; “Caeser versus Caeser” practice of self-assessing conflicts of interest by judicial officers; section 108 reconstitution / apprehended bias; whether Summary Offences Act processes apply strictly or under Attorney-General’s Model Litigant’s Guidelines (eg whether Legal Services Commissioner must file Application to prosecute legal services provider within 12 months of the date of the alleged offence becoming known; Victoria Legal Aid Act 1976; Whether Legal Services Board and Legal Services Commissioner are “Janus” authorities or bicephalous, whether actions of either of Legal Services Board estop actioins of the other; whether either of Legal Services Board or Legal Services Commissioner (or staff, including common staff) can appear in proceedings or exercise statutory powers or functions in place of the other; Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001; Crimes Act sections 320, 321; Charter of Human Rights and Responsiblities; Dietrich v Crown [1993] CLR; Johnson v Johnson [2000] CLR 1; ANU v GRE Insurance Limited: Flower and Hart (A Firm) v White Industries Limited; Protection of Whistleblowers; Responsibilities of State Government Ombudsman to investigate whistleblower complaints and to protect whistleblowers disclosing allegations of systematic misconduct and abuse by Legal Services Comissioner and staff; D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid and another [2005] CLR 448; J S Mitchell and Sons [2000]; Role of media and role of whistleblowers in holding government agencies such as Legal Services Commissioner, Legal Services Board, Victoria Legal Aid, Legal Practitioners Liability Committee accountable to the public and to their Responsible Minister, the Attorney-General for Victoria, malfeasances by Victorian State government regulatory authority, wether Legal Services Commissioner, government agency of State of Victoria might be declared in VCAT or in judicial proceedings as a vexatious litigant

APPLICANT

Michael McGarvie – Legal Services Commissioner

RESPONDENT

Harold James Johnson

WHERE HELD

Melbourne

BEFORE

Jonathan Smithers, Senior Member

HEARING TYPE

Hearing

DATE OF HEARING

12 December 2011, 24 February, 30 March, 17 May, 21 May, 6 July, 6 August, 14 August 2012, 3 September, 5 October 2012

DATE OF ORDER

5 October 2012

FINDINGS

  1. That the Tribunal has no “jurisdiction”, no administration and no powers (collectively, “no jurisdiction”) to entertain this Application.

  1. Mr Johnson is found not guilty on each and all three charges of professional misconduct.

  1. That Mr Johnson is a whistleblower with rights and protections under the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001 and under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsiblities

  1. That the Applicant’s Application be dismissed for uncertainty of wording of alll three charges, want of evidence, want of prosecution, for being initiated out of time, and on basis of reasonable apprehensions of bias and ulteriour (illegitimate motives) on the parts of the Applicant and informants named in the Application but not produced to give evidence and be cross-examined in the proceeding.

  1. That on a prosecution alleging professional misconduct or possible criminal misconduct or corruption (ie “whistleblowing”) brought by way of a person (“whistleblower”) making reports of misconduct to relevant responsible agencies and authorities, the Applicant must investigate the allegations and produce evidence that disproves some or all of the truth, fairness, reasonableness, justifiableness, or excusableness of the allegations before findings of guilt can be made by the Tribunal.

  1. That on a prosecution alleging professional misconduct for “whistleblowing” the burden is on the Applicant to disprove the truth fairness, reasonablenes, justifiableness or excusableness of the accused and it is a burden that the Applicant must prove “beyond reasonable doubt” in order to secure a conviction.

  1. That the Applicant having 3 times prior to issuing the Application in VCAT against Mr Johnson considered the allegations against Mr Johnson contained in the Application and dismissed them (most recently in June 2009) the Applicant never had the power to issue the Application in VCAT in November 2011 that initiated these proceedings.

  1. That in all the circumstances, special circumstances exist to oblige the Applicant to pay “costs” to the Mr Johnson.

ORDERS

  1. That the Applicant’s Application is struck out.

  1. That (notwithstanding no jurisdiction) the Application is vexatious, frivolous and an abuse of process of the Tribunal.

  1. That (notwithstanding no jurisdiction and even on account of no jurisdiction) all previous orders made in this Tribunal on this Application are vacated.

  1. That (notwithstanding no jurisdiction) the Applicant is ordered to pay to Mr Johnson’s “costs” within 7 days of the date of these orders, being “costs” fixed by the Tribunal in the sum of $1,567,500.00 (one million five hundred and sixty seven thousand and five hundred dollars) by bank cheque and made payable to “Harold James Johnson”.

[Note: The said sum being calculated as the simple product of 57 weeks multiplied by 50% of $55,000 per week.]

  1. That (notwithstanding no jurisdiction) the Tribunal Orders that the Applicant must, in accordance with rulings previously made by the Supreme Court of Victoria in December 2008 and in February and September 2009 promptly investigate all of the complaints that Mr Johnson has made to the Legal Services Commissioner since May 2007 containing allegations of profesional misconduct by legal services providers, including but not limited to those complaints made by Mr Johnson that are listed in the correspondence sent by the Applicant to Mr Johnson earlier this year.

  1. That (nothwitstanding no jurisdiction as regards the Application brought against Mr Johnson) I order the Registrar of VCAT to send a copy of these Findings and Orders (and a full copy of Mr Johnson’s Address to Tribunal and supporting papers in support of his application for these Orders and a full copy of my Reasons for these Findings and Orders) to the Supreme Court of Victoria and to the Chairman of the Legal Services Board recommending to the Supreme Court of Victoria that Mr Keith Michael McGarvie’s name be removed from the roll of local practitioners, and recommending that the Legal Services Board cancel Michael Keith McGarvie’s pracising certificate and that no further practising certificate be able to be granted to Michael Keith McGarvie for a further period of a minimum of at least five years.

Jonathan Smithers

Senior Member

 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

[Remember that the above are Proposed Orders that I have been seeking at every VCAT Hearing since 3 October 2012, and will continue to seek at future hearings this month and through 2013 and for the foreseeable future.  The actual (invalid) Orders that these VCAT Officials have made to date are, as is the case for all McCarthyist attacks on truth, justice and free speech, 100% in the other direction. ]

2 thoughts on “These Aussie Lawyers need Nuremberg-style trials and punishments

  1. Reblogged this on I hate the NAB and commented:
    Just thought I’d share this … I’ve been contemplating writing about my own experiences with my previous lawyer but think I might have to hold off until after mediation with NAB at least (then again … why should I cut them any slack? It’s not like they’ve ever done me a favour is it?)

  2. James Johnson is a true hero of protecting our judical system and our human rights and exposing just how criminal some of these lawyers can be. The actions of the Ombudsmans Office, Legal Services Commission and the Law Society are a real boys club in action.
    James would you be willing to help the senior citizens of this country who have been defrauded out of their homes and denied justice by lawyers? The Queensland Govt and the Law Society has denied justice to thousands of seniors who have raised families paid their taxes fought for their country. Lawyers are answerable to nobody for their crimes against the elderly, they need to be exposed and named and shamed. Their victims and their families should be also compensated for their financial losses.

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