Amended Defence and Counterclaim 20090323

FORM 10A
Rule 10.04(5)
HEADING AND NOTICE ON COUNTERCLAIM WHERE THE DEFENDANT NEW PARTY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION Court No. 9263/08
BETWEEN
TRUST COMPANY FIDUCIARY SERVICES Plaintiff

LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS
PERMANENT TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED)
ACN 000 000 993
and
HAROLD JAMES JOHNSON Defendant

(by original proceeding)
AND BETWEEN
HAROLD JAMES JOHNSON Plaintiff by Counterclaim
and
PIPPIN PATRICIA CRESSY and others First, Second, Third, Fourth,

according to the Schedule Fifth, Sixth Seventh, Eighth,
Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh,
Twelfth and Thirteenth
Defendants by Counterclaim
DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

______________________________________________________________________________
Date of Document: November 2008 24 March 2009 Solicitor’s Code: 10181 101944
Filed on behalf of:
The Defendant, Harold James Johnson
Prepared by: Telephone: 03 9279 3932
Sutton Lawyers Harold James Johnson Facsimile: 03 9279 3955
1st Floor, 141 Osborne Street Email: lawyers@suttonlawyers.com.au
South Yarra Victoria 3141 Ref: HJJ/PC/VSC2
_______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Trust Company Fiduciary Services Limited – C/- Gadens Lawyers Level 25 600 Bourke
Street Melbourne Victoria
AND TO: Pippin Patricia Cressy, Berry Family Law (a firm) and James Turnbull – all C/- Berry Family
Law 162 Ferguson Street Williamstown Victoria
Page 1 of 158
AND TO: David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Pty Ltd – both C/- Lander & Rogers, Lawyers
of Level 12 600 Bourke Street Melbourne Victoria
AND TO: Richard Ingleby of 0403/235 Queen Street Melbourne Victoria
AND TO: Graham A Devries of 1826/525 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Victoria
AND TO: David J List of 276 Park Street, North Fitzroy Victoria
AND TO: Minister for Human Services, Level 22, 50 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Victoria
AND TO: Daniel O’Dwyer of 305 William Street Melbourne Victoria
AND TO: Legal Services Commissioner of Level 9, 330 Collins Street Melbourne
AND TO: The Attorney-General for Victoria of 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne Victoria 3000
AND TO: AMP Bank Limited C/- Russell Kennedy Solicitors, Level 12, 469 La Trobe Street
Melbourne Victoria 3000
TAKE NOTICE that this proceeding has been brought against you by the defendant for the claim set
out in this counterclaim.
IF YOU INTEND TO DEFEND the claim YOU MUST GIVE NOTICE of your intention by filing an
appearance within the proper time for appearance stated below.
YOU OR YOUR SOLICITOR may file the appearance. An appearance is filed by:
(a) filing a "Notice of Appearance" in the Prothonotary's office, 436 Lonsdale Street,
Melbourne, or, where the counterclaim has been filed in the office of a Deputy
Prothonotary, in the office of that Deputy Prothonotary; and
(b) on the day you file the Notice, serving a copy, sealed by the Court, at the defendant's
address for service, which is set out at the end of the counterclaim.
IF YOU FAIL to file an appearance within the proper time, the defendant may OBTAIN JUDGMENT
AGAINST YOU on the counterclaim without further notice.
*THE PROPER TIME TO FILE AN APPEARANCE is as follows—

(a) where you are served with the counterclaim in Victoria, within 10 days after service;
(b) where you are served with the counterclaim out of Victoria and in another part of Australia,
within 21 days after service;
(c) where you are served with the counterclaim in New Zealand or in Papua New Guinea,
within 28 days after service;
(d) where you are served with the counterclaim in any other place, within 42 days after service.
Page 2 of 158
DEFENCE
Denials and Admissions
1. Subject to:
a. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 below (the ‘Qualifications’);

b. Paragraphs 8 and following below (the ‘Counterclaims’); and
c. Paragraph 2 below (the ‘Hierarchy’),
To the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim dated 24 October 2008, the Defendant refers to paragraphs
1 to 14 (inclusive) thereof and: admits each and every allegation and statement contained in
every one of those paragraphs 1 to 14 (inclusive) thereof (the ‘Admissions’).
1.1 To paragraph 1 the Defendant says that the Defendant admits the allegations contained in
paragraph 1 thereof.
1.6 To paragraph 6 the Defendant says that the Defendant does not admit the allegations
contained in paragraph 6 thereof.
contained in paragraph 7 thereof, save that:
Page 3 of 158
a. The Defendant admits receiving a notice of the kind described in paragraph 7
thereof, but by letters dated about mid-March 2007 the Plaintiff apologised
and withdrew that notice and expressed the desire to lend further monies to
the Defendant in future.
Particulars
The Plaintiff’s March letters withdrawing the notice of early February 2007 and
offering to lend further monies to the Defendant are in writing.
1.8 To paragraph 8 thereof the Defendant says that the Defendant denies the allegations
contained in paragraph 8 thereof, and refers to and repeats the Defendant’s statements in
preceding paragraphs of this Defence.
1.10To paragraph 10 the Defendant says that the Defendant does not admit the allegations
1.11To paragraph 11 the Defendant says that the Defendant does not admit the allegations
1.12To paragraph 12 the Defendant says that the Defendant denies the allegations contained in
paragraph 12 thereof and refers to and repeats his statements in the preceding paragraphs
of this Defence.
1A. In this Defence and Counterclaim, the Defendant refers to each admission (where any) made in
paragraphs 1.1 to 1.14 (inclusive) hereof and refers to each denial (where made by him) in
paragraphs 1.1 to 1.14 (inclusive) hereof, as the ‘Admissions’ and the ‘Denials’, respectively.
Page 4 of 158
Hierarchy (of Qualifications, Counterclaims and Admissions and Denials)
2. In relation to paragraph 1 hereof and throughout this Defence and Counterclaim, and for the
avoidance of doubt, to the extent of any inconsistency between any of the and any of the
Qualifications and any of the Counterclaims, the Defendant says:
a. The Qualifications prevail (but only) to the extent of any inconsistencies with any of the
Admissions and Denials;
b. The Qualifications prevail (but only) to the extent of any inconsistency with any of the
Counterclaims; and
c. The Counterclaims then prevail (but only) to the extent of any inconsistencies with any of
the Admissions and Denials.
Qualifications
Cavanough Qualification 1 – Final Interlocutory Cavanough Eviction and Gagging Orders

3. In June or July 2008 Justice Anthony Cavanough, sitting in the practice court jurisdiction of this
Honourable Court made, or purportedly made, or possibly made orders (the ‘Final Interlocutory
Cavanough Eviction and Gagging Orders’) pursuant to the Summons of the First Defendant
by Counterclaim in these proceedings (these ‘Dorrington Street Proceedings’) dated 12 June
2008 (in her capacity as Plaintiff in Proceedings 9665 of 2007 in this Honourable Court, the
‘Larger Proceedings’, and in her capacities in both proceedings, the ‘Cressy Party’), being to
the effect of:
a. evicting the Defendant from the Land (as defined in paragraph 2 of the Plaintiff’s
Statement of Claim dated 24 October 2008, and referred to herein as ‘2 Dorrington
Street’);
b. gagging the Defendant from making any communication with the Plaintiff in respect of
any of the matters that are the subject of these Dorrington Street Proceedings, including
perhaps purporting to make it unlawful for the Defendant to make an appearance in these
Dorrington Street Proceedings and/or unlawful for the Defendant to file a Defence and/or
Counterclaim in these Dorrington Street Proceedings; and
c. granting the Cressy Party a legal entitlement to occupy 2 Dorrington Street,
and maybe being more particularly to the effect as follows:
Page 5 of 158
‘6. The defendant shall give the plaintiff [viz, the Cressy Party] vacant possession of
the property situated at and known as 2 Dorrington Place (sic), Point Cook in the
State of Victoria (“the Point Cook property”) by 11 July 2008 and shall permit the
plaintiff [viz, the Cressy Party] to remain in possession of the Point Cook property
thereafter until further order..
‘7. The defendant be and is herby restrained, by himself, his servants and agents,
until further order, from taking any active step to encourage, induce, persuade or
cause the mortgagee of the Point Cook property to enter into, or attempt to enter into,
possession of that property.’
Particulars
The Final Interlocutory Cavanough Orders are in writing, signed or purportedly signed by
Justice Anthony Cavanough and although undated, were probably signed no earlier than 27
June 2008 and no later than 21 July 2008.
A facsimile copy of what may be the Final Interim Cavanough Order has been provided to
the Solicitors for the Defendant (not by this Honourable Court and not by the legal
representatives of the Cressy Party, but on 21 July 2008 by the solicitors for one of the
Defendant’s mortgagees (namely Russell Kennedy Solicitors, on behalf of Perpetual
Trustees Victoria Limited) and being neither a party to the Larger Proceedings nor a party to
these Dorrington Street Proceedings) and are available for inspection by the parties to these
Dorrington Street Proceedings by prior appointment with the Defendant’s solicitors.
Cavanough Qualification 2 – Verbal Interlocutory Cavanough Eviction and Gagging

Orders
4. The Final Interlocutory Cavanough Orders are (or purport to be) significantly different from the
orders made, or purportedly made, by Justice Anthony Cavanough sitting in the practice court
jurisdiction of this Honourable Court on the hearing on 20 June 2008 of the Cressy Party’s
Summons dated 12 June 2008 in the Larger Proceedings (the ‘Verbal Interlocutory
Cavanough Eviction and Gagging Orders’), being to the effect as follows:
a. evicting the Defendant from the Land (as defined in paragraph 2 of the Plaintiff’s
Statement of Claim dated 24 October 2008, and referred to herein as ‘2 Dorrington
Street’);
Page 6 of 158
b. gagging the Defendant from making any communication with the Plaintiff in respect of
any of the matters that are the subject of these proceedings Dorrington Street
Proceedings (including perhaps purporting to make it unlawful for the Defendant to make
an appearance in these Dorrington Street Proceedings and/or unlawful for the Defendant
to file a Defence in these Dorrington Street Proceedings; and
c. purporting to grant the Cressy Party a lawful entitlement to occupy 2 Dorrington Street
and maybe being more particularly to the effect as follows:
‘6.The Defendant shall give the Plaintiff [viz the Cressy Party] vacant possession
of the property situate at and known as 2 Dorrington Place (sic), Point Cook in the
State of Victoria (“the Point Cook property”) by 21 July 2008.’
‘7. The Defendant be, and is hereby restrained, by himself his servants and/or his
agents, from doing any act or thing and/or making any document to induce,
encourage, persuade and/or cause the mortgagee of the Point Cook property to
enter into, and/or attempt to enter into, possession of that property.’
Particulars
The Verbal Interlocutory Cavanough Eviction and Gagging Orders are oral and purportedly
made by Justice Anthony Cavanough sitting in the practice court jurisdiction of this
Honourable Court at or about 4.30 pm on Friday 20 July 2008. To the extent that the Verbal
Interlocutory Cavanough Eviction and Gagging Orders may be evidenced in writing, they
may have been recorded in facsimile correspondences between the Defendant’s solicitors
and the Devries Parties (as defined below) dated between 23 June 2008 and 26 June 2008
and copies of which are held by the solicitors for the Defendant and are available for
inspection by the parties to these Dorrington Street Proceedings by prior appointment with
the Defendant’s solicitors.
5. To the extent (if any, and then only to that extent) that:
a. Notwithstanding the matters referred to in the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Counterclaim and in

the Cavanough Counterclaim (as both terms are defined below);
Page 7 of 158
b. any part of the Final Interlocutory Cavanough Eviction and Gagging Orders or the Verbal
Interlocutory Cavanough Eviction and Gagging Orders are valid and lawful orders of this
Honourable Court; and
c. the Defendant is required by any lawful force of the Final Interlocutory Cavanough
Eviction and Gagging Orders or the Verbal Interlocutory Cavanough Eviction and
Gagging Orders to refrain from doing any things that would constitute a breach of the
those orders; and
d. any Admission otherwise made by the Defendant in paragraph 1 hereof could constitute
a breach by the Defendant of any lawful obligation imposed on the Defendant to refrain
from breaching any of the Final Interlocutory Cavanough Eviction and Gagging Orders or
the Verbal Interlocutory Eviction and Gagging Cavanough Orders,
then (and only then, and only to that extent) the Defendant does not admit that allegation or
statement contained in that paragraph of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim dated 24 October
2008 in these Dorrington Street Proceedings.
Hansen Qualification – Interlocutory Hansen Dorrington Administration Orders

6. On or about 23 July 2008 the Defendant received a copy of orders purportedly made on 14 July
2008 by Justice Hartley Hansen sitting in the practice court jurisdiction of this Honourable Court
made, or purportedly made, or possibly made orders (the ‘Interlocutory Hansen Dorrington
Administration Orders’) pursuant to further hearing that day of the Summons of the Cressy
Party in the Larger Proceedings dated 12 June 2008:
a. Further evicting the Defendant from 2 Dorrington Street;
b. Evicting the Defendant from 7 Inverloch Drive “forthwith”;
c. Modifying the abovementioned grant to the Cressy Party legal entitlement to occupy 2
Dorrington Street and granting the Cressy Party a corresponding limited grant to occupy
7 Inverloch Drive;
d. Granting the Cressy Party powers of administration and sale of 2 Dorrington Street and
7 Inverloch Drive (and, presumably) a duty to effect the sales of both properties
“forthwith”.
Page 8 of 158
and maybe being to the effect as follows:
‘1. The Defendant forthwith give the [Cressy Party] vacant possession of the property
situate at and known as 2 Dorrington Street, Point Cook in the State of Victoria (“the first
property”).
2. The Defendant forthwith give the [Cressy Party] vacant possession of the property
situate at and known as 7 Inverloch Drive, Point Cook in the State of Victoria (“the
second property”).
3. The first property be sold out of Court (“the first sale”).
4. The second property be sold out of Court (“the second sale”).
5. The [Cressy Party] is appointed to have the conduct of each of the first sale and the
second sale as if she was mortgagee in possession of each property.
6. Upon completion of the first sale, the [Cressy Party], out of the proceeds of the first
sale, pay all of the reasonable costs of the first sale together with all sums reasonably
required to discharge any indebtedness secured by any mortgage over the first property
and registered in the Titles Office.
7. Upon the discharge of any mortgage secured over the first property and the payment
of the reasonable costs of the first sale, the [Cressy Party] pay the balance of the
proceeds of the first sale, if any, into Court and such proceeds be so held until further
order.
8. Upon completion of the second sale, the [Cressy Party], out of the proceeds of the first
sale, pay all of the reasonable costs of the first sale together with all sums reasonably
required to discharge any indebtedness secured by any mortgage over the first property
and registered in the Titles Office.
9. Upon the discharge of any mortgage secured over the second property and the
payment of the reasonable costs of the first sale, the [Cressy Party] pay the balance of
the proceeds of the first sale, if any, into Court and such proceeds be so held until further
order.
10. There is general liberty to apply.
11. The [Cressy Party’s] Summons dated 6 June 2008 is otherwise dismissed.
12. Costs Reserved.’
Particulars
The Interlocutory Hansen Dorrington Administration Orders are in writing, signed or
purportedly signed by Justice Hartley Hanson and dated 16 July 2008.
Page 9 of 158
A copy of the Interlocutory Hansen Dorrington Administration Orders is held by the
Defendant’ solicitors and is available for inspection by the parties to these Dorrington Street
Proceedings by prior appointment with the Defendant’s solicitors.
7. To the extent (if any) that:

a. Notwithstanding the matters referred to in the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Counterclaim and in
the Hansen Counterclaim (as both terms are defined below);
b. any part of the Interlocutory Hansen Orders are valid and lawful orders of this
Honourable Court; and
c. the Defendant is required by the lawful force of the Interlocutory Hanson Orders to refrain
from doing any things that would constitute a breach of the Interlocutory Hanson Orders;
and
d. any Admission otherwise made by the Defendant in paragraph 1 hereof would constitute
a breach by the Defendant of any lawful obligation imposed on the Defendant to refrain
from breaching any of the Interlocutory Hanson Orders,
then (and only then, and only to that extent) the Defendant does not admit that allegation or
statement contained in that paragraph of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim dated 24 October
2008 in these Dorrington Street Proceedings.
COUNTERCLAIM
Chronology of Facts and Events Material to Claims and Counterclaims
Material Fact or Event
8. The Cressy Party
The Cressy Party is and has been at all relevant times from her mid to late teens a
prostitute a fraudster and a confidence artist, a drunkard and drug addict with a history
of criminal activities including violence and cruelty, drunkenness, burglary, theft, property
damage and other crimes involving dishonesty.
9. The Cressy Party was born at Mount Gambier in South Australia on 16 January 1979.
10. The Cressy Party is as at the date of this document, residing at 2 Dorrington Street
having wrongfully converted the said property to her own use and enjoyment:
a. Having gained occupation thereof pursuant to such interlocutory legality (if

any) that might be attached to any of the Final Interim Cavanough Eviction
Page 10 of 158
and Gagging Orders and the Verbal Interlocutory Cavanough Eviction and
Gagging Orders; and
b. Remaining in possession thereof in contravention of the Interlocutory Hansen

Dorrington Administration Orders,
and otherwise unlawfully and with no legal right to do so.
11. On or about 26 April 1995 the Cressy Party, being approximately 16 years and 4 months
old, gave birth to her first living child.
12. In or about, or even before 1 January 1998 (such date to be determined from the
evidence given at trial) the Cressy Party was working as a prostitute at the brothel in
Malop Street Geelong known as Lorraine Starr and was so working notwithstanding that
the Cressy Party was during this period pregnant with her second child and in the
second and third trimesters of that pregnancy.
13. On or about 12 July 1998 the Cressy Party, being approximately 19 years and six
months of age, gave birth to her second living child, giving the Cressy Party two living
children (then aged approximately 3 ¼ years old and newborn, respectively) and each of
them having different biological fathers.
14. From on or about 1 July 1998 to about May 2001 the Cressy Party resided at the
property known as 5 Illouera Avenue Grovedale (‘5 Illouera Avenue’), which was
leased to the Cressy Party by the Salvation Army at a concessional rental basis
pursuant to a charitable emergency housing scheme carried on by the Salvation Army
under the auspices of an emergency accommodation program for young women in
danger.
15. On the morning of Saturday, 12 September 1998 at approximately 2.20 am the

Defendant met the Cressy Party at the said brothel in Malop Street Geelong known as
Lorraine Starr, where the Cressy Party was working as a prostitute.
16. Between late December 1998 and early December 1999 the Defendant and the Cressy
Party engaged in a series of dating periods, each period being measured in a series of
about one to six weeks.
17. In early December 1999 the Cressy Party terminated the last of these dating periods
Page 11 of 158
with the Defendant by threatening the Defendant at knife-point and telling the Defendant
that she was working again as a prostitute at Lorraine Starr, that she was pregnant
again, that she thought that the Defendant might be the (third) father of this (her third)
child, and making threats to ‘kill’ the child, the Defendant and herself.
18. On or about 15 May 2000 (and approximately 8 months pregnant with the third of three
living children, each born to a different biological father) the Cressy Party contacted the
Defendant and advised him that she wished to see him again and she wished for the
Defendant to have contact with her children, including to be at the birth of her third child.
19. On 9 June 2000 the Cressy Party gave birth to the third and youngest of her living
children at Geelong Hospital.
20. In or about April 2001 the Cressy Party informed the Defendant that she was about to be
evicted from 5 Illouera Court by the Salvation Army because her almost three years of
residency at those premises was substantially outside the parameters of the Salvation
Army’s program for providing emergency accommodation for young women in distress,
and the Salvation Army required those premises to be freed up to be used by them as
emergency accommodation for other young women in distress.
21. From about early May 2001 the Cressy Party and her three children to three different
men having nowhere else to live, the Defendant agreed to allow the Cressy Party and
her three children to co-habit with the Defendant at the premises that the Defendant
rented for himself being 45 Nicholson Street South Yarra (’45 Nicholson Street’).
22. The Defendant was induced to allow the Cressy Party and her three children by three
different men to co-habit at 45 Nicholson Street by certain representations made by the
Cressy Party that the Defendant was the biological father of the third and youngest of
the Cressy Party’s three children by three different men.
23. While the Cressy Party co-habitated with the Defendant during mid-2001 to mid-2003,
the Defendant did everything possible to try to reconcile his earlier relationship with the
Cressy Party but all attempts to establish a bona fide domestic relationship with the
Cressy Party failed on account of:
a. The Cressy Party’s refusal to quit her prostitution and other anti-social and
criminal activities (her prostitution in particular seeming to satisfy some deep
seated psychological needs of the Cressy Party, not just her needs for cash);
Page 12 of 158
and
b. The Cressy Party’s inability to maintain normal or socially acceptable family

relationships with her own three children by three different men;
c. The Cressy Party’s interference in the relationships between the Defendant

and his three older children by his legal marriage, and to whom the Cressy
Party, on rare occasions when she had any contact with them, demonstrated
considerable contempt and hatred; and
d. The Peter Cockram Stalking Behaviours (as defined below) which

commenced in December 2001 and persisted into early 2003 and during
which period the Cressy Party adamantly and violently accused the
Defendant of being the perpetrator; and
e. The Cressy Party’s campaign of violence and hatred and other abuse
towards the Defendant during that period, including the Cressy Blackmail
Scheme (as defined below).
24. The Defendant’s Property Portfolio – 2 Dorrington Street
Pursuant to a contract of sale dated or about 3 October 2001 (‘2 Dorrington Street
Land Contract’) and a construction contract dated on or about 3 October 2001 (‘2
Dorrington Street Construction Contract’) and a loan agreement dated about March
2002 (‘2 Dorrington Street Loan Agreement’) and a mortgage dated about March
2002 (‘2 Dorrington Street Mortgage’) the Defendant purchased the land at Point
Cook known as 2 Dorrington Street and entered into a construction contract for the
construction of a dwelling thereon.
Particulars
The 2 Dorrington Street Land Contract is in writing.
The 2 Dorrington Street Construction Agreement is in writing.
The 2 Dorrington Street Loan Agreement is in writing.
The 2 Dorrington Street Mortgage is in writing.
25. Pursuant to a contract of sale dated or about May 2002 (’12 Lisa Court Land
Contract’) and a construction contract dated on or about May 2002 (’12 Lisa Court
Page 13 of 158
Construction Contract’) and a loan agreement dated about May 2002 (’12 Lisa Court
Loan Agreement’) and a mortgage dated about May 2002 (’12 Lisa Court Mortgage’)
the Defendant purchased the land at Hoppers Crossing known as 12 Lisa Court and
entered into a construction contract for the construction of a dwelling thereon.
Particulars
The 12 Lisa Court Land Contract is in writing.
The 12 Lisa Court Construction Agreement is in writing.
The 12 Lisa Court Loan Agreement is in writing.
The 12 Lisa Court Mortgage is in writing.
26. Pursuant to a contract of sale dated or about May 2002 (’10 Hawkhurst Court Land
Contract’) and a construction contract dated on or about May 2002 (’10 Hawkhurst
Court Construction Contract’) and a loan agreement dated about May 2002 (’10
Hawkhurst Court Loan Agreement’) and a mortgage dated about May 2002 (’10
Hawkhurst Court Mortgage’) the Defendant purchased the land at Hoppers Crossing
known as 10 Hawkhurst Court and entered into a construction contract for the
construction of a dwelling thereon.
Particulars
The 10 Hawkhurst Court Land Contract is in writing.
The 10 Hawkhurst Court Construction Agreement is in writing.
The 10 Hawkhurst Court Loan Agreement is in writing.
The 10 Hawkhurst Court Mortgage is in writing.
27. The Defendant allowed the Cressy Party (and her three children by three different men)
to co-habit with him at 45 Nicholson Street from May 2001 until March 2003 but such co-
habitation was the consequence of the Cressy Party’s dire circumstances and not the
product of any bona fide domestic kind of relationship between the Defendant and the
Cressy Party.
28. On or about 7 March 2003 the Defendant allowed the Cressy Party (and her three
children by three different men) to co-habit with him at the by now completed house that
the Defendant had had constructed for himself at Point Cook, being 2 Dorrington Street,
but such continuing co-habitation was the consequence of the Cressy Party’s dire
circumstances and not the product of any bona fide domestic kind of relationship
between the Defendant and the Cressy Party.
Page 14 of 158
29. Pursuant to a contract of sale dated on or about 18 March 2003 (‘7 Inverloch Drive
Land Contract’) and a loan agreement dated about March 2003 (‘7 Inverloch Drive
Loan Agreement’) and a mortgage dated about March 2003 (7 Inverloch Drive
Mortgage’) the Defendant purchased the land at Point Cook known as 7 Inverloch
Drive.
Particulars
The 7 Inverloch Drive Land Contract is in writing.
The 7 Inverloch Drive Loan Agreement is in writing.
The 7 Inverloch Drive Mortgage is in writing.
30. In April 2003 the Defendant achieved settlement under the 7 Inverloch Drive Land
Contract, the 7 Inverloch Drive Loan Agreement and the 7 Inverloch Drive Mortgage.
31. In May 2003 the Defendant achieved settlement and completion under the 10
Hawkhurst Court Land Contract, the 10 Hawkhurst Court Construction Agreement, and
the 10 Hawkhurst Court Loan Agreement.
32. In June 2003 the Defendant achieved settlement and completion under the 12 Lisa
Court Land Contract, the 12 Lisa Court Construction Agreement, and the 12 Lisa Court
Loan Agreement.
33. The Defendant and the Cressy Party have not co-habitated together at any time since
July 2003.
34. The Cressy Children Support Agreement
In July 2003 the Defendant allowed the Cressy Party (and her three children by three
different men) to reside on their own at 2 Dorrington Street under a child support
agreement (‘Cressy Children Support Agreement’).
Particulars
The Cressy Children Support Agreement is oral.
To the extent that it is oral it is to be implied by the conduct of the Defendant and the
Cressy Party pursuant thereof.
35. There were terms and conditions to the Cressy Children Support Agreement, including
Page 15 of 158
as follows:
a. That the Defendant would make 2 Dorrington Street available to the Cressy
Party and her three children by three different men to reside in, free of rent;
b. That the Defendant would pay all outgoings (electricity, gas, water,
telephone) for 2 Dorrington Street;
c. The Defendant would provide her with a weekly sum of money to for food
and clothing and other living expenses for the Cressy Party and her three
children.
d. The Defendant would quit prostitution and either obtain alternative
respectable and honest employment (which she did not do) or resume her
education (which she did do, and at the Defendant’s expense) in order to
obtain such respectable and honest employment.
e. The Defendant would avoid illegal drugs and substances, would moderate
her consumption of alcohol and would manage her chronic asthma.
f. The Defendant would focus her energies on nurturing of her children and
making a warm and comfortable home for them utilising the finances and
resources that the Defendant put at her disposal.
36. Additionally or alternatively, the Defendant was induced to enter into the Cressy
Children Support Agreement by certain representations made by the Cressy Party that
the Defendant was the biological father of the third of the Cressy Party’s three children
by three different men.
Children Support Agreement by certain representations made by the Cressy Party
namely:
a. That the Defendant was the biological father of the youngest of the Cressy
Party’s three children by the three different men.
b. The Defendant would quit prostitution and either obtain alternative
respectable and honest employment (which she did not do) or resume her
education (which she did do, and at the Defendant’s expense) in order to
obtain such respectable and honest employment.
c. The Defendant would avoid illegal drugs and substances, would moderate
her consumption of alcohol and would manage her chronic asthma.
d. The Defendant would focus her energies on nurturing of her children and
Page 16 of 158
making a warm and comfortable home for them utilising the finances and
resources that the Defendant put at her disposal.
Children Support Agreement and to allow the Cressy Party and her three children by
three different men to occupy 2 Dorrington Street to protect the Cressy Party and her
three children by three different men from certain threats and stalking behaviour that
were being engaged in against the Defendant, the Cressy Party and her three children
(‘Cockram Stalking Behaviours’), by a man not then known to the Defendant, being
Peter Cockram (‘Cockram’), a man with whom the Cressy Party was and had for a
lengthy period of time been involved in an intimate personal relationship for a period of
several years.
39. Additionally the Defendant was forced to enter into the Cressy Children Support
Agreement in response to the scheme the Cressy Party had engaged in since late 2002
through misrepresentations and fraud and extortion and blackmail and other unlawful
activities, to extract substantial amounts of money, property and other financial benefits
from the Defendant (‘Cressy Blackmail Scheme’).
40. There were elements to the Cressy Blackmail Scheme as follows:
a. If the Defendant did not provide to the Cressy Party the monies and
resources pursuant to the Cressy Children Support Agreement,
Then:
b. The Cressy Party would do everything she could to prevent the Defendant
having contact with her three children, including especially the youngest of
her three children whom she represented at all times to be the Defendant’s
child also;
c. The Cressy Party would make malicious and false and defamatory
allegations to the police that the Defendant had raped her;
d. The Cressy Party would make malicious and false and defamatory
allegations to the Defendant’s family and his friends, his work colleagues and
his clients:
Page 17 of 158
i. Falsely branding the Defendant as a drunken and violent and abusive
man and rapist;
ii. Falsely claiming that the Defendant was moonlighting as a prostitute

as well as a solicitor.
41. Never, prior to her defamatory falsehoods to List, as recorded by him in the List Report,
had the Cressy Party ever threatened or given any indication that she would maliciously
and falsely defame the Defendant by making false claims that he was incestuous or a
paedophile or that he took illegal substances.
42. Never, prior to 1 May 2008 did the Cressy Party put her blackmail demands or threats in
writing. On 1 May 2008 the Defendant received written blackmail demands from the
Cressy Party, by way of 2 letters written to the Defendant by Turnbull (copies of which
are included in ‘Exhibit C1’ in the Larger Proceedings, as described below):
a. Sending to the Defendant certain papers belonging to the Defendant that had
been stolen by the Cressy Party in late 2001 or early 2002 and recording the
Defendant’s registration of himself in early 2000 as an ‘adult service provider’
under the Prostitution Control Act (in circumstances and for reasons
described below);
b. Demanding that the Defendant transfer to the Cressy Party unencumbered

title to one of the Defendant’s properties plus give her fifty thousand dollars
($50,000) in cash (‘Cressy Party Blackmail Demand’); and
c. Threatening to use those papers of the Defendant, and distorted and

dishonest stories that the Cressy Party had made up about them, in the
Cressy Child Protection Proceedings and the Larger Proceedings, if the
Defendant did not meet the Cressy Party Blackmail Demand.
Particulars
Those two letters from Turnbull to the Defendant both dated 1 May 2008 are both in
writing. Copies are included in ‘Exhibit C1’ in the Larger Proceedings, as described
below. Copies of those letters are held by the Defendant’s solicitors and are available
for inspection by the parties to these Dorrington Proceedings by prior appointment.
Page 18 of 158
43. The Cockram Stalking Behaviours
There were elements to the Cockram Stalking Behaviours as follows:
a. The Cressy Party met Peter Cockram (‘Cockram’) in her capacity as a

prostitute working at the licensed brothel known as Harem International in
Part Street South Melbourne, at some time during 2001 and where they
became intimate and commenced a relationship whereby they would meet
both inside and outside of the brothel premises;
b. Cockram followed the Cressy Party as she drove home from Harem
International to 45 Nicholson Street South Yarra, also some time during
2001.
c. Beginning some time in 2001 and continuing until about January 2004 when
he was eventually arrested and interviewed by the Police, Cockram engaged
in a campaign of stalking activities which included:
d. following the Cressy Party, and following her three children and following the
Defendant, and following the Cressy Party’s mother and her two infant step-
sisters, who also co-habitated at 45 Nicholson Street for a brief period during
.
e. Cockram also:
i. Stole the Defendant’s identity, including by creating a hotmail email

account styled in the Defendant’s name as
‘jamesjohnson751@hotmail.com’ and used it to send email messages
to the Defendant signing them off under the Defendant’s name, as an
assumed name, that is as ‘James Johnson’;
ii. Stole correspondence belonging to and addressed to the Defendant

from the Defendant’s letter box, including copies of banking and other
financial statements, correspondences from the Defendant’s clients to
the Defendant, copies of contracts of sale and construction contracts
Page 19 of 158
and financial contracts relating to the Defendant’s Property Portfolio;
iii. Stole correspondence belonging to the Cressy Party from the

Defendant’s letter box, including copies of the Cressy Party’s banking
and deposit statements;
iv. Placed threatening notes from himself to the Defendant on the

windscreen of the Defendant’s motor vehicle;
v. Sent threatening notes to the Defendant’s (estranged) wife soliciting

her to assist him in his vendetta against the Cressy Party and against
the Defendant, but only serving to frighten the Defendant’s
(estranged) wife.
vi. Threatened the Defendant that he would send (and possibly did send)
emails and correspondence to the Defendant’s clients; and
vii. Generally sought to blackmail the Defendant to cease to provide

housing, financial, and other support to the Cressy Party.
Particulars
The Defendant printed copies of the abovementioned emails he received from Cockram
and provided them, plus originals of correspondences received from Cockram to the
Victorian Police, to assist them to investigate the Cockram Stalking Behaviours.
44. The letter that Cockram wrote to the Defendant’s estranged wife, undated but sent in
about December 2003, reads as follows:
‘Dear Julie
I am sorry to drag you into this, but the time has

come.
Did you know that the woman that Harold James

Johnson is living with is a Prostitute.
Page 20 of 158
She works at Harem International, 55 Park Street
South Melbourne. Usually during the day 10-4, 3
or 4 days per week. Not as often now, but she still
works there.
Her name is Pippin Patricia Cressy-Sutton. She

will be 25 on 16 January 2004. She has three
children, Trent, Sky and Illyana. Three children,
from three different men. Does James think one of
them is his. What a joke.
I have tried to warn James over the past 16

months what has been going on but he seems to
be stupid. So now I am telling you.
This woman is using James

She admits that she does not love him, and that
she is only using him because of the children.
How does this make you feel? Does James keep

up with his payments and responsibilities to you
and your child. Would you let your child stay in
that house.
Who paid for Pippin’s breast enlargements, the

trip to Taiwan to have them done, and the
following up corrective surgery in Melbourne,
because it was stuffed up.
He is living at 2 Dorrington Street, Point Cook. He

is running her car and her mother’s car.
He provides for them but what does he get in

return? If it was not for the children she would not
Page 21 of 158
be living with him, but he cannot see it.
Why am I telling you this?
To protect your child. To try to convince James

that he is being used. You know him. Talk to him.
He is basically a hard working person, means
well, wants to contribute to society, but stupid
when it comes to relationships. He does not
deserve what is going to happen to him
And she has over $40,000 in term deposits at the

Commonwealth Bank – South Yarra that he does
not know about.
I would like to know about Sutton Johnson and

why the name? Do you know anything about this
woman?
I am out to get the bitch! And if James gets in

the way, he will be a casualty too.
She has done it before. And if you want to help,

you are welcome! Get James out of the picture.
If you want you can contact me at the email

address jamesjohnson751@hotmail.com
Sorry, but I need to remain anonymous.’
Particulars
This Cockram letter is in writing and a copy is held by the Defendant’s solicitors and is
available for inspection by the parties to these Dorrington Street Proceedings by prior
appointment.
Page 22 of 158
45. During the entire period of Cockram’s reign of terror against the Defendant, the Cressy
Party and her three children, the Cressy Party insisted that the Defendant was the
perpetrator of Cockram’s actions and there were a number of angry confrontations,
including violence from the Cressy Party against the Defendant because of the Cressy
Party’s, now clearly demonstrated, false accusations of the Defendant that he was
behind or in some way responsible for the Cockram Stalking Behaviours.
46. In about January 2004 the Victoria Police traced the source of the emails sent by
Cockram to the Defendant, and the Defendant was taken in for questioning by the
Victoria Police and the Cressy Party obtained an intervention order against Cockram.
47. The Defendant’s Bourke Street Residence
The Defendant moved into a rented apartment known as 909 City Point, 668 Bourke
Street Melbourne (‘909/668 Bourke Street’) pursuant to a lease agreement signed in or
about June-July 2003 (‘909 City Point Lease’), where the Defendant lived and lived
alone until July 2006.
Particulars
The 909 City Point Lease is in writing.
48. Refinancing of Defendant’s Property Portfolio
In about June 2005 the Defendant refinanced his properties 12 Lisa Court and 10
Hawkhurst Court with his existing lender, AMP Bank, by taking out a second mortgage
attaching to both properties in the amount of approximately sixty four thousand dollars
($64,000) (’12 Lisa Court / 10 Hoppers Crossing Second Mortgage’).
Particulars
The 12 Lisa Court / 10 Hoppers Crossing Second Mortgage was in writing.
49. In about June 2005 the Defendant refinanced his properties 2 Dorrington Street Point
Cook and 7 Inverloch Drive by entering into loan agreements and mortgages with the
Plaintiff.
Particulars
The loan agreement and the mortgage for 2 Dorrington Street are in writing and are
Page 23 of 158
described in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim dated 28 October 2008.
The loan agreement and the mortgage for 7 Inverloch Drive are also in writing.
50. The Growth in the Defendant’s Property Portfolio
Pursuant to a contract of sale dated or about September 2005 (‘9/2 Gibson Street
Land Contract’) and a construction contract dated on or about September 2005 (‘9/2
Gibson Street Construction Contract’) and a loan agreement dated about September
2005 (‘9/2 Gibson Street Loan Agreement’) and a mortgage dated about September
2005 (‘9/2 Gibson Street Mortgage’) the Defendant purchased the land at Caulfield
East known as 9/2 Gibson Street and entered into a construction contract for the
completion of construction of a dwelling thereon.
Particulars
The 9/2 Gibson Street Land Contract is in writing.
The 9/2 Gibson Street Construction Agreement is in writing.
The 9/2 Gibson Street Loan Agreement is in writing.
The 9/2 Gibson Street Mortgage is in writing.
51. Pursuant to a contract of sale dated or about 15 February 2006 (‘166 Queen Street
Land Contract’) and a loan agreement dated about 15 February 2006 (‘166 Queen
Street Loan Agreement’) and a mortgage dated about 15 February 2006 (‘166 Queen
Street Mortgage’) the Defendant purchased the land and dwelling at Altona known as
166 Queen Street.
Particulars
The 166 Queen Street Land Contract is in writing.
The 166 Queen Street Loan Agreement is in writing.
The 166 Queen Street Mortgage is in writing.
52. Revision of Cressy Children Support Agreement – Substituted Premises
During February 2006 the Defendant and the Cressy Party made a variation to the
Cressy Children Support Agreement, to the effect that, from settlement under the 166
Queen Street Contract of Sale, the Cressy Party and her three children by three
different men would vacate 2 Dorrington Street and reside instead at 166 Queen Street
Altona (‘Cressy Children Support Amended Agreement’).
Page 24 of 158
Particulars
The Cressy Children Support Amended Agreement is oral.
To the extent that it is oral, the terms and conditions are to be implied by the conduct of
the parties.
There were terms and conditions to the Cressy Children Support Amended Agreement,
which were the same as the terms and conditions of the Cressy Children Support
Agreement save for the aforementioned substitution of premises at which the Defendant
agreed to allow the Cressy Party and her three children by three different men to live.
53. On or about 14 May 2006 the Defendant achieved settlement under the 166 Queen
Street Land Contract, the 166 Queen Street Loan Agreement and the 166 Queen Street
Mortgage.
54. On or about 15 June 2006 the Defendant assisted the Cressy Party and her three
children by three different men to move from 2 Dorrington Street to 166 Queen Street.
55. The Defendant’s new Bourke Street Residence (Sub-penthouse)
In July 2006 the Defendant moved from the rented apartment known as 909/668 Bourke
Street into a newly rented sub-penthouse apartment known as 2302 City Point, 668
Bourke Street Melbourne (‘2302/668 Bourke Street’) pursuant to a lease agreement
signed in or about June-July 2006 (‘2302 City Point Lease’) and where the Defendant
continued to live alone until August 2007.
Particulars
The 2302 City Point Lease is in writing.
56. First Malicious Cressy Domestic Violence Allegations
On or about 4 May 2007 The Defendant and the Cressy Party agreed that the Cressy
Party and the Defendant would spend that coming weekend with the Defendant at the
Defendant’s home, 2302/668 Bourke Street.
57. On or about 5 May 2007 the Cressy Party made false statements and gave a false
report to the Police making numerous defamatory allegations about the Defendant and
as a consequence of which Victorian Police Constable Aaron Wattie of the Werribee
Police Station, as informant, took out a charge and summons against the Defendant
Page 25 of 158
under the Magistrates (Domestic Violence) Act alleging that the Defendant had acted
violently towards the Cressy Party (‘First Malicious Cressy Domestic Violence
Allegations’).
Particulars
The Malicious Cressy Domestic Violence Allegations are in writing and a copy of them is
held by the Defendant’s Solicitors and is available for inspection by the parties to these
Dorrington Street Proceedings by prior appointment.
58. The Malicious Cressy Domestic Violence Allegations were heard at the Werribee
Magistrates Court on 13 June 2007 where they were dismissed without hearing with the
Cressy Party failing to bother even to attend Court for that hearing.
59. Fraudulent Cressy Caveat
On or about 11 May 2007 the Cressy Party signed and lodged with the Registrar of
Titles an instrument of caveat (‘Cressy Caveat’) claiming:
a. interests in 6 freehold properties (the ‘Defendant’s Property Portfolio’),

being properties that were and are (save for the subsequent developments
described below) at all relevant times wholly legally and beneficially owned
by the Defendant as registered proprietor, namely the lands described in
Certificates of Title Volume 10649 Folio 841 (‘2 Dorrington Street’), Volume
10666 Folio 331 (‘10 Hawkhurst Court’), Volume 10657 Folio 957 (’12 Lisa
Court’), Volume 10649 Folio 840 (‘7 Inverloch Drive’), Volume 4948 Folio
514 (‘166 Queen Street’) and Volume 10946 Folio 643 (‘9/2 Gibson Street);
and
b. that the Cressy Party acquired such interests ‘By virtue of the resulting
implied or constructive trust in favour of the caveator arising from the
contribution made by the caveator towards the acquisition, conservation and
improvement of the said land.’
Particulars
The Cressy Caveat was registered by the Registrar of Titles on or about 11 with
registered caveat number AF058952B.
A copy of the Cressy Caveat is held by the solicitors for the Defendant and is available
Page 26 of 158
for inspection by the other parties to these Dorrington Street Proceedings by prior
appointment.
60. The Cressy Party well knew at all times that the representations made by her in the
Cressy Caveat were false. And the Defendant says that by virtue of executing and
lodging the Cressy Caveat at the Titles Office, irrespective of the lack of merits in that
claim, the Cressy Party came to owe duties of care to the Defendant, including a duty
not to cause waste or diminution of value of the Defendant’s Property Portfolio by virtue
of resisting the Defendant’s efforts to liquidate some or all of those properties.
61. Fraudulent First Harwood Caveat
David William Hanlon (‘Hanlon’) is and was at all relevant times a barrister and solicitor
carrying on legal practice in Werribee as an employ of the incorporated legal practice of
Harwood Andrews Pty Ltd, trading as ‘Harwood Andrews’ (‘Harwood’).
62. In late 2006 or early 2007 Hanlon and Harwood accepted instructions from the Cressy
Party to provide her with legal services.
63. On or about 8 May 2007 Hanlon (‘Hanlon’) signed and lodged with the Registrar of
Titles on behalf of Harwood an instrument of caveat (‘First Harwood Caveat’) claiming:
a. interests in one of the 6 freehold properties in the Defendant’s Property

Portfolio, being 166 Queen Street Altona; and
b. that Harwood acquired such interests from the Cressy Party by way of an
equitable charge given by her over the Defendant’s said property, to secure
her legal costs to them.
Particulars
The First Harwood Caveat was registered by the Registrar of Titles on or about 15 May
2007 with registered caveat number AF066328D.
A copy of the Harwood Caveat is held by the solicitors for the Defendant and is available
appointment.
64. The Cressy Party well knew at all times that any representations made by her in signing
in favour of Harwood any loan or security contracts affecting 166 Queen Street Altona
Page 27 of 158
and/or consenting to and assisting Hanlon and Harwood to sign and lodge the First
Harwood Caveat were false.
65. Hanlon and Harwood well knew at all times that any representations made by the
Cressy Party in signing any loan or security contracts affecting 166 Queen Street Altona
Harwood Caveat were false or but for his and its reckless indifference ought to have
known.
66. Harwood well knew at all times that any representations made by the Cressy Party in
signing any loan or security contracts affecting 166 Queen Street Altona and/or
consenting to and assisting Hanlon and Harwood to sign and lodge the First Harwood
Caveat were false or but for its reckless indifference ought to have known. And the
Defendant says that by virtue of executing and lodging the First Harwood Caveat at the
Titles Office, and claiming an interest as mortgagee in 166 Queen Street Altona, and
irrespective of the lack of merits in that claim, Harwood came to owe duties of care to
the Defendant, as like the duties of a genuine mortgagee, including a duty not to cause
waste or diminution of value of the 166 Queen Street Altona by unreasonably resisting
the Defendant’s efforts to liquidate some or all of those properties.
67. Further Revision of the Cressy Children Support Agreement
In late July and early August 2007 the Defendant and the Cressy Party agreed further
revisions to the terms of the Cressy Children Support Agreement, namely:
a. That the Cressy Party would assume responsibility for all water, electrical
and gas services and charges, and transfer them into her name;
b. That the Defendant would pay to the Cressy Party one thousand dollars
($1,000) per month rather than seven hundred dollars ($700) per week in
child support payments, less any amounts on account of telephone or other
costs or charges paid directly by the Defendant for services provided to the
Cressy Party;
c. That the Defendant would not provide the 166 Queen Street property to the
Cressy Party to reside in ‘free of charge’ any longer, but rather the Cressy
Page 28 of 158
Party would commence paying a normal commercial rental for the property;
and
d. Revised arrangements were made for the three Cressy children to spend
time with the Defendant and at the Defendant’s home, so that the Defendant
would continue with his paternal role towards all three of them.
Particulars
These revisions to the terms of the Cressy Children Support Agreement were oral. To
the extent that they are oral they are also to be inferred by the conduct of the Defendant
and the Cressy Party referable to those revisions.
68. The Cressy Party’s Breaches of the Cressy Children Support Agreement
By August 2008 the Defendant became fully aware that the Cressy Party had been in
long-term and substantial breach of the Cressy Children Support Agreement (prior to
and since the recent amendments) including:
a. By continuing to work as a prostitute;
b. By continuing to take illegal drugs;
c. By continuing to drink excessively;
d. By failing to devote sufficient energies towards the care and comfort of her
three children.
The Cressy Party committed further breaches of the Cressy Children Support
Agreement in the week of 3 September 2008 by taking the three Cressy Children out of
school that week, failing to take them to school for almost all of September 2008 and for
refusing to allow them to spend time with the Defendant in accordance with the revised
terms of the Cressy Children Support Agreement.
69. Second Malicious Cressy Domestic Violence Allegations
On or about 12 September 2007 the Cressy Party made false statements in writing and
under oath at the Werribee Magistrates Court defaming the Defendant in order to
Page 29 of 158
mislead that Court to make interim intervention orders, against the Defendant claiming,
inter alia, for the second time that the Defendant had acted violently towards the Cressy
Party in May 2007 (being the alleged events the subject of the withdrawn First Malicious
Cressy Domestic Violence Allegations) and fraudulently claiming that the Defendant had
been ‘following the children to school” (‘Second Malicious Cressy Domestic Violence
Allegations’).
Particulars
Some of the Second Malicious Cressy Domestic Violence Allegations are in writing,
being recorded in the charge and summons and interim intervention orders of the
Werribee Magistrates Court dated September 2008.
Some of the Second Malicious Cressy Defamation Violence Allegations are oral, but
have been recorded by the Werribee Magistrates Court and a copy of that recording is
them is held by the Defendant’s solicitors and is available for inspection by the parties to
these Dorrington Street Proceedings by prior appointment.
70. The Second Malicious Cressy Domestic Violence Allegations were last mentioned at the
Werribee Magistrates Court on 27 September 2007 where (as with the First malicious
Cressy Domestic Violence Allegations) they were dismissed without hearing with the
Cressy Party failing to bother even to attend Court for that hearing.
71. The Cressy Children Protection Proceedings
On 8 September 2007 the Defendant issued proceedings in the Federal Magistrates

Court to protect the Cressy Children, and the Cressy Party(‘Cressy Child Protection
Proceedings’), as follows:
a. The Defendant sought interim orders:
i. That the Cressy Party and the three Cressy Children reside 166
Queen Street Altona on an interim basis until final arrangements were
made or agreed;
ii. That the Cressy Party return the three Cressy Children to their
school;
iii. That the Defendant have contact and communication with the three
Page 30 of 158
Cressy Children;
b. The Defendant sought final orders:
i. That the Cressy Children permanently reside at 166 Queen Street

Altona;
ii. That the Defendant and the Cressy Party have shared parental
responsibility and residency with the Cressy Children by them
residing, on an alternating week by week basis, with the Cressy
Children at 166 Queen Street Altona.
Particulars
The Defendant’s Application is in writing.
72. The Cressy Party’s September Child Battering
On 26 September 2008 the Cressy Party consented to the interim orders sought by the
Defendant (’27 September Interim Orders’), namely:
‘…
19. The Mother and the children shall reside at 166 Queen Street Altona.
20. The children shall continue to attend Altona Primary School …’
and including orders for all three of the children to have time with and communicate with
the Defendant.’
Particulars
The Interim Orders of the Federal Magistrates Court dated 26 September 2007 are in
writing.
73. On 28 October 2007, at approximately 3pm the Defendant collected the three Cressy
Children from the Cressy Party’s mother at the McDonald’s Restaurant in Millers Road,
Altona. The Cressy Party was not in attendance, but both of the Cressy Party’s infant
Page 31 of 158
half-sisters, aged 8 and13 were present, as were the Defendant’s three children, aged
9, 11 and 14.
74. The three Cressy Children, plus the Defendant’s other three children, spent the following
two nights and days with the Defendant. The Defendant returned the three Cressy
Children to the Cressy Party on Saturday 30 September 2007 at about midday (having
received an sms message from the Cressy Party just before 9 am that morning that she
was unable to collect them at 9 am as required by the 27 November Interim Orders) and
the Defendant returned his other three children to their mother at about 6 pm that
Saturday afternoon, after taking them swimming and watching the AFL Grand Final at
the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre.
75. On 30 September 2007, shortly after returning to 166 Queen Street Altona, the Cressy
Party became violent towards her three Cressy Children, including:
a. Striking her youngest child (the Defendant’s child) and assaulting her with
her half-size guitar (a gift from the Defendant) including smashing the guitar
through the child’s bedroom wall, above the child’s body, where the child laid
on her bed;
b. Smashing furniture and windows, and damaging walls;
c. Frightening all three of her children plus her 8 year old half-sister who was
also in the house;
d. Causing her 9 year old son and her 8 year old half-sister to run out of the
house to a neighbour, screaming for help, and causing the neighbour (a 61
year old retired psychiatric nurse) to call 000 police assistance.
Particulars
The abovementioned acts of violence by the Cressy Party against her children and
against the Defendant’s property 166 Queen Street Altona are partially recorded in
writing, including:
1. Report prepared by officers of the After Hours Child Protection Emergency Service
dated 30 September 2007;
2. Sworn Statement of Larissa Deak-Fabricant dated 17 October 2007.
76. The Department of Human Services, and the Child Protection Service (‘Child
Protection Service’) in particular owed the Defendant and the Cressy Children a duty
of care to properly investigate the Cressy Party’s assault and battery on 30 September
Page 32 of 158
200, but negligently, or alternatively, recklessly, failed to make a proper investigation, in
particular:
a. By failing to interview or discuss that incident with the attending police

officers, the neighbour who gave assistance to the Cressy Children and
witnessed part of and the aftermath of the incident, and the Defendant;
b. By naively accepting that the Cressy Party and her mother were truthful in
their statements to the Child Protection Service, without making any inquiries
to determine the truthfulness of either of them;
c. By failing to check with the Defendant as to the defamatory statements made

to the Child Protection Service by the Cressy Party and by her mother; and
d. If the Child Protection Service had properly investigated the incident they
would have determined that the incident was just one of many, a regular
pattern of behaviour that the Cressy Party employed, using violence and
emotional intimidation to control and manipulate the Cressy Children, and the
Defendant and other parties also.
77. By reason of the negligence and/or alternatively recklessness of the Child Protection
Service to properly investigate that incident of violence by the Cressy Party the
Defendant has suffered loss and damage, including injury and damage to his reputation
and feelings, directly and indirectly and including the failure of List to adequately
consider that incident in the context of his List Report (as defined below), and the
continuation of the Cressy Blackmail Scheme and the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby
Blackmail Scheme and the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Blackmail Scheme (as these
blackmail schemes are defined below).
78. The Cressy Party’s November Burglaring
At about 11 pm on the evening of Thursday 15 November 2007 the Cressy Party broke
into the Defendant’s then home at 2 Dorrington Street Point Cook while the Defendant
and the youngest of the three Cressy Children were sleeping, and stole a substantial
quantity of financial records and legal documents, correspondence and two phones
belonging to the Defendant (‘The Cressy Party’s November Burglaring’).
Page 33 of 158
Particulars
Details of the Cressy Party’s November Burglaring are recorded in writing including:
1. The Defendant’s burglary report to the Werribee Police Station dated 16 November
2007;
2. Victoria Police ‘Goods Receipt’ dated 2 December 2007 which lists property of the
Defendant that the Police recovered from the Cressy Party on execution of search
warrant against her at 166 Queen Street on 2 December 2007.
3.The Harwood’s December Repo Subpoena (as described below)
4. The Cressy Party’s Affidavit of 18 February 2008 in the Larger Proceedings (served
on the Defendant by Hanlon inside this Honourable Court on the morning of 19 February
2008 on a ‘without prejudice save as to costs’ basis, complete with additional original
correspondence belonging to the Defendant that the Cressy Party did not hand in to the
Police.
79. The Police only recovered about 80% of the documents and goods that the Cressy
Party stole from the Defendant in the Cressy Party’s November Burglaring, and only a
further 5% were returned to the Defendant by the Cressy Party and the Hanlon-
Harwood-Ingleby Parties on the morning of 19 February 2008. Approximately 15% of
the Defendant’s stolen property remains unaccounted for. Further, the Cressy Party
deleted from the Defendant’s two mobile phones approximately 600 photos stored on
those phones, including irreplaceable personal and holiday photos, photos of the
Defendant’s children and including photos that the Defendant intended to use as
evidence in the Cressy Child Protection Proceedings, the Larger Proceedings and
therefore also in these Dorrington Street Proceedings.
80. Cressy Party’s Malicious December Defamations
During November and December 2007 and in further pursuance and escalation of the
Cressy Blackmail Scheme the Cressy Party made malicious and defamatory statements
about the Defendant to the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties and the Devries-Berry-
Turnbull Parties and to David J List.
Particulars
Some of these statements made during November and December 2007 by the Cressy
Party may have been recorded in writing, but alas with questionable motives and even
more questionable accuracy in a report published by List and dated 17 December 2007
(‘List Report’), being a report that was prepared by a report writer of dubious ethical
Page 34 of 158
and professional capacities and reeking of highly suspicious personal habits, highly
suspicious intellectual and mental health afflictions and likely substance abuses, a man
who purports to be a psychologist and mental health care professional and purports to
carry on business as such in the North Fitzroy region of Melbourne and, for the
purposes of those undertakings, purportedly goes under the name of David J List
(‘List’), being a person who is way beyond all reasonable doubt one of the biggest, if
not the biggest, quacks and frauds ever to purport to have been associated in any way
shape or form with the Australian Psychologists Society.
81. The David List Defamations
List is and was at all reasonable times purporting to carry on business as a psychologist
under the business name ‘Park Street Consulting’ from premises at 276 Park, North
Fitzroy.
82. On or about 17 December 2007 List falsely and maliciously published a report (‘List
Report’) concerning the Defendant that, throughout that report contains statements by
List and statements by the Cressy Party that defame the Defendant, including:
a. (At page 15) ‘Pippa presented as a loving mother who has survived a
complicated and difficult relationship with James, only to be confronted by
what she viewed as a continuing campaign in which he effectively stalked
members of her family, her workplace, the school, and her, in order to
achieve his ends. It was, simply, not possible to dismiss her allegations as
fanciful or otherwise concocted, even though (as it emerged) there were
family secrets that had not previously been disclosed:’
b. (At page 15) ‘Pippa: After our first meeting, James immediately sent the
police around to do a check of the children, about half an hour after our
meeting here. The police were confused about why we were there, and then
realized that James was using them.’
c. (At page 15) ‘James has told the principal that I have battered the children. I
have documentation. The damage that James has created in the school
environment is beyond repair. The principal aided and abetted him in the
overholding period. The principal advised him to enroll (sic) the children in
Torquay. The Principal knew where they were the whole time. James cut
Page 35 of 158
Illyana’s hair while he had her there for two weeks, and claimed it was for
headlice. But a couple of visits later, he cut her hair again. I asked Illyana,
who said that she had woken in the morning to find hair on the bed. He’s
also bought her a mini bra and knicker set. He’s known my views for years
about this stuff, and don’t think it’s appropriate for kids to be sexualised. I
don’t make an issue with her about it because I didn’t want her to feel bad,
but told her I would keep them.’
d. (At page 15) ‘(‘re “working girl”) – This is not the first time James has brought
it up. He’s told the children that. Treece has been upset about it. He’s also
said that my 13-year-old sister is going to be working in a strip club. That’s all
I’ll say about it (tearful). He’s a horrible vindictive man who has been
defaming my character where I live, and I should have to defend myself? (2)
(2) When asked about the allegations of prostitution, Pippa acknowledged

that she works part-time as an “adult services provider” and that she had
effectively denied it during the assessment:
We BOTH worked together, and he registered as one too. This is the tip of
the Titanic. He forced me into prostitution some years ago. He came over
last week and yelled at the kids that I fucked men for money. I never take the
kids to work. I work while they’re at school, three days a week. I go when I’m
not being stalked by him or someone he sends after me. Treece is pretty
traumatised by James screaming at them last Thursday. He asked if it was
true. I’ll never discuss it with the children. It’s just not fair on the children –
why would a person do that to them? When you asked me, you asked me in
front of Matthew, who had no idea. He was pretty upset about it. I was put on
the spot.’
e. (At page 18) ‘Pippa: I would like that man [the Defendant] out of their lives,
but it’s night on impossible with Illyana. Treece is traumatized on a weekly
basis by James’ presence at school. James approaches the boys every week
and asks them to go with him. Two weeks ago Treece was hysterical after
Sky got in the car with James to go shopping or to a movie. Sky gets sucked
into this “present” stuff. Illyana had come back with a little bear, and Sky said
he would get one the next time.
Page 36 of 158
I don’t want this man in our lives, with continued harassment. He didn’t want
anything to do with them beforehand. Illyana loves him, and I think he’s a shit
dad, but I don’t want her to feel bad, and he IS a part of her life. I don’t want
to destroy that relationship…’
f. (At page 19) ‘Pippa: It seems that whatever fears I have about James with
Illyana her (sic) are irrelevant, unless I catch him doing something. I think
he’ll take his anger out on her if he doesn’t get his way. I also think he has
some sexual issues.
There was an incident a number of years ago when she was a baby, when
James confessed to me on Ecstasy that he’d left home at 19 because his
mother and sister had accused him of molesting his niece. There was blood
found in one of her nappies. I never spoke to his mother or sister about it,
because I didn’t know how to deal with it. I never asked him about it, because
I had a baby girl with him.
The first couple of visits after we separated, he bought her a little bra and
knickers set. If we went shopping together, I’d always have to stop him from
buying things that were too revealing. It was just very odd for him to buy a 7-
year-old girl a bra and knicker set. So I took it off her and told her it would
just be for dress up. I’ve never seen him DO anything; there’s just a yucky
feeling.
I ignored the warning signs earlier, so now I don’t want to ignore alarm bells
now. I’m afraid that if I do, things will happen later.
The principal reported an incident where James apparently slapped her at

school. If he’s doing those things in public …
In a perfect world, he’d fall of the face of the earth and disappear, and my
children and family would be safe.’
g. (At page 20) ’13. In relation to the allegations and/or speculations about the
father [the Defendant], they include a continuing campaign of attempted
Page 37 of 158
alienation, stalking (both individually and through the use of agents), coercive
attempts at intimidation, improper exploitation of the children in relation to the
dispute, theft from the mother’s residence, harassment of her and her family,
lying to the children that their mother had been placed in a psychiatric
hospital, and potentially paedophilic attitudes.’
h. (At page 20) ’14. I have troubling concerns about the father’s functioning,
and view him as suffering from a personality disorder featuring grandiose and
persecutory themes that significantly impair his ability to respond
empathically to the needs of the children.’
i. (At page 20) ’15. There is a significant kernel of what can be viewed as
fantasized role-playing in his approach to post-separation parenting….’
j. (At page 21) ’16. Similarly, my impression was that he found the exercise of
utilizing private investigators in a campaign to effectively “catch her out”
almost pleasurable, but with limited relationship to the mature consideration
of parenting issues.’
k. (At page 21) ’17. Rather, his utilization of private detectives, covert
surveillance, and the other tactics described above suggests a man who
views himself as the “very exceptional” saviour of all three children against
the misbegotten troubled person that is their mother….’
l. (At page 21) ’18. His trivialization of Matthew as a father seems consistent
with his view of himself as the heroic figure cast in the role of champion and
Matthew as an irrelevant, almost ghost like figure hovering in the background
further, he minimised and disregarded the relationships and the wishes of
both boys in their bond with Matthew.’
m. (At page 21) ’19. I have no doubt that James genuinely views himself as
operating from the children’s best interests; at the same time, it is of
considerable concern that there is a delusional quality to those grandiose
and persecutory themes raised above.’
n. (At page 21) ’20. Given these considerations, I have concerns about the
Page 38 of 158
lengths which James will go in pursuing what he characterised (albeit in
narrower terms) as his mission, particularly given his financial and intellectual
resources.’
o. (At page 23) ’30 (b) There are aspects of James that convey a subtle
incestuous quality, such as the alleged bra and knickers set, James’ reported
(by Illyana) interest in home schooling, the allegation made by Pippa about
incestuous behaviour, and the covert haircutting.’
p. (At page 25) ‘3. In any case, I strongly recommend (a) James undertakes
individual psychotherapy to address the issues raised above; (b) Contact is
re-assessed in six months for purposes of review.’
Particulars
83. The Defendant first became aware of the publication of the abovementioned statements
after 17 December 2008, on the publication of the List Report.
84. The words allegedly spoken by the Cressy Party to List and the words written by List
are words that in their natural and ordinary meaning mean and were understood to
mean that the Defendant:
a. is a person of bad character;
b. commits criminal offences, including theft, stalking, consuming of illicit drugs,

and sexual assault/s of an infant/s and child/ren;
c. suffers from psychiatric disorders, including delusions, grandiose themes
d. requires psychotherapy;
e. engages in incestuous and paedophilic activities;
f. prostitutes himself;
g. engages in human sex-slavery, that is, forcing other(s) into prostitution;
h. is ‘not a fit an proper person’ within the meaning of the licensing provisions of
Page 39 of 158
the Legal Practice Act 2004
i. is not a fit and proper person to be trusted with parental responsibilities or

care for any of his children.
85. By reason of the publication of the abovementioned words and by reason of the matters
aforesaid, the Defendant has been injured in his character, credit and reputation and his
position has been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt and he has suffered
loss and damage.
86. Alternatively, or additionally the Defendant has suffered loss or damage as a result of
the fraud and negligence, recklessness and defamatory conduct of the Defendant in
preparing and publishing the abovementioned report and the Defendant says that List
did so and was actuated by malice.
Particulars of fraud and negligence

List recklessly, deliberately or negligently failing to take proper care or any care in the
interviewing and/or (lack of) investigations and/or preparation of the report.
List recklessly, deliberately or negligently failing to adopt a proper methodology,
consistent with applicable industry standards and practice, for the preparation of such
reports.
Reporting statements by the Cressy Party and by himself that List well knew at all times
that they were made by the Cressy Party or by himself were false, or but for his reckless
indifference ought to have known.
List recklessly, deliberately or negligently manipulated statements made by the
Defendant and substantially omitted other material statements made by the Defendant
so as to produce a biased and distorted representation of the Defendant.
87. Additionally, or alternatively, the Defendant has suffered loss and damage by reason of
List deliberately and/or negligently and/or maliciously and/or recklessly participating in a
scheme with the Cressy Party to manipulate and/or manufacture and/or create
allegations and covert them into a specie of evidence in the guise of expert opinion to
undermine the Defendant’s legal and profession and emotional and psychological
standings.
88. Further, the Defendant has suffered loss and damage by reason that if List had
prepared a proper, professional, unbiased and accurate report the Hanlon-Harwood-
Page 40 of 158
Ingleby Parties and the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties would not have been so foolish,
and/or reckless and/or malicious as to have extended to the Cressy Party legal services
on credit which according to their valuations of their dubious services the Defendant
estimates must be at present be in excess of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000).
89. Harwood’s December Repo Theft
On 7 December 2007 Hanlon and Harwoods issued a subpoena out of the Federal
Magistrates Court at Melbourne (‘Harwood’s December Repo Theft Subpoena’)
pursuant to the Cressy Child Protection Proceedings, requiring the Victorian Police to
deliver up into that Honourable Court ‘all notes, memoranda, deeds, documents and
mobile telephones seized under search warrant from the premises at 166 Queen Street,
Altona on Saturday 1 December 2007 from Pippin Cressy including in particular the
following mobile telephones: (a) Telephone number 0411 205 692; and (b) Telephone
number 0448 526 370.’, being the Defendant’s two mobile phones and the Defendant’s
financial and personal records, correspondence and other possessions comprised in
that part of the loot stolen by the Cressy Party in her November burglary of the
Defendant’s then home.
Particulars
The Harwood’s December Repo Theft Subpoena is in writing.
Such part of the Defendant’s financial and personal records, correspondences and other
possessions as seized and recovered from the Cressy Party by the Victoria Police
acting under search warrant, including the Defendant’s two mobile phones, are held
under restrictions by the Federal Magistrates Court pursuant to the Victoria Police’s
response to the Harwood’s December Repo Theft Subpoena.
90. At the time that Hanlon and Harwoods issued the Harwood’s December Repo Theft
Subpoena both of them and the Cressy Party knew or ought but for their recklessness to
know, that that subpoena:
a. was an abuse of the process of that Honourable Federal Magistrates Court;

and
b. was an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court,
because:
Page 41 of 158
c. they knew or but for their recklessness ought to have known that the stolen
loot was of no relevance to the matters in issue in those Cressy Child
Protection Proceedings (with the exceptions of photographs that the
Defendant had taken and kept stored on the Defendant’s mobile phones but
such evidence having been by that date destroyed by the Cressy Party);
and/or alternatively
d. it was issued for ulterior purposes namely:
i. in furtherance of the Cressy Blackmail Scheme (as defined above);
ii. in furtherance of the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Blackmail Scheme (as

defined below);
iii. Not to vindicate any rights of the Cressy Party
iv. Not to vindicate any rights of the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties (as

defined below);
but to intimidate, oppress and to vex the Defendant and to cause more
financial and psychological harm to the Defendant so as to extract
additional and unlawfully enrichment for the Cressy Party and for
Harwood and Ingleby and Hanlon at the expense of the Defendant.
91. The Defendant’s Disclosure Letters
Between July 2007 and November 2007 the Defendant wrote numerous letters to the
solicitor for the Cressy Party protesting the fraudulent and malicious and vexatious
nature of the Cressy Party’s claims contained in the Cressy Caveat (‘Defendant’s
Disclosure Letters’).
Particulars
The Defendant’s Disclosure Letters are in writing and copies of them are held by the
Defendant’s solicitors and are available for inspection by the parties to these Dorrington
Street Proceedings by prior appointment.
Page 42 of 158
92. Hanlon and Harwood, in clear breach of rules of professional etiquette and demeanour
and behaviour:
a. ignored those Disclosure Letters, entirely;
b. failed to make any independent investigations of the facts stated therein (to
the extent that they contradicted the Cressy Party’s allegations and
instructions to them);
c. failed to bring any independent mind to assessing the body of evidence

before them before promoting the Cressy Party in the issuance of the Larger
Proceedings;
d. refused to enter into negotiation discussions with the Defendant, as the

Defendant was desperately seeking, in order to prevent this scandal (and the
extent of the Cressy Party’s scandalous history) ever being presented in any
Court proceedings.
93. By letter dated 11 February 2008 written to Hanlon and Harwood the Defendant states,
in part, as follows:
‘4. In relation to your client’s Supreme Court claim:
• I am sad to report that your pleadings are a total fabrication:
o They totally misdescribe your client.

o If she was even ¼ of the woman described in those pleadings, do you
really think that things would have got to this position or that the
current legal proceedings would ever have been initiated.
• Your client cannot establish a de facto relationship. Not with me, at least.
Not for any relevant period:
o Prior to and even after Illyana’s birth your client and I lived apart.
o Check Illyana’s birth certificate for obvious confirmation of these
Page 43 of 158
details.
o For the past 5 or 6 years, your client and I have lived apart.
• Evidence will be produced and relevant persons will be subpoenaed at trial,

to establish that your client has been since September 2006 or earlier
(further investigations pending):
o Simultaneously and unbeknown to them (presumably) or to myself,

the mistress of 2 or 3 different men – Marc, Zac and David (note: she
was not my mistress by this time); all three gentlemen, Marc’s wife,
and others will be subpoenaed to give testimony (including a fourth
long-term paramour, Peter Cockram, whose name appears in Ms
Cressy’s subpoenaed, but to my knowledge woefully incompletely
disclosed, police record).
o Simultaneously (unbeknown to me and in breach of her agreement

with me not to do this) working as an ‘adult services provider’ in 3
different Melbourne establishments and at least one Sydney
establishment.
o In order to pursue those other, multiple lives, shamefully neglecting

the basic needs of the children, food, medicine, clothing, social
activities and basic routines, and regularly abandoning them to the
care [read, ‘neglect’] of her mother or (latterly, specifically from
February 2007 after years of total absence) Mr Laity.
o Engaging in substantial alcohol and substance abuses; details of

these too will be provided at and prior to trial.
o And all the while fraudulently taking thousands of dollars monthly

from me in cash and benefits (free housing, paid utilities, telephony,
Foxtel, services, living allowance) that were supposed to be to
provider her and the children with a stable home and so on the
misrepresented basis that she had and was to continue to be
‘permanently and for many years’ retired from those alternative lives.’
Page 44 of 158
• Your client cannot establish financial or non-financial contributions; the claim
is defamatory in the circumstances:
o All she has contributed is misery and debt. Mr Hanlon has better
access than me to all of my relevant property and financial records,
all of which have been stolen by your client. My stolen records, to the
extent that your client has not destroyed them or fabricated others,
readily establish this.
o Only a portion of my records have been ‘retrieved’ via Mr Hanlon’s
questionable subpoena of those my goods and records, stolen by
your client, that were recovered from your client by the Police and
lodged with the Federal Magistrates Court.
o There is no way that Ms Cressy has, or I would ever have allowed her
to have, contributed financially to any of my assets or my lifestyle;
There is no way that I would ever have ‘pooled resources’ or acquired
any assets ‘jointly’ with your client.
• Your client has never had any relationship with any of my first born three
children, David, Dylan and Jessica.
• It is very rare for a professional man, a generous and caring man, such as I:
o To receive a blackmail demand

o From an insane person
o A person such as your client
o That has been penned for her
o By two gentlemen of the law
o And served under the auspices of the Supreme Court.
o And by way of a coda, I can hardly conceive that either of you

gentlemen can or could claim ignorance of the true circumstances of
your client’s fraud and deception.
….
Page 45 of 158
I attach for your information a copy of my credentials document. This is the
document that so grossly offended good Doctor List. I provided this to him as
part of my plea (‘begging’ would not be too strong a word) that he listen to me
and consider the competing stories (my truths; your client’s crazy lies) and that
he take the time required to do the best job he could having regard to his
responsibilities towards Illyana, Sky and Treece and the extremely complicated
situation, which I explained to him partly in confidence (eg as to your client’s
insane promiscuity). I explained that I am a very honest, dedicated and
professional man and asked that my pleas not be wholesale ignored. Said
Doctor List is patently the most lazy, egoist, malicious and unprofessional person
I have come across in my two decades of professional life. I hope nobody ever
has cause to make the same remarks or formal complaints about either of you in
the near future. …’
94. By letter dated 14 April 2008 the Defendant wrote to the Harwood addressed to the
Acting Chairman of that firm, Warwick Nelson (who was and had been at all relevant
times for the previous 9 years senior external legal counsel to the Defendant in the
Defendant’s capacity as senior in-house counsel for a major Government authority and
one of Harwood’s largest and longest established clients) informing Harwood of the gist
of the Cressy Blackmail Scheme, and Hanlon’s duplicity and malfeasance in the
promotion of that scheme, including the following statements:
‘Dear Warwick
Thank you for your letter of 1 April 2008.
It was a relief to finally see an intelligent and thoughtful letter in these

proceedings, worthy of Harwood Andrews’ letterhead.
These are of course difficult times and many of us, not just myself but other
professionals that have been drawn into Ms Cressy’s hysteria (both willingly and
against their will) are being tested to see whether they can maintain their
professional and personal values in the current maelstrom.
Page 46 of 158
I very much regret that you and Richard are drawn into these proceedings. My
letter of 10 April 2008 was to forewarn you that you and Richard will both be
subpoenaed as character witnesses in both proceedings. I regret that this has
become necessary. This is not my choice.
1. Ms Cressy and her claims are not the sort of person or claims that should be
anywhere near a Court of Law. And yet they are being played out in 4 of them –
Victorian Magistrates Court, Victorian VCAT, Federal Magistrates Court and
Victorian Supreme Court.
2. I tried until the last month to keep Ms Cressy’s problems out of the Courts and,
indeed there should never have been lawyers involved at all. Unfortunately she
forced my hand. Given that her psychological needs are much greater, I now
realise, than I had thought during all of the prior time I have known her. I had
until early 2007 sought to address her problems on my own. I am hopeful that
some good may come from these Court proceedings, in the form of long-term
psychological and psychiatric (and basic general medical) help that of course I
cannot provide her.
3. I am now forced to describe Ms Cressy’s history and her relationship to me in

Affidavit form in these proceedings. A task that I hope to complete before the
end of this week. It is not a task that I relish. I have major forebodings that this
new escalated step in proceedings will trigger more of her destructive behaviours
towards herself and her children (only a thin sample of which have been
demonstrated in these proceedings to date – see point 6 of my facsimile of 12:30
pm today). Briefly:
13. What am I seeking from Harwood Andrews?
a. I believe that Harwood Andrews and the Law Institute can best deal with
Hanlon’s disgraceful conduct.
b. Ms Cressy having caused me much financial loss and anguish (let alone
what she has also caused the children), based on Harwood Andrew’s
Page 47 of 158
questionable advice, and given that Ms Cressy has no resources to pay
compensation, I believe that Harwood Andrews (directly or as claims made
against its PI cover) should pay me further full and appropriate
compensation.
16. For the reasons given above, I would much rather resolve this matter without
trial if at all possible. The prospects of a trial carries too great a risk of triggering
the worst of Ms Cressy’s behaviour, including towards her children. A trial, or
even the information in this letter, if not used wisely by the cabal of family
lawyers receiving it, could even trigger an even greater outburst of anger and
violence than they or I have witnessed previously from Ms Cressy.’
Particulars
That letter of 14 April 2008 from the Defendant to Harwood is in writing and is attached
to this document.
95. Partial Withdrawals of the Cressy Caveat and Full Withdrawal of the First Harwood
Caveat
In early November 2007, in response to the Defendant’s Disclosure Letters the Cressy
Party, without explanation or qualification or any other communication with the
Defendant whatsoever, withdrew from the Cressy Caveat one of the six freehold
properties contained in the Defendant’s Property Portfolio, namely 9/2 Gibson Street
Altona.
Particulars
The instrument withdrawing 9/2 Gibson Street Altona from the Cressy Caveat is in
writing and was lodged for the Cressy Party by Hanlon and/or Harwood for registration
by the Registrar of Titles.
96. During November or December 2007 Hanlon and/or Harwood, without explanation or
qualification or any communication with the Defendant whatsoever, fully withdrew the
First Harwood Caveat.
Particulars
Page 48 of 158
The instrument withdrawing the First Harwood Caveat is in writing and was lodged for
Harwood by Hanlon and/or Harwood for registration by the Registrar of Titles.
97. In January 2007, in response to the Defendant’s Disclosure Letters the Cressy Party
withdrew from the Cressy Caveat a second of the six freehold properties contained in
the Defendant’s Property Portfolio, namely 12 Lisa Court Hoppers Crossing, to allow the
Defendant to sell that property pursuant to a contract of sale dated 18 November 2007
(’12 Lisa Court On-Sale Contract’) and to allow the Defendant to fully discharge the 12
Lisa Court Mortgage and fully discharge the Lisa Hawkhurst Second Mortgage and to
reduce his indebtedness under the 10 Hawkhurst Court Mortgage by approximately
twenty eight thousand dollars ($28,000), that is, from about one hundred and thirty eight
thousand dollars ($138,000) to about one hundred and ten thousand dollars ($110,000).
Particulars
The instrument withdrawing 12 Lisa Court from the Cressy Caveat is in writing and was
lodged by for the Cressy Party by Hanlon and/or Harwood for registration by the
Registrar of Titles.
98. The Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Blackmail Scheme
From the issue and registration in May 2007 of the First Harwood Caveat over that part
of the Defendant’s Property Portfolio known as 166 Queen Street, David William
Hanlon, Harwood Andrews Pty Ltd and Richard Ingleby (the latter, ‘Ingleby’ and all
three of them, collectively, the ‘Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties’) have engaged in an
unlawful scheme to oppress and vex the Defendant and cause the Defendant serious
financial and emotional and psychological loss and damage in order to unjustly enrich
themselves at the Defendant’s expense (the ‘Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Blackmail
Scheme’).
99. There are elements to the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Blackmail Scheme, including as

follows:
a. The Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties would extend their services to the

Cressy Party, free of charge (and estimated as at that date of this
Counterclaim to be in the order of $80,000) in exchange for the Cressy Party
purporting to give them a mortgagee interest over the Defendant’s property
166 Queen Street Altona;
Page 49 of 158
b. The Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties would lodge and register caveats for
the Cressy Party and for Hanlon in order to inhibit the Defendant from
dealing with his properties (the Defendant’s Property Portfolio) knowing, or
but for their recklessness ought to have been knowing, that the Defendant
needed to dispose of some of his properties in order to be able to continue to
meet his mortgage obligations on his remaining properties;
c. The Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties would issue legal proceedings (the

Larger Proceedings) to support their register caveats for the Cressy Party
and for Hanlon in order to inhibit the Defendant from dealing with his
properties (the Defendant’s Property Portfolio) knowing, or but for their
recklessness ought to have been knowing, that the Defendant needed to
dispose of some of his properties in order to be able to continue to meet his
mortgage obligations on his remaining properties;
d. The Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties would engage in a smear campaign

against the Defendant along the same lines and in furtherance of the Cressy
Party’s Blackmail Scheme;
e. The Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties would abuse their positions as officers

of the Court and abuse the process of the Court, including by:
i. commencing (defending) and continuing and conducting legal
proceedings (the Larger Proceedings and the Cressy Child Protection
Proceedings) on behalf of the Cressy Party in the knowledge that they
had no worthwhile prospects of success in the proceedings in order to
vex the Defendant or in circumstances where had they given
reasonable attention to the relevant law and facts the respondent would
have had such knowledge;
ii. accepted instructions to conduct the proceedings in a manner designed
to obstruct and delay and pervert the course of justice in the hearing of
both of the Larger Proceedings and the Cressy Children Support
Proceedings and did in fact conduct the proceedings in a manner
designed to so obstruct and delay and pervert those hearings;
f. The Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties would abuse their positions as officers
of the Court and abuse the process of the Court, including by:and by
Page 50 of 158
committing other acts of malfeasance including breaching their following
duties owed by them to the Court and members of the public in Victoria,
including the Defendant, as follows:
i. a duty to uphold the law.
ii. a duty not to subvert the law.
iii. a duty not to participate in a transaction which involves a breach of

the law.
iv. a duty not to abuse the court’s processes by the improper initiation or
maintenance of court proceedings.
v. a duty not to initiate or maintain proceedings that are for the benefit
the solicitor and not for the benefit of the client.
vi. a duty to have specific instructions and an appropriate evidentiary

foundation before pleading or alleging fraud or dishonesty.
vii. a duty not to initiate or continue an action unreasonably where it has

no or substantially no chance of success.
viii. a duty to refrain from conduct which may tend to defeat justice.
ix. a duty not to consciously mislead the court.
x. a duty not to knowingly conceal facts so as to present a misleading

body of information to the court.
xi. a duty not to make an untrue statement to the court.
xii. a duty not to make a false affidavit.
xiii. a duty not to allow a deponent to make a false affidavit.
Page 51 of 158
xiv. a duty not to conspire to defeat the ends of justice by knowingly using
a false affidavit.
xv. a duty not to be a party to the use of an affidavit by which the lawyer
subsequently discovers to be false.
xvi. a duty of complete candour and honesty. A lawyer must not keep any
information from the court which ought to be before it or in any way
mislead the court by stating facts which are untrue, mislead a judge
as to the true facts or knowingly permit a client to attempt to deceive
the court.
xvii. a duty to communicate to the court facts suppressed by a client (with

or without the client consenting to the communication).
100. Fraudulent Commencement of Larger Proceedings
On or about 26 November 2007 the Cressy Party commenced the Larger Proceedings
by Statement of Claim (‘Cressy Statement of Claim’) and Writ dated 26 November
2007.
Particulars
The Cressy Statement of Claim is in writing and a copy of it is attached to this
document.
A copy of the Cressy Statement of Claim is held by the Defendant’ solicitors and is
appointment with the Defendant’s solicitors.
101. In the Cressy Statement of Claim the Cressy Party and the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby
Parties jointly make and make with malice a number of grossly false and fraudulent and
defamatory statements, including:
‘1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant lived in a domestic relationship (“the
relationship”) within the terms of section 275 of the Property Law Act (“the Act”)
from about September 1998 to about May 2007.
Particulars
Page 52 of 158
1.1 The Plaintiff and the Defendant started to live together as a couple on a
genuine domestic basis at 12 Illouera Avenue, Grovedale in the State of
Victoria from about September 2008.
1.2 In about 1999 the Plaintiff and the Defendant moved together to a rented
house in Gheringhap Street, Geelong where they lived together as a couple
on a genuine domestic basis;
1.3 In about 2001 the Plaintiff and the Defendant moved together to a rented
premises in South Yarra where they lived together as a couple on a genuine
domestic basis;
1.4 From about 2003 to about September 2006 the Plaintiff and the Defendant
lived at 2 Dorrington Street, Point Cook in the State of Victoria being the land
more particularly described in Certificate of Title Volume 10649 Folio 841
(“Dorrington Street”) where they lived together as a couple on a genuine
domestic basis;
1.5 From about September 2006 until about May 2007 the Plaintiff and the
Defendant lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis at 166
Queen Street, Altona in the State of Victoria being the land more particularly
described in Certificate of Title Volume 4948 Folio 514 (“Queen Street”).
6. In about August 2002 the parties purchased Dorrington Street in the name of
the Defendant.
…
8. In about February 2003 the parties purchased in the name of the Defendant
the property situate at and known as 10 Hawkhurst Court, Hoppers Crossing in
the State of Victoria being the land more particularly described in Certificate of
Title Volume 10666 Folio 331 (“Hawkhurst Court”).
10. In about February 2003 the parties purchased in the name of the Defendant
the property situate at and known as 12 Lisa Court, Hoppers Crossing ….’
Page 53 of 158
’11. The parties purchased Lisa Court for the purposes of providing
accommodation for the Plaintiff’s mother, GAIL CRESSY; and on the basis of an
agreement between the parties and GAIL CRESSY that Lisa Court would be
transferred to the Plaintiff’s mother when she obtained full-time employment and
was therefore in a position to fund mortgage repayments.’
12. In about May 2003 the parties purchased in the name of the Defendant the
property situate at and known as 7 Inverloch Drive, Point Cook in the State of
Victoria being the land more particularly described in Certificate of Title Volume
10649 Folio 840 (“Inverloch Drive”)….’
’14. In about June 2006 the parties purchased Queen Street in the name of the
Defendant.
15. The Plaintiff has made significant contributions to the acquisition,

conservation and improvement of Queen Street within the terms of section
285(1)(a) of the Act by:
a. locating the property within an area that was undervalued;

b. securing a purchase price of $520,000 which was well below the quoted
figure of “high $600,000s”;
c. paying $25,000 towards the deposit of $50,000;
…
j. paying $30,000 for the installation of a kitchen after removing the old one.
16. The Plaintiff made financial contributions to the acquisition of Dorrington

Street, Hawkhurst Court, Lisa Court, Inverloch Drive and Queen Street (“the 5
properties”) within the terms of section 285(1)(a) of the Act by contributing the
income from her employment:
a. selling handmade jewellery at the Surf Coast wholesale market in Geelong

between 1997 and 1999;
b. As Manager of the Gallery of Artemis in Geelong between 1999 and 2001;
c. As Le Reve aromatherapy consultant, Melbourne between 2001 and 2003;
d. As Holistic Therapist at The Cinnamon Theory, mobile treatments, Melbourne
between 2003 and 2007
Page 54 of 158
To fund the parties’ living expenses (save for the rent from 1999, mortgages after
2002 and amenities) by paying for ….. in circumstances where the Defendant did
not contribute the totality of his earnings to the expenses of the household.
17. The Plaintiff has made significant contributions to the welfare of the
Defendant within the terms of section 285(1)(b) of the Act by:
a. Assuming the overwhelming responsibility for the management of the

residences in which the parties resided by performing almost entirely the acts
of cooking, cleaning, washing, shopping and child-care;
b. Supporting the Defendant’s care of his children of his previous marriage …
20. Since separation the Defendant has made it more difficult for the Plaintiff to
care for their child by:
a. Repossessing the motor vehicle which had been purchased in 1998 for her
to transport the children;
b. Evicting the Plaintiff’s mother from Lisa Court;
c. Attending Queen Street with a private investigator on 1 November 2007 to
threaten the Plaintiff, their children and her mother that he was going to:
i. Have them evicted from the property;
ii. Have the property knocked down by Christmas so that there
would be “only rubble left” and she would have “nowhere to
live”….’
’21. In the alternative, in about September 1998 the Plaintiff and the Defendant
started to live together in a joint relationship.
22. The purposes of the joint relationship included the provision of mutual
support for their mutual security and benefit.
23. The Plaintiff and the Defendant pooled and/or combined their resources for
the purposes of their joint relationship and for their mutual security and benefit….
28. By reason of paragraphs 23 to 27 above it would be unconscionable for the
Page 55 of 158
Defendant to assert his sole legal title to the 5 properties against the Plaintiff at
the conclusion of their joint relationship.
29. By reason of the above the Defendant hold his interest in the 5 properties on
trust for the Plaintiff and the Defendant in equal shares at the conclusion of their
joint relationship.’
102. The Cressy Statement of Claim by which the Cressy Party commenced the Larger
Proceedings is an abuse of the processes of this Honourable Court.
103. The Cressy Party well knew at all times that the representations made by her in the
Cressy Statement of Claim were false.
104. The Cressy Statement of Claim was not commenced by the Cressy Party for the
purposes of vindicating any legal rights the Cressy Party may have against the
Defendant or the Defendant’s Property Portfolio, but was brought by the Cressy Party
and the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties for ulterior purposes, namely:
a. as a further step in the Cressy Blackmail Scheme; and
b. as a further step in the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Blackmail Scheme; and
c. to cause more and aggravated financial and emotional harm to the

Defendant, by depriving the Defendant of his ability to dispose of some of the
properties comprised in the Defendant’s Property Portfolio, at a time when
the Defendant’s gross income had fallen below the Defendant’s mortgage
obligations on the Defendant’s Property Portfolio, and the Defendant was
under considerable financial stress.
105. Defendant’s Attempted Orderly Liquidation of Defendant’s Property Portfolio
On 13 January 2008 the Defendant wrote to the Cressy Party and the Hanlon-Harwood-
Ingleby Parties letters:
a. advising them that he had entered into contracts for on-sale of 12 Lisa Court,
due for settlement on 18 January 2008, 166 Queen Street for settlement due on
22 February 2008 (‘166 Queen Street On-Sale Contract’), 2 Dorrington Street
Page 56 of 158
for settlement on 11 March 2008 (‘2 Dorrington Street On-Sale Contract’) and
7 Inverloch Drive (‘7 Inverloch Drive On-Sale Contract’) due for settlement on
11 March 2008; and
b. inviting the Cressy Party to either purchase (with assistance from the Defendant)
or to lease from the Defendant the remaining property in the Defendant’s
Property Portfolio, 10 Hawkhurst Court.
Particulars
The 166 Queen Street On-Sale Contract, the 2 Dorrington Street On-Sale Contract and
the 7 Inverloch Drive On-Sale Contract are all in writing.
Copies of the 166 Queen Street On-Sale Contract, the 2 Dorrington Street On-Sale
Contract and the 7 Inverloch Drive On-Sale Contract are held by the Defendant’s
solicitors and are available to be inspected by the parties to these Dorrington Street
Proceedings by prior appointment.
That letter from the Defendant to the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties is in writing. A
copy of that letter is held by the Defendant’s Solicitors and is available to be inspected
by the parties to these Dorrington Street Proceedings by prior appointment.
106. There were terms and conditions to the 166 Queen Street On-Sale Contract, including
that the contract price was seven hundred and seventy thousand dollars ($770,000) for
settlement on 21 February 2008 and the purchaser’s settlement obligations were
‘unconditional’ (that is to say, the contract was not subject to any purchaser financing
conditions or any other or unusual conditions affecting the purchaser’s performance
obligations).
107. There were terms and conditions to the 2 Dorrington Street On-Sale Contract, including
that the contract price was three hundred and forty five thousand dollars ($345,000 for
settlement on 17 March 2008 and the purchaser’s settlement obligations were
obligations).
108. There were terms and conditions to the 7 Inverloch Drive On-Sale Contract, including
that the contract price was one hundred and fifty five thousand dollars ($155,000) for
settlement on 11 March 2008 and the purchaser’s settlement obligations were
Page 57 of 158
obligations).
109. By reason of the Cressy Caveat the Cressy Party obstructed and prevented and
frustrated the Defendant’s efforts to sell 166 Queen Street Altona, 2 Dorrington Street
and 7 Inverloch Drive pursuant to the abovementioned on-sale contracts and those
opportunities have now been lost.
110. By reason of the Second Harwood Caveat the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties

obstructed and prevented and frustrated the Defendant’s efforts to sell 166 Queen
Street Altona pursuant to the abovementioned on-sale contract and those opportunities
have now been lost.
111. On 8 November 2008 Perpetual as mortgagee in possession of 166 Queen Street

Altona sold that property at auction for six hundred and twenty seven thousand dollars
($627,000) being some one hundred and forty three thousand dollars ($143,000) less
than the price at which, but for the conduct of the Cressy Party and the Hanlon-
Harwood-Ingleby Parties, the Defendant could have sold that property in March 2008
pursuant to the 166 Queen Street On-Sale Contract.
112. Mandie Abusive Process Practice Court Hearing
On or about 13 February 2008 the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties on their own behalf

and on behalf of the Cressy Party issued a Summons on Originating Motion (sic) under
the auspices of the Larger Proceedings and returnable before a Judge in the Practice
Court of this Honourable Court on 19 February 2008 (‘Mandie Practice Court
Summons’) seeking purported interlocutory orders:
a. Restraining the Defendant from proceeding with any sale of 166 Queen
Street Altona;
b. Requiring the Defendant to disclose his personal and financial information in

respect of three of his properties in the Defendant’s Property Portfolio,
namely 166 Queen Street Altona, 2 Dorrington Street and 7 Endeavour Drive
Altona.
Particulars
Page 58 of 158
The Mandie Practice Court Summons is in writing.
A copy of the Mandie Practice Court Summons is held by the Defendant’s Solicitors and
is available to be inspected by the parties to these Dorrington Street Proceedings by
prior appointment.
113. In support (sic) of the Mandie Practice Court Summons the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby
Parties on their own behalf and on behalf of the Cressy Party filed and served an
Affidavit sworn by the Cressy Party and dated 12 February 2008 (‘Mandie Practice
Court Summons Cressy Supporting Affidavit’).
Particulars
The Mandie Practice Court Summons Cressy Supporting Affidavit is in writing.
A copy of the Mandie Practice Court Summons Cressy Supporting Affidavit is held by
the Defendant’s Solicitors and is available to be inspected by the parties to these
114. At the Practice Court Hearing on 19 February 2008 Mr Justice Mandie:
a. adjourned the matter to hearing on 12 March 2008; then

b. at the insistence of Ingleby, including Ingleby’s handing up of a written one
page submission containing statements that Ingelby and the Cressy Party
and the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties knew or but for their recklessness
ought to have known contained untrue and misleading statements, made an
interim order (pending a hearing of that summons on March 2008) that the
Defendant be restrained in the meantime from selling 166 Queen Street
Altona, and Mr Justice Mandie made that order without allowing, and in fact
refusing to allow, any submissions from the Defendant who was self-
represented at that hearing.
Particulars
The orders made by Mr Justice Mandie in the Practice Court of this Honourable Court
are in writing. A copy is held by the Defendant’s solicitor and is available for inspection
115. Termination of Cressy Children Support Agreement
By letter dated 27 February 2008 to the Cressy Party the Defendant wrote to the Cressy
Party, in response to the Cressy Party’s continued abuse of the Cressy Child Support
Page 59 of 158
Agreement and in response to the defamations of the Cressy Party and List as
published in the List Report, and in terms including as follows:
‘Ms Pippin Cressy

C/- 166 Queen Street
Altona Victoria 3018
BY EXPRESS POST (6 PAGES)
Dear Pippin,
Victorian Supreme Court Proceedings No. 9665 of 2007 – Living

Arrangements
I refer to the hearing in this matter on 19 February 2008, which has been
adjourned for re-hearing on 12 March 2008.
Background
Pippin, I am deeply disappointed with your attempts to extort further property
and money from me. I have at all times sought to treat you fairly. I have given
you every financial and emotional support to give you the opportunity to choose
a better life for yourself and your children, including my Illyana. It distresses me
no end the choices you have made.
I am equally disappointed with the behaviour of ‘your’ solicitors, Harwood
Andrews, and Mr David Hanlon in particular. No doubt you and Mr Hanlon have
both mislead eachother and have only eachother and yourselves to blame for
the situations you are both in. I am confident that Mr Hanlon will soon get what
is coming to him. I hope, for the sake of the children, that justice is a little kinder
for you, at least in the long-term.
I don’t think that Harwood Andrews yet realise the extent of the gross
misconduct by your solicitor (‘Hanlon’), or the magnitude of my cross-claim
against him and that firm. Nor do they perhaps realise the magnitude of the
claim which you have against them for professional misconduct, negligence and
conflicts of interest.
It is ironic that what you/they began as a fraudulent set of claims against me has
given rise to substantial, real claims by each of us against him/them.
I am communicating my claims about Mr Hanlon directly with Harwood Andrews.
I suggest that you should speak with a competent, independent solicitor,
perhaps a ‘no win no fee’ practitioner, who will no doubt relish the opportunity to
extract a sizable settlement for you from Harwood Andrews.
166 Queen Street Altona
Pippin, I don’t understand how you can continue to live at this property, with all
three children (7, 9 and 12 years) plus your two-half sisters (8 and 13 years) and
your mother (50 years, and the less said about her, clearly the better).
• You have lived there for some twenty months now, without paying anything
towards my costs of owning the property.
• I purchased it in June 2006 with 90% plus bank finance, and have been
paying in excess of $3,000 a month in mortgage payments, up until October
Page 60 of 158
2007 when I ran out of money to meet the mortgage payments.
• In early November 2007 I wrote to your solicitor (‘Hanlon’):
o Explaining that my ability to continue to meet my mortgage

obligations for the property was conditional on you accepting
responsibility – paying rent – for your occupation of the property. I
pointed out that it was outrageous that your mother, having just been
evicted from another of my properties, owing me in excess of 7
months rental arrears, should also expect or be comfortable about
living there with you on a rent free basis.
o Offering a number of possibilities, such as:
 subdivision of the property, so that you might purchase the

front half of the block, plus the existing dwelling (putting the
property, perhaps into a price range that you might be able to
afford - with financial support from one of your paramours);
 a rental arrangement (in which case, I could have offset your

rental obligations in part by my child support payments for
Illyana).
• My former solicitor had written to Hanlon months earlier, in July 2008 seeking
to commence negotiations. Hanlon ignored her too.
• From November 2007 onwards neither you nor Hanlon gave me any
response whatever to these suggestions of mine. Despite my writing to
Hanlon in no uncertain terms that my letters required urgent response and
should not be ignored, as Hanlon had ignored all of my letters to him prior to
that date, well, yes he simply ignored me again.
• Worse than being simply ignored, Hanlon has proceeded to selectively

misquote my letters (by exhibiting the preliminary one and choosing still to
ignore my detailed letter as described above; Hanlon has deliberately (or
incompetently) sought about to produce false and misleading
representations of me, and my attempts to open negotiations for what should
have been a very reasonable and very generous outcome for you.
• Since September 2007 I have suffered further business and financial set-
backs and substantially reduced income levels. The explanation for these
goes beyond the scope of this letter, which is intended to be primarily an
offer of occupancy of my property at 10 Hawkhurst Court, Hoppers Crossing
(see below). However you will be aware that your conduct towards me and
the children has been the primary cause of my loss of earnings and loss of
business direction for 2007 calendar year.
• In late December 2007, given:
o lack of response from Hanlon or yourself to my invitations to you to

purchase or lease the property;
o that I had by December fallen some two or three months into
Page 61 of 158
mortgage arrears (that’s $10,000 (approx) arrears in three months;
o that I had no prospects of making any mortgage payments on this

property in the near future;
o I was receiving default notices from the mortgagee for this property,
as well as from mortgagees of other properties,
I had no choice but to reluctantly enter into a contract for sale of the
property.
• Selling the property (and three of the four others) was, in the circumstances,
the only way that I could forestall legal action by my mortgagee against me.
• If you have or had any prospect of being able to afford to rent or to buy all or
part of the property, then you should have come forward, and Hanlon should
have come forward, in November last year.
• It is outrageous that you are seeking to prevent my sale of the property from
proceeding.
• If I don’t sell the property to the purchaser as I am bound to do by contract:
o then the mortgagee will simply step in.
o I have already suffered substantial financial loss and damages from

your extortionate caveats (registered in May 2007 against 6 of my
properties) and your statement of claim in these proceedings
(claiming against 5 of my properties); these losses will grow
exponentially if the mortgagee steps in.
o You have no income, property or assets even to pay an order for my

legal costs, when your claims are thrown out by the Court, let alone
my damages bill;
o Third party rights, not just my mortgagee but also the purchaser of
the property, will be adversely affected.
10 Hawkhurst Court Hoppers Crossing

You and your mother have had ample opportunity to organise suitable
alternative accommodation for the two of you and your five children (not double
counting yourself).
I have no legal obligation to pay for your housing. Clearly I have no obligation to
provide your mother with a home to live in either.
• You have to realise that my past generosity was simply that, generosity
without any obligation to support you or your two sons. To the extent that
you lied and cheated to obtain money and other goods and benefits (such as
free housing since Illyana was 10 months old), then I am entitled to
repayment from you of all of that money as you obtained it by fraud. Of
course, there is no point trying to recover money owed to you by someone
who has no money, or is there?
• You and your mother each have 3 children to 3 different fathers. Chase one
Page 62 of 158
or more of the other five men will you? You have more than well and truly
drunk your fill from me.
• My sole obligations to you are my child support payments for Illyana, which
have been assessed by the Child Support Agency at approximately $400 per
month. You have been taking:
o more than $1,000 per month in telephone expenses that up until a

few weeks ago I was paying on your behalf;
o Foxtel subscription for the house, costing me $110 per month; and
o ‘free’ accommodation in a property with a rental value of $1,300 per

month.
Never the less, I am prepared to unconditionally offer you the occupancy of 10

Hawkhurst Court Hoppers Crossing on the following basis:
• The property will be professionally managed by my licensed real estate
agent, so that we need not have any direct communication in respect of the
property.
• I have negotiated with the tenant to vacate this Friday 29 February 2008 by
4pm at the latest (see attached). The property will be fit for habitation by the
following Saturday 8 March 2008.
• Rent will be determined at current market value, less $80 per week, provided
that you keep up to day (monthly in advance with your rental obligations); for
any periods that you are in arrears the rent will increase to full market value
for that period.
• I will also pay for a full Foxtel subscription for the property.
• To assist you to meet your rental obligations, I will pay my child support
obligations towards the rent – you will only have to make up any shortfall.
• A normal Residential Tenancies Bond, this will be required. I will pay this, as
a lump sum advance on my child support obligations to you for Illyana.
Nature of unconditional offer

The effect of this offer is that, so long as you pay and keep up to date with your
rent, in addition to my mandatory child support agency payments, I will in effect
be giving you an extra $400 plus per month in financial support. I am effectively
doubling your child support payments.
This offer is unconditional in that your acceptance / occupancy:
1. is not in any way dependent on us reaching any settlement in respect of your
Victorian Supreme Court proceedings or the access/child protection
proceedings that I initiated in the Federal Magistrates Court (Family Law
Division). If you wish you can continue to push these claims, all the way to
the Full Bench of the High Court. My offer for rental of 10 Hawkhurst Court
will remain standing and unconditional upon the status of either set of
proceedings.
Page 63 of 158
2. is and would not be conditional on you refraining from doing any of the
harmful things that you have done in the past, and to the best of my
knowledge you are continuing to do. Like your alcohol and substance
abuses, abuse and neglect of the children etc… and the others that I do not
intend to mention in this letter but will be particularised if I need to give full
and proper particulars of our agreement that I refer to in paragraph 9 of my
Amended Defence and Counterclaim. While I cry for the choices that you
have made with your life, not just for the impact on the children but the
consequences for you too, I will leave them to be sorted out as part of the
Federal Magistrates Court / Family Court proceedings.
3. I make no comment on whether your mother and two infant half-sisters

would continue to live with you or not – again that is your choice to make,
even though it should be painfully obvious to you which choice you should
make, for your sake, and especially for the sake of your three children.
I would ask that you sign a standard Residential Tenancy Agreement

incorporating the above terms. This is as much to protect your rights to the
tenancy as to protect my rights as landlord. But I am not overly fussed about
this as I believe this letter makes it self-evident that our relationship in respect of
the property would be simply as landlord and tenant.
Conclusion
I believe that this is an attractive offer. While I am guilty of being far to
generous, as is my nature, at least I will know that my daughter and her two half-
sons will have a safe roof over their heads.
In this regard I also note that 10 Hawkhurst Court offers much better housing
than 166 Queen Street Altona:
• It is only 4 ½ years ‘new’;
• All the lights and door handles work, and there are no gas and electrical
faults (as opposed to the obvious dangers at 166 Queen Street in the kitchen
and toilet);
• The 3 bedrooms all contain built in wardrobes, increasing the chances that
the house, and especially the bedrooms might actually be kept clean and
tidy.
• It is a short commute to Altona Primary School for Illyana and Sky’s

continued schooling.
• It is also a much better property than the Salvation Army provided

(emergency crisis) house at Grovedale where you were living when I met
you and where you lived with the children up until Illyana was about 10
months old.
• I have taken 10 Hawkhurst Court ‘off the market’ and have been foregoing
rental income since Monday of this week, so as to be able to make you this
offer to occupy the property.
As indicated above and in the attachment, 10 Hawkhurst Court Hoppers

Crossing will be vacant by 1 March 2008 and ready for occupation by the
morning of 8 March 2008. Should you not accept this offer before then, I shall
Page 64 of 158
keep the property vacant and available for you to immediately take up.
I hope you are finally sensible about this:
• There is nothing that you or I can do to stop the mortgagee selling 166
Queen Street Altona, except for me to sell it first, as I am bound by contract
to do.
• Any prospect that you had to remain in the property any longer was lost
when you and Hanlon chose to ignore my letters of early November 2007.
• If you are unhappy about having to move, I suggest you take it up with
Hanlon, via an independent solicitor if need be.
• There is no way that the Court will grant an injunction stopping me from
selling the property given that:
o third party rights (the mortgagee and the purchaser) would be

affected;
o you do not have the income or the wealth to meet, or give, an

undertaking to pay my damages if (as you will) your claims are
ultimately rejected at trial;
o even at this preliminary stage it is patently obvious that your claims

are fraudulent and have no merit;
o mortgagee’s sale is inevitable if, as noted above, I do not sell the

property first.
• It is a further demonstration of Hanlon’s negligence, incompetence and

ineffectiveness that he has advised you and you have incurred legal fees
and expenses even seeking these injunctions in the first place. Do yourself
a favour. Seek the advice of an independent, competent solicitor. Demand
compensation and a refund.
Please let me have your response to this letter sooner, rather than later. It would
be good to sort this out prior to the re-hearing of this matter before His Honour
on 12 March 2008.
Best wishes
James Johnson’
Particulars
That letter dated 27 February 2008 from the Defendant to the Cressy Party is in writing.
A copy of that letter is held by the Defendant’s solicitors and is available for inspection
Page 65 of 158
116. On 4 April 2008, having still received no sensible responses from the Cressy Party, the
Defendant wrote to Turnbull and Berry terminating the Cressy Children Support
Agreement, and in the following terms:
‘Mr James Turnbull

Berry Family Lawyers
162 Ferguson Street
Williamstown Victoria 3016
BY FACSIMLE: 9399 9006 (3 pages)
Dear James,
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT PROCEEDINGS NO. MLC 10308/2007

JOHNSON AND CRESSY AND ANOR: CHILDREN – ILLYANA,
SKY AND TREECE CRESSY
VICTORIAN SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS N0. 9665 OF 2007
CRESSY V JOHNSON; HARWOOD ANDREWS
LAWYERS, DAVID WILLIAM HANLON AND PIPPIN PATRICIA CRESSY ATS
JOHNSON
1. I refer to my letter of 27 March 2008 and note that you have now on 31
March 2008 somewhat belatedly indicated you now act for Ms Cressy in
respect of Victorian Supreme Court Proceedings No. 9665 of 2007, being
Cressy v Johnson; Harwood Andrews Lawyers, David William Hanlon and
Pippin Patricia Cressy ATS Johnson (point1 of my previous letter).
a. I note that your Notice is dated 19 March 2008. Is that a correct date
or did you commence acting at an earlier or different date?
b. Please explain what the problem was? Why didn’t your letter of 18
March 2008 enclosing Notice of Address for Service and advising that
you act for Ms Cressy in respect of her response to my (shared)
custody application for my daughter, Illyana, not also have advised
me that you act in respect of the Supreme Court proceedings. Would
that have been so difficult?
2. I await your response to the remaining points 2 to 8 of my letter of 27 March

2008.
a. Is it really so difficult for you or your client to respond? These are

straightforward requests. Given your client’s position on shared
50:50 custody for Illyana, I don’t understand why she is even
opposing my Federal Magistrates Court Application. Does she
understand? Do you?
b. If you are prevented for any reason from responding to any of these
points, the professional thing to do of course is to acknowledge
receipt of my letter, explain your difficulty/ies and indicate a timeframe
for providing a professional response.
Page 66 of 158
c. That’s just good manners.
d. Has law school, or life in general, not taught you even this?
3. I refer to your letters of 28 March 2008 and my reply of earlier this week.
a. Please advise when you will arrange for your client to comply with the
undertakings she gave (via her Counsel) in Court on 12 March 2008?
b. Please advise when your client will comply with the Orders for
disclosure made on 12 March 2008?
c. I repeat my concerns as expressed in my letter to you earlier this

week, regarding your filing of a purported affidavit by an undisclosed
deponent asserted to be the ‘Defendant’ in the Supreme Court
proceedings, that does not in any way shape or form have anything
to do with the undertaking or Orders referred to in paragraph (a)
above. It concerns me that even at this early stage it would seem
that your firm’s competencies are no better than those of Mr David
William Hanlon. I hope that at the very least your ethics are a little
better.
4. I refer to your letter of 31 March 2008.
a. I draw your attention to the heading line of your letter, which reads
‘breakdown of domestic relationship’. I caution you that that heading
transgresses several laws, including common law and State and
Federal legislation.
b. Your transgression is mild compared to the transgressions of your

client, even the few already recorded in these sets of proceedings –
fraud, adverse possession, contempts of Courts, perjories, malicious
prosecutions, burglary, theft, assault and battery, vandalism,
malicious slander, more contempts and perjories. Quite a busy girl
isn’t she? Rather a busy list considering proceedings have been on
foot for less than a year, don’t you think?
c. Back to your transgressions, while less substantial, I am not a fan of

unlawful propaganda. So I trust now you are on notice you will not
commit any further transgressions.
5. I refer to my letters (all 7) of 28 March 2008. Having regard to your client’s

continuing shameful misconduct, including that of her legal representatives
at Court on 12 March 2008, and her and your misconducts since:
a. I advise that I am from today withdrawing all largesse to your client.
b. Without limiting paragraph (a) that includes my offer of subsidized

rental accommodation at my property at Hawkhurst Court Hoppers
Crossing (ie my letter to her of 29 February 2008 and other offers
contained in it which are now totally withdrawn). My previous
‘Calderbank and Calderbank’ offer [sorry, I find Mr Hanlon (who is
aged 57) and his special brand of idiocy very funny even in these
Page 67 of 158
circumstances]; I have withdrawn that and all other offers, previously.
c. I shall from here on be giving your client no more than is my legal

obligation for child support payments administered by the Child
Support Agency. That is more than your client has gotten from either
of the two dads of her other two children. I also note, as evidence by
documents I have cross-filed in both sets of proceedings, that I am at
least twenty months ahead in child support payment obligations. So
it will be a very long time before your client receives another penny
from me.
d. I shall remain in a position to grant largesse, but say this without

obligation and without intention of creating any legal obligation.
e. But if your client wants largesse from me, your client is going to have
to ask for this in writing. She must also:
i. Immediately agree to 50% shared custody with me for Illyana

‘week about’ as she is already on record in the relevant
proceeding as having ‘no problems with … eventually.’
ii. Deliver up to me the balance of my ‘shed full of documents’ as

she undertook to the Court to do on 12 March 2008;
iii. Immediately remove all remaining caveats against my

properties;
iv. Provide written apologies for her malicious slanders;
v. Make fair arrangements regarding Sky and Treece (especially

Sky) having regard to the welfare and wishes of both boys, all
three of her children. She must stop immediately using
Illyana especially but also Sky and Treece as hostages to try
to secure results from her blackmail and extortion attacks
against me and my properties. Those attacks will never bear
fruit and the sooner she realises this the better off for Illyana
and her two half-brothers.
f. I may be continuing to hemorrhage thousands of dollars a day in lost

earnings, and thousands of dollars a month in unnecessary interest
only mortgage repayments for now empty properties (four properties
generating no rental income whatsoever) who have passed their
settlement dates.
i. But I am not too concerned even by your client’s lack of

pennies to pay compensation.
ii. I am confident of quick recovery from professional insurances

through my counterclaims in negligence, fraud and/or
conspiracy against Messrs David William Hanlon and
Harwood Andrews.
iii. Those claims are being made increasingly easier by Hanlon’s

further misconducts – such as the illegal caveat of 6 March
Page 68 of 158
2008 (illegal under section 91(4) of the Transfer of Land Act).
g. I remind you and your client that I have every expectation that she
will be charged over her burglary of my property and records in
November 2007 and her assault and battery of Illyana and property
damage she caused in September 2007. There is also the bank
fraud of September 2006.
6. Clearly you and your client have much to think over, and your client much
very un-adult-like behaviour to remedy, and need to do this sooner rather
than later.
Regards
James Johnson’
Particulars
That letter dated 4 April 2008 from the Defendant to Turnbull and Berry is in writing.
A copy of that letter is held by the Defendant’s solicitors and is available for inspection
117. Fraudulent Second Harwood Caveat
On or about 11 March 2008 Hanlon (‘Hanlon’) signed and lodged with the Registrar of
Titles on behalf of Harwood an instrument of caveat (‘Second Harwood Caveat’)
claiming:
a. interests in one of the 6 freehold properties in the Defendant’s Property

Portfolio, being 166 Queen Street Altona; and
b. that Harwood acquired such interests from the Cressy Party by way of ‘an
unregistered instrument of charge bearing date the 8th day of May 2007 given
by PIPPIN CRESSY as charger to HARWOOD ANDREWS PTY LTD (ACN
075 868 034) as charge.’
Particulars
The Second Harwood Caveat was registered by the Registrar of Titles on or about 6
March 2008 with registered caveat number AF0708914N and is identical in every
Page 69 of 158
respect to the First Harwood Caveat, save for it being dated ‘6.3.08’.
A copy of the Harwood Caveat is held by the solicitors for the Defendant and is available
appointment.
118. The Cressy Party well knew at all times that any representations made by her in signing
any loan or security contracts affecting 166 Queen Street Altona and/or consenting to
and assisting Hanlon and Harwood to sign and lodge the First Harwood Caveat and the
Second Harwood Caveat were false.
119. Hanlon and Harwood well knew at all times that any representations made by the
Cressy Party in signing any loan or security contracts affecting 166 Queen Street Altona
Harwood Caveat were false or but for his and its reckless indifference ought to have
known.
120. The Second Harwood Caveat was not registered for the purposes of vindicating any
legal rights that Harwood may have against the Defendant or the Defendant’s Property
Portfolio, but was brought by the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties for ulterior purposes,
namely:
a. as a further step in the Cressy Blackmail Scheme; and
b. as a further step in the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Blackmail Scheme; and
c. to cause more and aggravated financial and emotional harm to the

Defendant, by depriving the Defendant of his ability to dispose of some of the
properties comprised in the Defendant’s Property Portfolio, at a time when
the Defendant’s gross income had fallen below the Defendant’s mortgage
obligations on the Defendant’s Property Portfolio, and the Defendant was
under considerable financial stress,
and was prepared, executed and registered by Hanlon and Harwood in the full
knowledge that in doing so Hanlon and Harwood were in violation of sections 91(4) and
112 of the Transfer of Land Act. And the Defendant says that by virtue of executing and
lodging the Second Harwood Caveat at the Titles Office, and claiming an interest as
mortgagee in 166 Queen Street Altona, and irrespective of the lack of merits in that
Page 70 of 158
claim, Harwood came to owe duties of care to the Defendant, as like the duties of a
genuine mortgagee, including a duty not to cause waste or diminution of value of the
166 Queen Street Altona by unreasonably resisting the Defendant’s efforts to liquidate
some or all of those properties.
121. Whelan Practice Court Hearing and Ingleby Confessions
The adjourned Mandie Practice Court Application was heard by Mr Justice Whelan in
the Practice Court jurisdiction of this Honourable Court on 12 March 2008.
122. During an intermission that afternoon in that hearing by Mr Justice Wheelan of the
Mandie Practice Court Application, Ingleby admitted to the Defendant (‘Ingleby
Confessions’) that the Cressy Party’s claims (as recorded in the Cressy Caveat and the
Cressy Statement of Claim) were scandalous and without merit and that the Cressy
Party and the Hanlon-Harwood-Devries Parties should not continue any further with the
Larger Proceedings because they were an abuse of the process of this Honourable
Court.
Particulars
The Ingleby Confessions were oral, spoken by Ingleby to the Defendant at about 3.00
pm that day.
123. Notwithstanding making the Ingleby Confessions, on the resumption of the hearing
before Mr Justice Whelan Ingleby failed to inform His Honour of his realisation that the
Cressy Party’s claims as recorded in the Cressy Caveat and the Cressy Statement of
Claim and the Mandie Practice Court Application were scandalous and without merit,
despite his duties as a legal practitioner and officer of the Court so to do.
124. On the resumption of that hearing Mr Justice Whelan:
a. Stated in agreement with the Defendant that the Cressy Party had no
grounds to demand that the Defendant provide any personal financial
information to her or to the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties in the absence
of any orders for direction to that effect (which had not at that date, nor at any
date since been sought by the Cressy Party);
b. Stated that the Mandie Practice Court Application was an abuse of the
practices of this Honourable Court and of the Practice Court jurisdiction of
Page 71 of 158
this Honourable Court;
c. Stated that if the Cressy Party and the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties were
serious about the Cressy Party pursuing her claims in this Honourable Court
then they should follow normal and proper practices and procedures in this
Honourable Court and should refrain from abusing Court processes by
making these kinds of applications in the Practice Court jurisdiction of this
Honourable Court.
d. Stated, in agreement with a submission from the Defendant, that His Honour
could not understand why a caveator, having registered an instrument that
restrains the Registrar of Titles from recording any dealings with a property
and therefore effectively restricts the registered proprietor from selling the
property, would be applying to Court for a duplicative order restricting the
registered proprietor from selling the property.
e. With, and solely on the basis of the Defendant’s consent, made an order for
the Defendant and the Cressy Party to exchange copies of all documents
and records held by them in respect of the Defendant’s properties 166
Queen Street Altona, 2 Dorrington Street and 7 Inverloch Drive, being in the
terms of the disclosure order sought by the Cressy Party in the Mandie
Practice Court Application except made reciprocal as requiring disclosure by
both parties, not just the Defendant (‘Early Discovery Order’).
125. The Defendant consented to the Early Discover Order because the Cressy Party was
unlawfully in possession of and refusing to hand over substantial volumes of the
Defendant’s records that the Defendant had stored in one of the three storage sheds
that the Defendant had had constructed at 166 Queen Street shortly after he completed
the purchase of that property.
126. The Defendant was induced by consent to the Early Disclosure Order because Ingleby,
on behalf of the Cressy Party had admitted to the Court that afternoon that the Cressy
Party was in possession of those records of the Defendants, saying in words to the
effect that:
a. they were 4 or 5 boxes of records that were not relevant to the proceedings
being old records of the Defendant’s purchases of the properties some 4 or 5
years earlier; and
b. he was instructed that the Defendant was welcome to come and collect those
records from the Cressy Party ‘any time he wanted to’.
Page 72 of 158
127. To those statements, not just the statement of ‘not relevance, which surprised the
Defendant, but also the ‘he can collect them any time he wants to’ the Defendant
responded that he would be around at the property ten minutes after Court closed to
collect them.
128. His Honour then made orders for the orderly collection of those records by the
Defendant on the following Friday, being orders that are only partially recorded in His
Honour’s written record of orders made that day.
Particulars
The orders made by Mr Justice Wheelan in the Practice Court on 12 March 2008 are in
writing and a copy is held by the Defendant’s solicitors and is available for inspection by
the parties to these Dorrington Street Proceedings by prior appointment.
129. On that following Friday (and not believing his ‘luck’) the Defendant attended the
property, 166 Queen Street Altona to collect those records. The Cressy Party was not
present at the property but her mother was. The Defendant noticed 3 or 4 empty
archive boxes laying against the recycling wheelie bin on the property. The Defendant
collected substantial papers and items (mostly being drafts and research materials for
the Defendant’s monthly column that he wrote for the Law Institute Journal between
1998 and 2003) but the Defendant’s property records were not amongst them.
130. Since that date, the Cressy Party has unlawfully continued to withhold the Defendant’s
property records, while claiming that he collected them on that Friday morning. Those
property records, which the Defendant cannot easily replace, are the evidence that the
Defendant needs to demonstrate beyond all doubt that the Cressy Party’s claims to any
interests in any of the Defendant’s Property Portfolio are scandalous and without any
merit whatsoever.
131. The Defendant’s Pre-Discovery Disclosures
By 28 March 2008 the Defendant had compiled the Pre-Discovery Disclosures of

records in his possession relating to the Defendant’s Property Portfolio, that is, in
respect of all six properties not just the three properties that were specifically mentioned
in the Early Discovery Order. And the Defendant provided these to Turnbull as soon as
practicable after Turnbull properly informed the Defendant that Berry had instructions for
and represented the Cressy Party in the Larger Proceedings (and not just the Cressy
Page 73 of 158
Children Protection Proceedings).
132. The Cressy Party’s Pre-Discovery Non-Disclosures
Not only did the Cressy Party fail to hand over to the Defendant his substantial property
records that she had admitted in this Honourable Court on 12 March 2008 were in her
possession, she did not disclose or provide copies of them to the Defendant as she was
required to do (at least for 166 Queen Street, 2 Dorrington Street, and 7 Inverloch Drive)
under the Early Discovery Orders.
133. Instead, the Cressy Party swore and filed an affidavit, purporting to be an affidavit of
documents made under Order 29 of the Rules of this Honourable Court and despite
there being then or at any other time since any orders for discovery sought or made
under Order 29, and the Cressy Party attached to that affidavit a further set of
photocopies of the Defendant’s stolen documents that she and the Hanlon-Harwood-
Ingleby Parties had returned (the originals of) to the Defendant at Court on 12 March
2008 and despite the fact that none of those documents had any relevance (within the
meaning of Order 29) to any of the matters in issue in the Larger Proceedings.
134. The Devries-Berry-Turnbull Blackmail Scheme
In or about March or early April 2008 Berry Family Law (‘Berry’) replaced Harwood as
the law firm assisting the Cressy Party with the Larger Proceedings, and Berry’s
employee solicitor James Turnbull (‘Turnbull’) became the Cressy Party’s personal
solicitor and Graham Devries (‘Devries’) as barrister to assist them with those
endeavours.
135. Since about March or early April 2008 and up to the present date all three of them
(collectively, the ‘Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties’) have engaged in an unlawful
scheme to oppress and vex the Defendant and cause the Defendant serious financial
and emotional and psychological loss and damage in order to unjustly enrich
themselves at the Defendant’s expense, including by continuing to pursue the goals of
the Cressy Blackmail Scheme and the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Blackmail Scheme
(their collection of endeavours, the ‘Devries-Berry-Turnbull Blackmail Scheme’).
136. There are elements to the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Blackmail Scheme, including as

follows:
Page 74 of 158
a. The Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties would extend their services to the Cressy
Party, free of charge (and estimated as at that date of this Counterclaim to be
in the order of one hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($120,000);
b. The Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties would use the registered caveats lodged

for the Cressy Party in order to inhibit the Defendant from dealing with his
properties (the Defendant’s Property Portfolio) knowing, or but for their
recklessness ought to have been knowing, that the Defendant needed to
dispose of some of his properties in order to be able to continue to meet his
mortgage obligations on his remaining properties;
c. The Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties would engage in a smear campaign

against the Defendant along the same lines and in furtherance of the
objectives of the Cressy Party’s Blackmail Scheme and the Hanlon-Harwood-
Ingleby Parties Blackmail Scheme;
d. The Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties would abuse their positions as officers of

the Court and abuse the process of the Court, including by:
iii. commencing (defending) and continuing and conducting legal
proceedings (the Larger Proceedings and the Cressy Child Protection
Proceedings) on behalf of the Cressy Party in the knowledge that they
had no worthwhile prospects of success in the proceedings in order to
vex the Defendant or in circumstances where had they given
reasonable attention to the relevant law and facts the respondent would
have had such knowledge;
iv. accepted instructions to conduct the proceedings in a manner designed
to obstruct and delay and pervert the course of justice in the hearing of
both of the Larger Proceedings and the Cressy Children Support
Proceedings and did in fact conduct the proceedings in a manner
designed to so obstruct and delay and pervert those hearings;
e. The Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties would abuse their positions as officers
of the Court and abuse the process of the Court, including by:and by
committing other acts of malfeasance including breaching their following
duties owed by them to the Court and members of the public in Victoria,
including the Defendant, as follows:
Page 75 of 158
i. a duty to uphold the law.
ii. a duty not to subvert the law.
iii. a duty not to participate in a transaction which involves a breach of

the law.
iv. a duty not to abuse the court’s processes by the improper initiation or
maintenance of court proceedings.
v. a duty not to initiate or maintain proceedings that are for the benefit
the solicitor and not for the benefit of the client.
vi. a duty to have specific instructions and an appropriate evidentiary

foundation before pleading or alleging fraud or dishonesty.
vii. a duty not to initiate or continue an action unreasonably where it has

no or substantially no chance of success.
viii. a duty to refrain from conduct which may tend to defeat justice.
ix. a duty not to consciously mislead the court.
x. a duty not to knowingly conceal facts so as to present a misleading

body of information to the court.
xi. a duty not to make an untrue statement to the court.
xii. a duty not to make a false affidavit.
xiii. a duty not to allow a deponent to make a false affidavit.
xiv. a duty not to conspire to defeat the ends of justice by knowingly using
a false affidavit.
xv. a duty not to be a party to the use of an affidavit by which the lawyer
Page 76 of 158
subsequently discovers to be false.
xvi. a duty of complete candour and honesty. A lawyer must not keep any
information from the court which ought to be before it or in any way
mislead the court by stating facts which are untrue, mislead a judge
as to the true facts or knowingly permit a client to attempt to deceive
the court.
xvii. a duty to communicate to the court facts suppressed by a client (with

or without the client consenting to the communication).
Particulars
Particulars of Devries misconduct in Court are described in the following paragraphs.
Examples of the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties breaches of their abovementioned
duties to the Court include:
a. Devries knowingly or, recklessly, asserting to the Court that the Defendant has at any
time claimed to be the biological father of the second of the three Cressy Children, or
ever at any time intended to apply for Court Orders for DNA testing to ascertain that
point (it being common agreement by both the Defendant and the Cressy Party that that
child was some 5 months old when the Defendant first met him).
b. Devries deflecting statements made by the Defendant about the Cressy Party’s
scandalous behaviour, such as her prostitution whilst pregnant with the second and third
of her three children and her commercial promiscuity at the times that each of them
were conceived, and to deflect attention from the Cressy Party, asserting to the Court
that the Defendant was (i) scandalous for making those statements; and (ii) was likely to
cause emotional harm to the youngest of the Cressy children by discussing these things
with her, when, the Defendant being a very caring and protective father, there was no
basis for Devries to make these assertions and it was most improper for him to do so.
c. Turnbull making false statements in Affidavits sworn by him on behalf of the Cressy
Party;
d. The Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties allowing the Cressy Party to make false
statements in Affidavits sworn by her (for examples, and not just relating to her work
history, and her residency (separate from the residency of the Defendant during all
relevant periods), but also on issues such as to the paternity of her second living child,
and with respect to the settlement arrangements for the sale by the Defendant of his
former, 12 Lisa Court property, and the Defendant’s refinancing of his 9/2 Gibson Street
Page 77 of 158
property and other matters as recorded in the Defendant’s Affidavits in the Larger
Proceedings and in the Cressy Child Protection Proceedings);
e. Devries knowingly and deliberately, or alternatively recklessly, making misleading
statements to the Courts as to the Defendant’s honesty, decency, professionalism, and
as to the Defendant’s financial situation.
137. The Devries Infirmaries
Devries also purports to be an ‘accredited family law specialist’ and a member of the
Victorian Bar and has a reputation amongst other members of the Victorian bar for being
‘slippery’.
138. Devries has demonstrated:
a. through his misfeasances on multiple occasions before this Honourable

Court in connection with the Larger Proceedings,
b. through his correspondences to the Legal Services Commissioner in

connection with the Larger Proceedings (the ‘First Devries Defamations’, the
‘Second Devries Defamations’ and the ‘Third Devries Defamations’, as
defined below); and
c. through his participation in the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Blackmail Scheme

(and, in doing so, his continuing promotion of the interests of the Hanlon-
Harwood-Ingleby Blackmail Scheme and the Cressy Blackmail Scheme),
that:
d. he lacks even the most basic of professional ethics and competencies that
are necessary for engagement in any respect as part of the legal profession;
e. he suffers from physical and mental impairments including poor hearing and
serious memory lapses including the incapacity to remember anybody’s
names including his , being symptoms synonymous with advancing age and
dementia sufferers (see for example his written documents relating to the
Devries Defamations (as defined below) including his letter of 25 June 2008
addressed to the Legal Services Commissioner, Ms Victoria Marles, whom
Devries re-christens for the purposes of that correspondences as ‘Fay
Page 78 of 158
Marles’;
and that ought be prevented from being allowed to play any further part in embarrassing
this Honourable Court, himself and the legal profession by being a member of the
Victorian Bar.
Particulars
Devries’ ‘slipperiness’, lack of ethics and lack of competencies and infirmaries have
been partially recorded in writing and will be further evidenced at trial.
To the extent that they have been recorded in writing apart from this document, they are
recorded:
a. contained in correspondences that Devries has written to the Defendant, and

to the Legal Services Commissioner (as particularised below in respect of the
Devries Defamations), and
b. in Affidavits and Exhibits thereto filed by the Defendant in the Larger

Proceedings,
and copies of these documents are held by the Defendant’s solicitors and are available
for inspection by the parties to the Dorrington Street Proceedings by prior appointment.
The April Kings (First) Directions Hearing
139. At the directions hearing in the Larger Proceedings before Master Kings on 9 April 2008,
the purpose of the hearing was supposed to be for the Master to make orders for
directions as to mediation and other matters (including orders for discover under Order
29 of the Rules).
140. However, as recorded by the Defendant in his Affidavit in the Larger Proceedings dated
11 July 2008 (and attached to this Counterclaim) and the substantial, substantiating
exhibits thereto, Devries, on behalf of the Cressy Party and the Devries-Berry-Turnbull
Parties used that hearing, his first appearance in any of these proceedings involving the
Defendant and the Cressy Party, to open his smear campaign against the Defendant,
with the result that no orders for directions were made by Master Kings that day, only a
few orders for mediation.
Page 79 of 158
Particulars
The Orders of Master Kings made on 8 April 2008 are in writing.
A copy of the orders is held by the Defendant’s solicitors and is available for inspection
The Cavanough Perversion of Justice
141. The Defendant refers to the description above (in the ‘Qualifications’) Final Interlocutory
Cavanough Eviction and Gagging Orders and the Verbal Interlocutory Cavanough
Eviction and Gagging Orders, purportedly made by Mr Justice Cavanough on 20 June
2008 and at an unknown date between 20 June 2008 and 24 July 2008 and says that
those orders were unlawful:
a. His Honour, sitting in the Practice Court jurisdiction of this Honourable Court,
had no power to make such orders relating to the disposition of the
Defendant’s property or the conduct of the Defendant of his relationships with
his mortgagees:
i. For the reasons given by Mr Justice Wheelan on March 2008 and

given by Mr Justice Cavanough at the commencement of the hearing
on 20 June 2008;
ii. For the reasons given by the Defendant in his written submissions to
Mr Justice Cavanough (as handed up by the Defendant on 20 June
2008 and a copy of which are attached to this Counterclaim) and to
Mr Justice Hansen (as sent by the Defendant to Mr Justice Hansen
by facsimile on 13 July 2008);
iii. Because the Cressy Party was not entitled to interlocutory relief
because (1) her application was brought for ulterior motives and not
to vindicate any legal rights that she might on trial of the issues
succeed to establish as against the Defendant or the Defendant’s
Property Portfolio; and (2) she admitted in her Affidavit of 6 June 2008
to not being in a financial position where she would be able to comply
with any orders for damages payable by her to the Defendant that the
Court may make on final determination of her claim if she did not
succeed in her claim; and
Page 80 of 158
b. Because His Honour, sitting in the Practice Court jurisdiction of this
Honourable Court is a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of the Charter of
Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (‘Charter’) and His Honour
failed to give proper or any adequate recognition, as he was required by law
to do at that hearing, of the Defendant’s human rights as protected by the
Charter, including the Defendant’s rights to a fair hearing and his rights to
enjoy his property rights.
142. The Dismediation Process
The Defendant refers to the description below of the conduct of Devries in interrupting
the mediation in the Larger Proceedings that was attempted to be conducted by Ms
Joanne Rees of the Victorian Bar on 26 June 2008.
The Hansen Abusive Process Practice Court Hearing
143. The Defendant refers to the description above (in the ‘Qualifications’) Interlocutory
Hansen Dorrington Administration Orders, purportedly made by Mr Justice Hansen on
14 July 2008 and says that those orders were unlawful:
a. His Honour, sitting in the Practice Court jurisdiction of this Honourable Court,
had no power to make such orders relating to the disposition of the
Defendant’s property or the conduct of the Defendant of his relationships with
his mortgagees:
i. For the reasons given by Mr Justice Wheelan on March 2008 and

given by Mr Justice Cavanough on 20 June 2008;
ii. For the reasons given by the Defendant in his written submissions to
Mr Justice Cavanough (as handed up by the Defendant on 20 June
2008) and to Mr Justice Hansen (as sent by the Defendant to Mr
Justice Hansen by facsimile on 13 July 2008 and a copy of which is
attached to this Counterclaim);
iii. Because the Cressy Party was not entitled to interlocutory relief
because (1) her application was brought for ulterior motives and not
Page 81 of 158
to vindicate any legal rights that she might on trial of the issues
succeed to establish as against the Defendant or the Defendant’s
Property Portfolio; and (2) she admitted in her Affidavit of 6 June 2008
to not being in a financial position where she would be able to comply
with any orders for damages payable by her to the Defendant that the
Court may make on final determination of her claim if she did not
succeed in her claim; and
b. Because His Honour, sitting in the Practice Court jurisdiction of this

Honourable Court is a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of the Charter of
Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (‘Charter’) and His Honour
failed to give proper or any adequate recognition, as he was required by law
to do at that hearing, of the Defendant’s human rights as protected by the
Charter, including the Defendant’s rights to a fair hearing and his rights to
enjoy his property rights.
144. Since the making of the Final Interlocutory Cavanough Eviction and Gagging Orders,
the Verbal Interlocutory Cavanough Eviction and Gagging Orders and the Interlocutory
Hansen Dorrington Street Administration Orders the Cressy Party has been under
obligation imposed on her by this Honourable Court to sell (and/or to acquiesce with the
Defendant and the Plaintiff in the sale of) 2 Dorrington Street and 7 Inverloch Drive but,
failing to act on those orders of this Honourable Court, the Cressy Party has
appropriated 2 Dorrington Street and 7 Inverloch Drive to her own personal use and
enjoyment, in contravention of those orders.
The Third and Fourth (July and August) Kings Directions Hearings
145. On 28 July 2008 the Larger Proceedings returned before Master Kings for further
directions, and while the Defendant did not attend Court on that date, the Defendant
instead sent to Master Kings a facsimile requesting that the hearing be adjourned for at
least a month as the Defendant was intending to file for bankruptcy and, if so, the
Defendant and his trustee in bankruptcy would need time to come to grips with the
matter.
Particulars
The Defendant’s facsimile to Master Kings is in writing. A copy is held by the
Defendant’s solicitors and is available for inspection by the parties to these Dorrington
Page 82 of 158
146. At the hearing on 28 July 2008 Master Kings adjourned the directions hearing in the
Larger Proceedings to be heard on 11 August 2008, but notice of that adjournment date
was not given to the Defendant by the Court or by the Cressy Party’s solicitors.
147. On the further hearing of the Larger Proceedings on 11 August 2008 Master Kings set
the Larger Proceedings down for trial on 2 December 2008, subject to the Cressy Party
filing a Notice of Trial by 15 September 2008 for an estimated duration of 2 days.
148. The Defendant says that the orders made by Master Kings on 11 August 2008 setting
the Larger Proceedings down for trial on 2 December 2008 are unlawful because:
a. The Defendant was given no notice of the hearing on 11 August 2008; and
b. because this Honourable Court, when sitting as a Directions Hearings before

a Listing Master, is a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of the Charter of
Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (‘Charter’) and the failure to
give any or adequate notice of that hearing to the Defendant was a failure by
that public authority to give proper or any adequate recognition, as required
by law to do, of the Defendant’s human rights as protected by the Charter,
including the Defendant’s rights to a fair hearing.
149. The Defendant says further that:
a. The Defendant has not received any Notice of Trial filed by the Plaintiff in the
Larger Proceedings prior to 15 September 2008, and the Defendant’s
inquiries of the Supreme Court Prothonotary as recent as 17 November 2008
indicate that this Honourable Court has no record of the Cressy Party having
filed any such Notice of Trial by that required date; and
b. The Defendant has at all times maintained that the trial will require a
minimum of 4 to 6 weeks duration, including as the Defendant has more than
2 dozen witnesses who will be subpoenaed and required to give evidence at
the trial.
150. The O’Dwyer Perversions of Justice
Page 83 of 158
On 28 April 2008 the Defendant made a contravention order application in the Cressy
Child Protection Proceedings reporting continual and substantial breaches by the
Cressy Party of the interim court orders made in those proceedings, particularly
regarding contact between the Defendant and the three Cressy Children, and seeking
orders that the Cressy Party be required to comply with those orders.
Particulars
The Defendant’s contravention order application of 28 April 2008 is in writing, as are the
Defendant’s two affidavits in support, dated 28 April 2008 and 27 May 2008,
respectively.
151. Amongst other things, the Cressy Party’s refusal to comply with those court orders
meant that the youngest of the three Cressy Children was receiving death threats and
being bullied at home and at school by her jealous, two years older half-brother, whom
the Cressy Party was refusing to allow to spend time with the Defendant.
152. On 31 May 2008 Justice O’Dwyer demonstrated considerable bias and contempt for the
existing orders made in those proceedings, the wishes and interests of the three Cressy
Children, and the law, by refusing to hear the Defendant’s contravention order against
the Cressy Party, for the narrowest and most outrageous of technical reasons.
153. By reason of the failure of Justice O’Dwyer to enforce the existing orders made in those
proceedings, and failure to require the Cressy Party to comply with those orders, the
Defendant (and the youngest of the Cressy Children in particular) suffered loss or
damage including, the Defendant (in the best interests of the youngest Cressy Child, so
that she would not be subjected to further death threats and other violence from her
half-brother) had no choice but to cease contact with the youngest Cressy Child from 30
May 2008.
154. On 8 September 2008, having already raised Justice O’Dwyer’s apparent bias and
prejudice at all hearings in the Cressy Child Protection Proceedings after 31 May 2008,
the Defendant applied in the Federal Magistrates Court (Before O’Dwyer J) for orders
that His Honour excuse himself from any further involvement in the Child Protection
Proceedings on grounds of actual or perceived prejudice and/or bias towards the
Defendant (the ‘O’Dwyer Corruption Application’), which application was supported
by an Affidavit of the Defendant dated 5 September 2008.
Page 84 of 158
Particulars
The O’Dwyer Corruption Application dated 5 September 2008 is in writing.
The Defendant’s Affidavit dated 5 September 2008 in support of the O’Dwyer Corruption
Application is also in writing.
155. On 8 September 2008 O’Dwyer heard and dismissed the O’Dwyer Corruption
Application.
Particulars
O’Dwyer’s order dismissing the O’Dwyer Corruption Application was oral, O’Dwyer
having failed to put that order into writing.
156. On or about 9 September 2008 O’Dwyer purported to make orders in his capacity as
presiding judicial officer in the Federal Magistrates Court on the hearing in the Cressy
Child Protection Proceedings (‘O’Dwyer Perversion Orders’) including as follows:
‘7 The Applicant by himself, his servants and/or agents be and is hereby

restrained from:
(c) … communicating with any principal of such school or any teachers of the
children;
(d) publishing in any form any aspect of these proceedings;
(e) publishing in any form any part of his affidavits filed herein, save as
follows:
(i) strictly for the purposes of any litigation where [the Defendant] and the
[Cressy Party] are the only parties and provided that in the prosecution of
such proceedings no aspect of these proceedings or the contents of any
of the [Defendant’s] affidavits in these proceedings is published beyond
the Court and the legal advisers in those proceedings;
(ii) to any disciplinary body to which any of the parties, and their legal
practitioners, are subject and provided that in the publication by the
[Defendant] of any aspect of the deliberations of such bodies no aspect
of these proceedings or the content of any of the [Defendant’s] affidavits
in these proceedings is published beyond the disciplinary body and the
legal representatives of the parties involved in any disciplinary
Page 85 of 158
proceedings.
8. For the avoidance of doubt, publication for the purposes of Order 7, includes
but is not limited to:
(a) the preparation and distribution of Media Releases, Press Releases or

Statements to any representative of the Media;
(b) quoting the contents of any court documents filed in these proceedings in any
other proceedings where a party is someone other than a party hereto; and
(c) any fictionalized account of these proceedings or any acts, facts, matters,
circumstances or the like giving rise to these proceedings which may be used to
identify the parties and the children in this proceeding.’
Particulars
The O’Dwyer Perversion Orders are in writing.
157. The Defendant says that in making or purporting to make the O’Dwyer Perversion
Orders, O’Dwyer has attempted to pervert the course of justice in those proceedings
and in the Supreme Court in the Larger Proceedings and (by implication) in these
Dorrington Street Proceedings:
a. Because the O’Dwyer Perversion Orders are unlawful and ultra vires the
powers of a Federal Magistrate for being inconsistent with section 121 (and
in particular subsections (1) and (9) thereof) of the Family Law Act 1975;
b. Because in purporting to make these O’Dwyer Perversion Orders, O’Dwyer

has purported to subvert for himself the powers of the Australian parliament
to make amendments to the said section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975,
and the powers to make censorship laws, and has sought to subvert for
himself the powers and discretions delegated solely to the Commonwealth
Director of Public Prosecutions under that section of that Act.
c. Because O’Dwyer did not make the O’Dwyer Perversion Orders for the
purposes of dispensing justice to any of the parties in respect of any of their
rights claimed in the Cressy Child Protection Proceedings, but did so for
ulterior purposes, namely:
Page 86 of 158
i. To stymie legitimate criticism and reporting of the injustices
committed against the Defendant in the course of the Cressy
Child Protection Proceedings by O’Dwyer, the Cressy Party, the
Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties and the Devries-Berry-Turnbull
Parties;
ii. To assist the Cressy Party by impeding the Defendant in his
ability to present his defence and counterclaim in the Larger
Proceedings, by
iii. Purporting to make it illegal for the Defendant to respond to
materials from the Cressy Child Protection Proceedings used
liberally and out of context by the Cressy Party, the Hanlon-
Harwood-Ingleby Parties and the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties
in evidence in the Larger Proceedings; and:
iv. In responses to submissions made to him by the Devries-Berry-
Turnbull Parties that were malfeasant for knowingly making and
allowing the Cressy Party to make misleading statements to the
Court and for failing to correct at the earliest possible occasion
prior misleading statements made by those parties to the Court
(including failure by them to inform the Court of their liberal use of
affidavits and other materials originating in the Cressy Child
Protection Proceedings in the Larger Proceedings in the Supreme
Court);
b. Because O’Dwyer knew, or but for his recklessness ought to have known,
that the school principal he mentions in the O’Dwyer Perversion Orders
was an important witness to be called by the Defendant in the context of
both the Cressy Child Protection Proceedings and the Larger
Proceedings, and the O’Dwyer Perversion Orders would benefit the
Cressy Party and undermine the Defendant by restricting the Defendant’s
contact with that witness in preparation for the trial of the Larger
Proceedings.
158. By O’Dwyer’s malfeasance in public office in making the O’Dwyer Perversion Orders
and the other orders made purportedly made by O’Dwyer on that day the Defendant has
suffered loss and damage.
159. By reason of the publication of the abovementioned words and by reason of the
Page 87 of 158
malfeasance of O’Dwyer in his public office, including his attempts to pervert the
courses of justice in the Cressy Child Protection Proceedings and in the Larger
Proceedings, and generally by O’Dwyer’s failure to properly perform his statutory duties
under the Family Law Act 1975 and the Federal Magistrates Court Act :
a. the Defendant has been injured in his character, credit and reputation and his
position has been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt and he
has suffered loss and damage in the preparation of his defence and
counterclaim in the Larger Proceedings;
b. the Defendant has suffered loss and damage, namely the continuation in the
Larger Proceedings, without respite, of the Cressy Blackmail Scheme, and its
accretions the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Blackmail Scheme and the Devries-
Berry Turnbull Blackmail Scheme,
with O’Dwyer unlawfully trying to restrict the scope of evidence that the Defendant can
provide in support of his defence and counterclaim in the Larger Proceedings and
therefore also in these Dorrington Street Proceedings.
160. The Legal Services Commissioner Ostrich Scheme
The Legal Services Commissioner is a Victorian statutory authority created under and
given functions, powers and responsibilities under the Legal Practice Act 2004 (‘Legal
Practice Act’), including:
a. ‘to ensure that complaints against Australian legal practitioners and disputes
between law practices or Australian legal practitioners and clients are dealt
with in a timely and effective manner’ (Legal Practice Act, section 6.3.2(a);
b. ‘to educate the legal profession about issues of concern to the profession
and to consumers of legal services’ (Legal Practice Act, section 6.3.2(b);
c. ‘to educate the community about legal issues and the rights and obligations
that flow from the client-practitioner relationship’ (Legal Practice Act, section
6.3.2(c));
d. ‘to provide a scheme for the discipline of the legal profession in this
Page 88 of 158
jurisdiction, in the interests of the administration of justice and for the
protection of consumers of legal services and the public generally’ (Legal
Practice Act, section 4.1.1(a);
e. ‘to promote and enforce the professional standards, competence and

honesty of the legal profession’ (Legal Practice Act, section 4.1.1(b);
f. ‘to provide a means of redress for complaints about the legal profession
(Legal Practice Act, section 4.1.1(a)’;
g. ‘4.4.7 Disciplinary complaints to be investigated
(1) The Commissioner is required to investigate each

disciplinary complaint (Legal Practice Act, section 4.4.7(a).’
161. The Legal Services Commissioner is a ‘public authority’ within the meanings of the
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (‘Charter’) and is a ‘public body’
within the meaning of the Whistleblowers Protection Act (‘Whistleblowers Act’).
162. Since the Cressy Party and the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties first issued legal
actions against the Defendant in May 2007 (being the Cressy Caveat and the First
Harwood Caveat), these proceedings have spawned three different sets of complaints
which have been sent to the attention of the Legal Services Commissioner:
a. Letters of Complaint dated 25 June 2008, 26 June 2008 and 16 July 2008
written by Devries to the Legal Services Commissioner (‘The Devries
Defamations’);
b. A Form of Complaint dated 4 March 2008 sent by Hanlon to the Legal

Services Commissioner (‘The Hanlon Defamation’); and
c. Letters of Complaint dated 17 March 2008 and 27 March 2008, sent by the
Defendant to the Legal Services Commissioner regarding the conduct of
Hanlon (‘The Hanlon Denunciation’).
163. On about 2 May 2008 the Defendant received a letter from the Legal Services
Commissioner (‘First LSC Ostrich Letter’) containing statements as follows:
Page 89 of 158
‘Dear Mr Johnson
COMPLAINT AGAINST HAROLD JAMES JOHNSON
I refer to the complaint you have recently made against Mr Johnson.
After considering this matter carefully [sic] I must inform you that I have
dismissed your complaint pursuant to section 4.2.10 of the Legal Profession Act
2004 (“the Act”).
…
Proceedings in relation to this matter have already been commenced in a Court

…
You should note that you will need to raise those conduct issues in the Court. If
you fail to do so, my office cannot then subsequently investigate your
allegations. This results from a 1993 decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria
in the case of Delahunty v Howell and Mann. In that case, the Court decided
that the parties to litigation must bring forward all disputes arising out of the
same subject matter for determination in the same proceedings.
If the Court makes a finding adverse to the practitioner, then you can refer the
matter back to me for my consideration.
I am aware that this result may not satisfy you but I am restricted by the
provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2004.
Yours sincerely
[per]
VICTORIA MARLES
Legal Services Commissioner’
Particulars
The First LSC Ostrich Letter is in writing.
Page 90 of 158
A copy is held by the Defendant’s solicitors and is available for inspection by the
parties to these Dorrington Street Proceedings by prior appointment.
164. The Defendant says that the Legal Services Commissioner, by virtue of receiving
Defendant’s complaint materials about Hanlon and Harwood was under a
statutory duty to investigate those allegations of misconduct against them to the
full extent of her powers and responsibilities under her enabling Act, but has
instead failed to do her statutory duty under that Act.
165. The Defendant says that the Legal Services Commissioner has further
misinterpreted her powers and responsibilities under the Act:
a. by reason of asserting to the Defendant in the First LSC Ostrich Letter that
the Defendant’s complaint was in some way incomplete or inadequate to
trigger the Legal Services Commissioner’s obligation to investigate his
misconduct complaint against Hanlon and Harwood; and
b. by asserting that the Defendant (who does not have the statutory powers or
Government funding, or statutory responsibilities that the Legal Services
Commissioner does) is required by the Act to conduct in depth investigations
and provide an in depth report to the Legal Services Commissioner of the
misconduct alleged, before the Legal Services Commissioner is required to
take any action in respect of that complaint.
166. The Defendant has suffered loss and damage by reason of the failures of the
Legal Services Commissioner including the continuation of the Cressy Blackmail
Scheme, the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Blackmail Scheme and the Devries-Berry-
Turnbull Blackmail Scheme by reason of the failure of the Legal Services
Commissioner to investigate and deal with the Defendant’s misconduct
complaints about Hanlon and Harwood as she was required to do under the Act.
167. The Devries Defamations
By letter dated 25 June 2008 Devries published a letter to the Legal Services
Commissioner containing the following statements defaming the Defendant
(‘First Devries Defamations’), namely:
Page 91 of 158
‘I am writing to you to draw your attention to the unprofessional conduct of Mr
Johnson. I have acted against Mr Johnson in various proceedings, in various
jurisdictions, over recent months. The proceedings are between him and my
client who asserts in her proceedings that she and Mr Johnson lived together in
a domestic relationship. Throughout the proceedings Mr Johnson has acted for
himself.
Throughout the various proceedings Mr Johnson has written a great deal of

correspondence and Court documents, including Affidavits sworn by him, almost
all of which are unprofessional and scandalous to varying degrees. I do not
have copies of the relevant documents as they are back with my Instructors,
Berry Family Law (per Mr James Turnbull). They are voluminous and speak for
themselves. In the course of proceedings before him the Honourable Mr Justice
Cavanough, sitting in the Practice Court of the Supreme Court on 20 June 2008,
commented that some of the correspondence from Mr Johnson was most
unprofessional. I request that you consider seeking a perusal of those
documents. I am not in a position to provide them to you.
Attached are two facsimile messages sent to me today by Mr Johnson and

copied to various other persons. I submit they are unprofessional, intemperate
and scandalous. I did inadvertently misspell Mr Johnson’s name on a fax
coversheet. That arose out of time pressures I was under from the Court to get
the documents sent under its cover out to other parties.
I did refer in the proceedings to Mr Johnson being registered under the

Prostitution Control Act as a prostitute. I did that after he repeatedly made those
accusations of my client in the context where he was trying to use them on
credit. I made the reference on specific instructions and corroborated by
documents exhibited to an affidavit sworn by Mr Johnson, which such Affidavit
was admitted into evidence by the Court. Those documents included copies of
his application for registration under that Act as a prostitute, his registration
under the Act and business cards of his quoting his Registration number under
the Act.
Other actions of Mr Johnson that I believe are unprofessional include:
Page 92 of 158
1. On 19 June 2008 he and I were in the queue to “book in” with the Co-
ordinator of such matters, an Intervention Order application made by
him against my client. We were in the Magistrates Court of Victoria at
Sunshine. It was just before 10 am and the co-ordinator was a Court
Registrar. There were other people within earshot. I stated to the co-
ordinator that I wished the matter brought before the Magistrate as I
wished “to make submissions on jurisdictional issues”. Mr Johnson
repeatedly and loudly said to the co-ordinator that I was a “liar” and
that I “was lying” to her. He went onto say that I had no intention of
making a jurisdictional application. I did have that intention and I did
make that application. My jurisdictional application was adjourned off
to the final hearing of Mr Johnson’s intervention order application.
2. Throughout the various proceedings variously before the Listing

Master, the Honourable Mr Justice Smith in the Supreme Court
Practice Court, Magistrate Lethbridge at Sunshine and before Mr
Justice Cavanough Mr Johnson has repeatedly threatened to “report
me”. Sometimes this has been in open Court, sometimes it has been
in front of my Instructor and sometimes in front of others. He has
made similar threats against my instructors on those occasions.
Previously he has made complaints against Counsel who proceeded
me in the matter and my Instructors’ predecessors and succeeded in
having them disqualify themselves from acting further for my client.
The threats have been clearly made to induce me to withdraw and
presumably my Instructors too. He was advised in open Court before
the Listing Master that such threats would not have that effect and
neither would official complaints made without proper basis.
Notwithstanding that the threats continue to be made and to be made
to encourage us to withdraw leaving our client without legal
representation.
3. Throughout the occasions referred to in the previous paragraph Mr

Johnson has repeatedly accused my Instructors and I of acting
unlawfully merely by representing our client. He has repeatedly
expressed the view that our client has no case and therefore she is
blackmailing him and by representing her we are doing the same. My
Page 93 of 158
instructions gave me no good reason to believe other than that my
client has a good arguable case under Part IX of the Property Law
Act 1958. Various documents emanating from Mr Johnson himself
reinforce my view that my client has at the very least a good arguable
case.
4. Throughout all of the Court cases Mr Johnson has acted

discourteously to the Judicial Officers and I. He has repeatedly
interjected, interrupted, spoken over the top of us, spoken without
rising to his feet, and so on. Each of the proceedings has been
recorded and the recordings will speak for themselves. On each
occasion the Judicial Officer concerned has had to repeatedly request
Mr Johnson not to interrupt, to stand up and so on, and all but the
Listing Master and Mr Justice Smith have had to resort to threatening
to have Mr Johnson removed from the Court if he persisted in that
behaviour.
5. From time to time Mr Johnson has deliberately misled the Court

and/or as an Officer of the Court has been less than candid with the
Court. Some of that is dealt with above. A further example is on 20
June 2008 Mr Johnson repeatedly informed His Honour that his Email
had been cut off but later said that documents faxed to a certain
number would be immediately Emailed to him.
Mr Johnson repeatedly accuses my client of being “criminally insane”

whatever that means and having psychiatric problems. Having trained
and worked as a Psychologist it is my considered view that Mr Johnson
may have such a degree of psychiatric issues on his own part as to
render him an unfit person to continue to practice as an Australian Legal
Practitioner.
I have made this complaint in somewhat of a rush as I am leaving on an

interstate holiday tomorrow evening and will be away until the afternoon
of Wednesday next. The week after that I will be in Bendigo for the
Federal Magistrates Court Circuit. At all times I should be contactable on
my mobile telephone (0418 544 588) and would be happy to take any
Page 94 of 158
calls from you.
Yours faithfully’
Particulars
The First Devries Defamations and the attachments thereto are in writing.
Copies of that correspondence and the attachments are held by the Defendant’s
solicitors and are available for inspection by the parties to these Dorrington
168. In response to each of the First Devries Defamations, the Defendant responds as
follows:
• Mr Justice Cavanough, sitting in the Practice Court of the Supreme Court on 20

June 2008, categorically did not comment that some of the correspondence
form Mr Johnson was most unprofessional. Mr Justice Cavanough did comment
that he had not seen and of the documentation (that is, the Court documents or
the correspondence) and had no knowledge of the proceedings whatsoever prior
to the commencement of that Practice Court hearing, commencing with Devries
submissions at about 10.30 am that morning.
• Prior to the 1.00 pm lunchtime adjournment of the Practice Court on 20 June

2008 (Devries having already by that time been on his feet making submissions
to Mr Justice Cavanough for more than the 2 hour maximum time limit allowed
under Supreme Court practice and procedure for Practice Court hearings)
Devries made a submission with words to the effect: ‘Mr Johnson is not being
entirely honest with your Honour. Mr Johnson is acting in breach of his
obligations of disclosure of facts as an officer of this court.’ Mr Devries then
made a submission in precisely the following words: ‘Mr Johnson is earning a
second, hidden income as a prostitute.’
After the lunch-time adjournment, on resumption of the hearing, Devries

informed Mr Justice Cavanough that he was going to ask the Court for his client
step into the witness box to give testimony to support that allegation that the
Defendant ‘is earning a second, hidden income as a prostitute.’ But Devries said
that during the lunchtime interval his instructor had drawn his attention to an
Page 95 of 158
Affidavit that the Defendant had sworn in the Cressy Children Protection
Proceedings in response to these allegations. Devries said that he would like to
tender that Affidavit in these Larger Proceedings, which the Defendant
consented to on the proviso that the entire affidavit and all of the exhibits were
included in that exhibit, and Mr Justice Cavanough admitted them as ‘Exhibit C1’
in the Larger Proceedings (‘Exhibit C1’).
Exhibit C1 discloses:
o that the Defendant had, foolishly, registered himself as an “adult services

provider” under the Prostitution Control Act in early 2000 as a desperate
and ultimately failed attempt at a time of great grief and distress to
persuade the Cressy Party stop working as a prostitute at Lorraine Starr
brothel in Malop Street Geelong, where against the Defendant’s wishes
she had resumed working, after breaking off her relationship with the
Defendant (knife pointed at the Defendant) and despite being three
months pregnant with a child that the Cressy Party had told the
Defendant she thought he might be the father.
o That the Defendant never worked as an adult services provider;
o That the documentation that the Cressy Party was using to put forward
these allegations about the Defendant were among documents that the
Cressy Party had stolen from the Defendant in late 2001 or 2002 and had
since that date been using along with other threats to blackmail the
Defendant.
o That the Defendant’s registration as an “adult services provider” would
have expired many years prior to the commencement of these
proceedings;
o That, and unlike Devries, the Defendant does not believe and has never
believed that working as a prostitute automatically and with nothing more
implies that a person is dishonest and lacks credibility; however the
Defendant believes that a person who burgles and blackmails, and
commits indiscriminate perjury (as the Cressy Party has done as
recorded in this Counterclaim and throughout the course of the Larger
Proceedings) is dishonest and lacks credibility.
And the Defendant says that, contrary to Devries prejudice and assertions:
Page 96 of 158
• the mere fact that the Cressy Party is and was at all reasonable
times (including whilst heavily pregnant with both her second and
her third living children) working as a prostitute, does not in
isolation suggest any dishonesty or lack of credibility on the part
of the Cressy Party; and
• the mere fact that the Defendant did register himself under the
Prostitution Control Act in 2000 (some 8 years ago):
• does not in isolation suggest any dishonesty or lack of

credibility on the part of the Defendant; and
• does not in isolation, and with nothing more, suggest that
the Defendant ever worked as a prostitute;
• does not in isolation, and with nothing more, suggest that
the Defendant was in 2008 working as a prostitute and
concealing that fact from the Court;
• does not impose any obligation on the Defendant as an
officer of this Honourable Court to mention that act of
registration 8 years ago, in circumstances where that
registration has no relevance and never had any relevance
to any of the issues of the Larger Proceedings or the
Cressy Child Protection Proceedings,
but Devries raising this and in the way he did before Mr Justice Cavanough is
just a further demonstration of the smear campaign run by the Cressy Party,
the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties and the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties
as part of their respective blackmail schemes against the Defendant.
When invited by Mr Justice Cavanough at 3.43 pm on that Friday to give

submissions on his own behalf for a few minutes in response to the more
than 3 ½ hours of submissions that day by Devries, the Defendant sought to
make each of the above points and to explain that Devries submission that
the Defendant ‘is earning a second, hidden income as a prostitute’ emanated
from an exasperated comment by the Defendant the previous morning in
hearing before Magistrate Lethbridge at the Sunshine Magistrates Court that
Page 97 of 158
the Defendant is a ’44 year old barrister and solicitor and officer of the Court
of 18 plus years good standing who was being blackmailed and burgled by a
29 year old prostitute.’ The Defendant sought to explain to Mr Justice
Cavanough that in his opinion (and in the opinion of several lay observers of
these proceedings with whom he caucused later that day) the key colour
words from a creditworthiness perspective (if such a perspective has any
utility that is, for a practice court hearing where there is no witness evidence
given or essayed in any event) were the ‘B-words’ being ‘blackmail’ and
‘burglary’, which Devries had not objected to on 19 June 2008 before
Magistrate Lethbridge, or on 20 June 2008 before Mr Justice Cavanough.
However, in the dying minutes of that Friday afternoon (it being by this time
after 4pm normal closing time for the Court) Mr Justice Cavanough’s mind
was already poisoned and closed-off to any submissions that the Defendant
could make to try to redress Devries malicious and malfeased submissions
and representations to the Court.
The Defendant had arrived at Court on the morning of 20 June 2008 to find
that he had already been the subject of ‘cricket field’ style sledging to Mr
Justice Cavanough’s Tipstaff by someone, presumably Devries who was
loitering outside of Court Room 10 when the Defendant arrived at close to
9.30 am. The Tipstaff greeted the Defendant, who had just signed in, with a
greeting to the effect ‘Oh, Mr Johnson, you are representing yourself in Court
today. There isn’t going to be any trouble is there?’ The Defendant replied to
the effect: ‘why would there be any trouble? I’m a barrister and solicitor and
officer of the Court of 18 years good standing. The Defendant then asked,
‘Excuse me, but why did you ask that’ and the Tipstaff replied to the effect
‘Oh because I’ve heard things about you. There’s not going to be any trouble
is there.’ The Tipstaff declined to answer the Defendant’s polite questions
that the Tipstaff say what he had heard and who he had heard it from.
This 20 June 2008 cricketing style’ sledge which the Defendant believes
emanated from Devries, but cannot be proved follows on from the ‘AFL
football’ type sledge that Devries applied against the Defendant on the first
occasion of meeting the Defendant before Listing Master Kings in early April
2008, just a few days after the ‘Barry Hall AFL striking incident’, when
Devries, who had seated himself inappropriately at the bar table for the
Page 98 of 158
express purpose, about 3 minutes into the hearing stood up and declared to
Master Kings, ‘Excuse me master, but you understand why I don’t feel safe
sitting here, don’t you?’ before moving himself from the extreme right edge of
the bar table, to the far left of the bar table, upseating his instructor in the
process who had to sit on the (proper) reverse side of the bar table (facing
away from the Master) so that Devries and not his instructor was facing
Master Kings. A more patent example of a staged performance could not be
imagined, as the Defendant commented in his very next correspondence to
Turnbull, as is exhibited to the Defendant’s Affidavit of 11 July 2008 in the
Larger Proceedings.
• As to the other of the First Devries Defamations (and adopting the same
numbering of points):
1. Devries description of a “booking in” incident at the Sunshine Magistrates

Court on 19 June 2008 is a total and malicious fabrication on his part. The
Defendant was sitting in the allocated Court Room, some time well after 10 am,
listening to matters before Magistrate Lethbridge that proceeded the Defendant’s
application which was merely ‘listed for mention’ in Court that day. The
Defendant was called out to the co-ordinator’s office. The co-ordinator’s issue
was that the Defendant had issued his application against the Cressy Party
under the Magistrates (Domestic Violence) Act in the Geelong Magistrates Court.
On the second hearing of that matter, the Magistrate chose to avoid hearing the
matter by referring it to the Sunshine Magistrates Court, on the grounds that the
Cressy Party’s misconduct (as opposed to the Defendants’ then place of
residence) was within the jurisdiction of the Sunshine Magistrates Court. The co-
ordinator at the Sunshine Magistrates Court was concerned because the file had
been sent to her Court from the Geelong Court in a state of disarray and she
could not ascertain that the relevant paperwork for the complaint had been
served on the Cressy Party. The Defendant arrived to see Devries at the co-
ordinators counter (there being nobody else around but the two co-ordinators,
Devries and the Defendant) with the co-ordinator asking Devries to confirm that
he had all of the papers. Devries body language indicated to me that he was
considering lying and saying that he had not received the relevant paperwork,
but was troubled by the difficulties (a) of explaining how and why he was
standing there at the counter for a matter he didn’t know about; and (b) he was
Page 99 of 158
holding his copies of the relevant papers. After a moment or two of frustration,
the Defendant said to Devries calmly (but with a mild hint of disgust) words to the
effect, ‘Oh come on Mr Devries of course you’ve received the papers. They are
in your hand. Save your lies for the Judge, like you usually do’. Devries then
replied (to the co-ordinator) with words to the effect ‘Did you hear that. Mr
Johnson just defamed me.’ Devries then turned to the Defendant and said to
him ‘I’m going to complain you to the Legal Services Commissioner’, to which
the Defendant replied ‘Ditto’ (calmly and with a hint of disgust) before calmly
walking back to resume a seat in Magistrate Lethbridge’s Courtroom, and
hearing, as he walked away, Devries use the words ‘jurisdictional issue’ for the
first time in his speaking with the co-ordinator. The co-ordinator of course had no
interest in being informed of any ‘jurisdictional submissions’ but simply wanted
confirmation from Devries that he was “signing-in” in respect of that matter and in
response to having been served with relevant paperwork, as that was the sole
point of concern for the co-ordinator, it being unclear from the state of the file as
received by her from the Geelong Magistrates Court that that was the case.
However the Defendant has never had any intention of making any complaint to
the Legal Services Commissioner about either Devries or Turnbull or Berry:
(a) firstly, because the Defendant has already learned from the response he
received to the 3 out of 5 complaints he made about Hanlon that the Legal
Services Commissioner summarily dismisses these sorts of complaints, erring in
law by reference to an unreported 1993 Supreme Court decision of Mr Justice
Grey that is entirely not to the point of anything to do with the Legal Services
Commissioner’s functions, duties and responsibilities under her 2004 enabling
legislation, and he does not want to waste energy or resources that he does not
have to spare;
(b) second, the Defendant does not care if the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties
choose to continue to promote the Cressy Blackmail Scheme and its accretions,
the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Blackmail Scheme and the Devries-Berry-Turnbull
Blackmail Scheme, knowing as they do (for example as sworn by the Cressy
Party in her affidavit of 6 June 2008 relied on by them at the 20 June 2008
hearing before Mr Justice Cavnough) that she does not have income or assets to
pay their legal costs, and knowing as they should by now that they have
financially ruined the Defendant so that even in the improbably situation that the
Court errs in its assessment of the facts and/or law and gives any judgement or
Page 100 of 158

costs orders in favour of the Cressy Party or any of them, or any orders for costs
against the Defendant, the Defendant now by reason of the misconduct and
misfeasance of their actions no longer has the income or the assets to meet
them; and
(c) by continuing to promote the abovementioned blackmail schemes, some
public interest good may come of it, in that by demonstrating in increasingly
grosser terms their incompetence, lack of ethics and malicious malfeasant
actions, this Honourable Court may be inspired to give judgement in terms and
orders that clearly inform the Legal Services Commissioner as to her
responsibilities, powers and functions and may spur the Legal Services
Commissioner to actual do her public duty as empowered, funded and resourced
by the Parliament pursuant to her 2004 enabling legislation (including those
powers and functions and responsibilities specified above), so that some of the
problems besetting the legal profession such as inadequate standards of
competency and ethics amongst some members of the Victorian Bar (as
commented upon by many, such as Professor, and former Victorian Supreme
Justice George Hampel) may get the attention and the treatment that the
ordinary people and citizens of Victoria deserve.
In hearing the matter as ‘listed for mention’, Magistrate Lethbridge heard and not
surprisingly rejected outright Devries submission that his Honour did not have
jurisdiction to hear the Defendant’s complaint (for which submission Devries was
arguing that the Federal Magistrates Court having some jurisdiction, that
cancelled out the clearly stated jurisdiction of the Victorian Magistrate’s Court
under the Magistrates (Domestic Violence) Act. Magistrate Lethbridge did not,
strictly speaking adjourn the matter, but rather set the matter down for hearing at
a later date as a contested case.
2. Further to the comments given at point (1) above, but for that one use of the
word ‘ditto’ on 19 June 2008 to Devries, directly, the Defendant has never
threatened to make any complaints about Devries or Turnbull or Berry to the
Legal Services Commissioner, despite the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties
repeatedly raising this as amongst those concerns.
3. Of the many accredited family law specialists and other Australian Legal
Practitioners whom the Defendant has in vain sought to obtain legal
Page 101 of 158

representation, all of them are quite quickly and firmly of the view that provided
the evidence is properly collected, properly presented, and properly assessed by
the Court, the Cressy Party’s claims against the Defendant have no prospect of
success. However the provisos of ‘properly’ are significant given the differences
in resources available:
o to the Cressy Party, such as:
(a) her ‘hidden’ (?) income of two thousand to three thousand dollars ($2,000
- $3,000) cash each week and perhaps untaxed from her prostitution;
(b) her (and her boyfriend and three children by three different and other
men) all deriving free housing from the Defendant; and
(c) the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties representing her, and now the
Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties representing her, both on speculative financial
arrangements) and their invoiced charges likely to be all up in the order of
two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) to three hundred thousand dollars
($300,000), and the malfeasances and other misconduct that they are willing
to indulge in seeking to gain from their speculation and plunder of the
Defendant’s assets;
compared to:
o the Defendant who has been left financially ruined, unable to earn an
income for many months and for most of 2008, and without any prospect
of funding or obtaining sufficiently experienced and qualified legal
representation to present his defence and counterclaims in the Larger
Proceedings.
4. The Defendant has never, except on one occasion been cautioned or

criticised by a Judicial Officer in any of these proceedings relating to the
Cressy Party, and has kept his dignity despite of all of dirty tactics the
Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties and their predecessors have employed.
That one occasion was on 20 June 2008, in the afternoon session before Mr
Justice Cavanough, when his Honour said to the Defendant words to the
effect. “Mr Johnson. Be quiet. You will get your turn to speak. If you sigh
loudly like that one more time I will have you escorted out of the Courtroom.’
Page 102 of 158

And the Defendant says that he was not aware that his sighing was causing
any distress to Mr Justice Cavanough, the Defendant was not conscious of
any noises, and the Defendant was simply trying to ‘just keep breathing’ in
shocked response to the reprehensible and malfeasant conduct of Devries at
a hearing where Justice Cavanough was disposing himself to make heinous
ultra vires orders in proceedings which Mr Justice Cavanough had said at the
start of Court that morning were inappropriate to have been brought by the
Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties in the Practice Court.
The Defendant categorically says that no Listing Master, nor Mr Justice

Smith, nor any other Judicial Officer of any Court of this jurisdiction have ever
threatened to have Mr Johnson removed from Court, other than the one
occasion involving Mr Justice Cavanough, as described above.
The Defendant has never in any of these abovementioned hearings been

criticised in any way by any Judicial Officer for shouting or speaking too
loudly. On several occasions (including by Mr Justice Cavanough soon after
3.43 pm on Friday 20 June 2008 when his Honour actually allowed the
Defendant to make some submissions on his own behalf) the presiding
Judicial Officer has asked the Defendant to speak more loudly and more
slowly (and as Mr Justice Cavanough put it, ‘so that the stenographer can
keep up with [the Defendant]’).
And the Defendant says that it is obviously a great distress for him to be
involved against his will in any of these Dorrington Street Proceedings, the
Cressy Child Protection Proceedings and the Larger Proceedings in the first
place, let alone being forced by poverty induced by the Cressy Blackmail
Scheme, the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Blackmail Scheme and the Devries-
Berry-Turnbull Blackmail Scheme into wearing so many hats as Defendant,
witness, solicitor and advocate (not being equipped with any of the skills or
training or experience of a litigation lawyer whatsoever) and the Defendant
would have thought that the cruelty and manifest injustice of his being
intimidated, oppressed and vexed into having to fulfil all these roles
simultaneously, and the hideous impossibility of doing all of them ‘justice’
(excuse the pun) to be manifestly obvious. The Defendant simply does not
have the energy or capacity or any inclination of character to engage in any
Page 103 of 158

dirty tactics of the kind practised by the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties and
the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties, whilst trying to maintain his focus and
get this Honourable Court’s focus locked onto the genuine issues of fact and
law in these proceedings. The Defendant is exercising great care to
moderate his own behaviour in Court according to his own true character,
whilst dealing with the slings and arrows of outrageous behaviours by the
Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties and the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties and
the Cressy Parties (in the latter case, such outrageous behaviours not being
confined to the Court room but including criminal behaviours described in
these and other materials put before the Court both by the Defendant and by
the Cressy Party also).
(c) The Defendant says that he has always, in and out of Court, in public and
in professional and in private life maintained standards of utmost honesty
and good faith. Further the Defendant has never ‘deliberately misled the
Court and/or an Officer of the Court’ or ‘been less than candid with the
Court’ and these are some of the most heinous claims that could be
made against the Defendant and are pretty extraordinary given the
claimant, Devries, has striking propensities for exactly those kinds of
misconduct (though sometimes that may be from sheer incompetence or
possibly infirmaries on Devries part, rather than universally deliberate
misconduct on his part).
Devries refers to a discussion of the Defendant’s email services. On 20 June

2008 Mr Justice Cavanough requested that the Defendant disclose his email
address. The Defendant replied that he did not want to give out an email
address because he anticipated difficulty in accessing email messages
because the Defendant was in enormous financial difficulty and his service
provider had threatened several times in previous months to cut off his
telephony and internet services on account of several thousands of dollars of
charges being several months in arrears. The Defendant said that he was
expecting his internet and telephony to be disconnected at any moment
without notice. The Defendant asked that all messages be sent to him at a
specific facsimile number, which did not belong to him but he regarded as
secure, as that number was not at risk of being immediately disconnected.
As it transpired, the Defendant’s internet service provider did not disconnect
Page 104 of 158

that internet service or the Defendant’s telephony services until about mid-
August 2008.
169. On 26 June 2008 Devries sent a further facsimile of 25 pages to the Legal
Services Commissioner (‘Second Devries Defamations’) containing statements
defamatory of the Defendant as follows:
‘Dear Madam
Further to my Complaint faxed yesterday I now enclose a further two faxes

received today from Mr Johnson. I have only glanced at parts of them. I
consider them to be intemperate, unprofessional, scandalous, oppressive,
harassment and further attempts to have me withdraw from representing Ms
Cressy. I requested Mr Johnson to cease sending me and others copies of
correspondences of this nature. He later said in a threatening manner, “Mr
Devries you will be very sorry”. That too is highly professional in my opinion.’
Particulars
The Second Devries Defamations and the attachments thereto are in writing.
Copies of that correspondence and the attachments are held by the Defendant’s
170. In response to the Second Devries Defamations the Defendant says as follows:
a. The Defendant has never said anything to Devries ‘in a threatening manner’.
b. The Defendant has never said to Devries the words “Mr Devries you will be
very sorry”.
c. On 25 June 2006 a mediation in the Larger Proceedings was held between

Ms Joanne Rees of the Victorian Bar, as mediator, and attended by the
Defendant, the Cressy Party and Turnbull as the legal representative for the
Cressy Party.
d. About midway through the mediation, Devries burst into the mediation room
unannounced and without good reason to be there and started to threaten
Page 105 of 158

the Defendant about the correspondences the Defendant had written to the
parties at the hearing before Justice Cavanough on 20 June 2008 and
complaining about several aspects of the drafting that Devries had produced
seeking to gild and/or misdescribe to the Cressy Party’s advantage the
written orders made by Justice Cavanough on 20 June 2008 (they not being
reduced to writing before His Honour closed Court for that week shortly
before 5 pm that Friday). Devries made various verbal attacks against the
Defendant, including threatening to sue the Defendant for defamation. The
Defendant did not make any response to Devries (thinking that it was pretty
foolish for Devries to be behaving this way, or to be contemplating suing a
man after rather than before driving him to financial ruin). The Mediator told
Devries off for behaving inappropriately and after a few more minutes of this
Devries began to calm down and said to the Mediator words to the effect ‘I’m
sorry madam’. To this, the Defendant commented in a gentle, bemused tone
of voice for all to hear “you will be, Mr Devries, you will be’. The Mediator,
who had at the start of the mediation set clear rules of conduct for the parties
to observed during the mediation, did not make any comment or rebuke to
the Defendant for his passing comment, and seemed to the Defendant to be
relieved that Devries left the mediation room almost immediately thereafter.
e. The Defendant again says that he does not know if Devries misdescription of
that happening, the interruption of the mediation, was deliberately
misdescribed by Devries in that letter to the Legal Services Commissioner or
whether it might be another demonstration of Devries’ infirmaries or
incompetence.
f. The Defendant refers to and repeats his responses to the First Devries
Defamations, which address Devries wrongful assertion that the Defendant
has some sort of agenda to make Devries withdraw from representing the
Cressy Party.
g. Further, in respect of those allegations, the Defendant refers to his letter to

Devries’ instructor, Turnbull dated 27 March 2008, where the Defendant
welcomes the fact that Turnbull has commenced representation of the
Cressy Party instead of Hanlon and Harwoods, including writing as follows:
Page 106 of 158

‘Dear James
I refer to your letter of 18 March 2008 enclosing Notice of Address for

Service and advising that you now act for Ms Cressy in respect of the
above proceedings [viz the Cressy Child Protection Proceedings] in lieu
of Harwood Andrews.
1. Please advise, do you also now act for Ms Cressy in respect of

Victorian Supreme Court Proceedings No. 9665 of 2007, being Cressy v
Johnson; Harwood Andrews Lawyers, David William Hanlon and Pippin
Patricia Cressy ATS Johnson? If so, please confirm, and also file and
serve a notice of appearance in those proceedings.
2. I enclose for your information copies of various documents and

correspondences that I have served and/or provided to Ms Cressy
(directly and via your predecessors), the other party to these
proceedings, and their respective legal representatives as named
thereon, since 18 March 2008. (I was not aware of your appointment until
Tuesday evening.)
3. I would appreciate your views on each of the matters mentioned in my

attached letter of 20 March 2008 to Ms Lonergan.
4. I hope that you will provide a more competent and ethical level of
service for Ms Cressy than did your predecessor:
a. Ms Cressy’s claims against me and my assets (via caveats and

Supreme Court proceedings) should never have been initiated;
b. My application in these proceedings [viz the Cressy Children

Protection Proceedings] should never have been necessary and should
never have been opposed by Ms Cressy.
5. It is outrageous that all 3 of Ms Cressy’s children, including especially
my Illyana, have suffered so much unnecessary trauma and misery. This
Page 107 of 158

needs to be promptly rectified. Please telephone me once you have
gained sufficient familiarity with the current state of affairs,
including the attached materials, to see whether we might be able to
restore some dignity to this sorry state of affairs.
…’
h. By his letter of 27 March 2008 welcoming Turnbull and Berry to this matter,
the Defendant behaved with a high degree of professionalism and decency
towards Turnbull and Berry, including providing substantial documentation
and information to Turnbull and to Berry that were properly information and
materials that they should have received by way of direct instructions from
the Cressy Party and/or by way of handing over of the matter from their
predecessors, the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties.
i. Rather than responding professionally and decently to the Defendant,

Turnbull and Berry sent to the Defendant a scathing and unprofessional
response, deliberately attempting to intimidate the Defendant, unduly
patronising and excessively critical of the Defendant and demanding from the
Defendant materials and information that they should properly have sought
from their client and/or predecessors and demonstrating to the Defendant
that incompetency-wise (sic) and unethically-wise (double sic) they were at
least as poor as, and probably going to demonstrate themselves to be even
worse than, the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties.
Particulars
The Defendant’s letter to Turnbull and Berry of 27 March 2008 and the many
attachments thereto are in writing, as is the letter that Turnbull and Berry wrote to the
Defendant in reply. Copies of both correspondences (and all their attachments) are held
by the Defendant’s solicitors and are available for inspection by the parties to these
171. By a further 45 page facsimile letter dated 16 July 2008 to the Legal Services
Commissioner (‘Third Devries Defamations’) Devries has published further statements
defamatory of the Defendant, namely:
Page 108 of 158

‘Dear Madam
Further to my Complaints faxed 25 and 26 [sic] I now enclose a further fax

received by me on 14 July 2008. I refer you to the title attributed to me by Mr
Johnson in the address block and the surname attributed to me just under that. I
appreciate they are childish in the extreme but still unprofessional especially
given his habit of distributing these documents far and wide and to the Court. I
believe his submissions attached to that fax are designed to frighten Ms Cressy’s
lawyers into ceasing to act for her. I also enclose (without the exhibits for they
are far too voluminous) the Affidavit sent by Mr Johnson to the Court on 14 July
2008. I refer you in particular to paragraph 2A (especially sub-paragraphs (b)
and (c) thereof and the baseless, unsubstantiated allegations against me and
others of acting fraudulently, extortionately and incompetently), 3 wherein I am
accused, without basis or substantiation, of acting with malice and dishonesty to
the Court, 5 wherein I am again accused of being deceitful and unethical to the
Court – without any basis or substantiation, paragraphs 10A, 10B (including the
insulting reference to me) and 10C, 11 wherein I am accused without basis or
substantiation of acting criminally, 16 including his unprincipled attack on
Honourable members of the Supreme Court, 17(f)(vi) and his criticisms of Mary
Lonegan of the VLA, 18 especially his vile criticisms of my client’s previous
solicitors, 31 and his reference to filing for bankruptcy (a search undertaken by
my instructors revealed no such filing by Mr Johnson. If that is the case he has
deliberately misled the Court), 34 and his unprincipled attack on my Instructors,
37 – more baseless unsubstantiated attacks on me and my reputation, 46 and
his attack on the Honourable Justice Cavanough, 48 – 56 summarised in the
heading thereto but note the last three lines of paragraph 29.
I submit that Mr Johnson in that correspondence has clearly demonstrated that

he is a person unfit to continue to practice as an Australian Legal Practitioner
and Officer of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Clearly, too, he fails to understand
the Victorian Bar’s “cab rank rule” and the obligation of lawyers to put their
client’s case fairly (and without fear of the sort of attacks made by Mr Johnson).
Mr Johnson also sent the Honourable Mr Justice Hanson a document entitled

“Media Release”. If it has been released to the Media, as it purports to have
been, it is without doubt defamatory of Messrs Hanlon, Turnbull, Harwood
Page 109 of 158

Andrews and I and unprofessional conduct – or worse. I have asked for a copy
from the Court and have been promised a copy but it has not yet eventuated.
When it arrives I will send it on to you. It purports to exhibit all of the documents
previously sent to you and the affidavit attached hereto, amongst others.
I beseech you to act quickly before more damage is done. Given that most of Mr
Johnson’s attacks have been made in the context of documents filed in Court
and thus attach “qualified privilege” and Mr Johnson’s stated intention of
declaring himself bankrupt, civil suit would apparently not stop Mr Johnson’s
actions which are also unprofessional and highly damaging to the legal
profession.
Yours faithfully’
172. In response to the Third Devries Defamations, the Defendant says (and with brevity
rather than in moderate or full response):
a. The Defendant’s descriptions of Devries, and others, misfeasance and

misconduct are substantiated in that Affidavit of the Defendant of 11 June
2008 in the Larger Proceedings (a copy of which is attached to this
document) and the Exhibits HJJ-26 to HJJ-32 thereto.
b. The Defendant refers to paragraph 56 of that affidavit, where the Defendant

states:
’56. I now wish merely to note that these are 8 serious reported instances
of professional misconduct by Mr Devries in the context of these
proceedings. And for the sake of brevity (this being already a 30 plus
page Affidavit for use in the second day of a part hearing in the Practice
Court) I have not gone to the trouble of listing all of the serious and
reportable instances accumulated by this man this far. And these
proceedings are really at a nascent stage. Preliminary pleadings have
been exchanged, nothing more. Mr Devries’ own involvement in these
proceedings is barely 3 months old. Given the score, can there be any
doubt that Mr Devries is not fit and proper to practice law in this
Honourable Court?’
Page 110 of 158

c. It is the height of hypocrisy, non-ethics, incompetence and/or infirmary for
Devries to repeated in the same sentence and sentences repeat (sic)
allegations of the Defendant ‘non-substantiating’ his concerns regarding
Devries whilst deliberately withholding from the Legal Services
Commissioner the ‘voluminous’ (his word) supporting exhibits that
substantiate the allegations in the affidavit (which is of course what
supporting exhibits are supposed to do, that is, to support allegations made
on oath in affidavit form).
d. These materials were distributed by the Defendant to the representatives of

the other parties in the Larger Proceedings and in the Cressy Child Custody
Proceedings and relevant Judicial Officers, as is of course required by the
applicable Court rules and procedures and were not distributed by the
Defendant any more widely than these customs and rules required.
e. The Defendant understands all too well the so-called ‘cab rank rule’ (as does
Mr Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court as per his dissenting judgement in
D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victorian Legal Aid and another [2005] 214 ALR 92, as do
eleven English Law Lords in a unanimous 11:0 decision in Arthur J S Hall &
Co (A firm) v Simons; Barratt v Woolf Seddon (a firm); Harris v Scholfield
Roberts and Hill (a firm) [2002] 1 AC 615, and as do the Courts in all
common law countries it seems, with the exception of Messrs Chief Justice
Gleeson, Justice McHugh, Justice Gummow, and of course Mr Justice Ian
Callinan (in the D’Orta-Ekenaike case) .
f. The Defendant understands that the ‘cab rank rule’ is the rule and its
associated exulted status for a privileged few vaulting them above the
operation of judge made laws applicable universally to all other member of
the Victorian public, being a rule now by judicial progress in other Common
law countries quaintly confined to Victoria and Australian jurisdictions, that if
a man (or in only the last century) a woman collects his (or her) client from a
cab rank, under the cab rank rule, then if that man or woman drives the
client’s matter in a negligent manner and causes the client harm, the client
has no rights to any legal remedy against the ‘driver’ unless of course the
driver is actually a driver of a cab (such as a ‘silver top’, or ‘yellow top’ or a
Page 111 of 158

‘black cab’) but especially the negligently driven client has no right in contract
or in tort against a pedestrian cab-ranking barrister who sports a grey-horse
hair woven top over his temple.
g. Further, the Defendant says that he understands that under much longer
standing judicial laws cab-ranking privileges and coloured tops (horse-hair or
vehicular or otherwise) have no application to cases where a person suffers
injury from the misfeasance (abuse of privilege and abuse of Court
processes) by a barrister or a solicitor and that person is entitled to a remedy
on principles affirmed by the Queensland Supreme Court of Appeal in
[Justice Ian] Callinan’s case (Flower & Hart (a firm) v White Industries (Qld)
Pty Ltd [1999] 163 ALR 744) irrespective of whether the injured person was
the client of the malfeasant lawyer (which in these proceedings the
Defendant most certainly isn’t), and even if he (or she) was.
h. Further, and in exercise of his human rights and responsibilities as protected

under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (including
without limitation the obvious, protected human right of freedom of speech)
the Defendant understands that the “cab rank rule” legacy and associated
“privilege” or “immunity” from legal action that persists for a select few
operating within the Australian and Victorian judicial arm of Government (but
not the corresponding judicial limbs of Government in any other outré mer
Commonwealth jurisdictions):
• is not to be understood as a ‘law of lawyering’ made by lawyers to protect

lawyers from the consequences of those lawyers negligent and tortious
acts,
• and is not to be regarded by non-lawyers (or even those lawyers who

can empathise or even visualise the world through the perspective of
non-lawyers) with any shadow of a trade practices suspicion or engender
any other elitism or corruption concerns,
• notwithstanding that other professions (including taxi drivers waiting at

cab ranks, brain surgeons, heart surgeons (who as a rule do not collect
clients (as opposed to organs) at transport terminals anyway), pilots, train
Page 112 of 158

drivers, school bus drivers (all of whom collect clients at designated
transport terminals, just like cab drivers do) and the dozens of other
professional classes mentioned by Mr Justice Michael Kirby in his
dissenting decision in the D’Orta-Ekenaike case – and of course all of
their professional indemnity insurers who would bear the brunt of most
professional malpractice or malfeasance claims anyway – do not enjoy
the same special status of immunity from civil action for their negligent or
other tortious conduct in their theatres of operation; and
• notwithstanding that even within Australia, within the parliamentary and

executive arms of Government (to the extent that the two can still be
meaningfully distinguished from each other) such legacies of absolutist
monarchic privileges (‘the King can do no wrong’) are much more
narrowly constrained (for example, so-called ‘parliamentary privilege’)
and are much more vigorously policed by those arms of Government
than ‘cab rank rules’ and privileges are policed within the judicial arm of
Government by the Courts, the legal profession and the Legal Services
Commissioner whom actively pursue the ostrich strategies described in
this Counterclaim
and, says anybody who suggests that the laws of lawyering made by
lawyers for Australian or Victorian legal practitioners should be otherwise
(respectfully, admitting of only the one exception being allowed for Mr Justice
Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia) is a fool to suggest it should be
otherwise.
i. Devries has misdescribed the Defendant’s Media Release of 14 July 2008

(query, again the customary query with Devries whether that misdescription
is deliberate, or again demonstration of infirmary or incompetence). The
Defendant’s Media Release describes the injustice suffered by the Defendant
in the Practice Court on 20 June 2008 under the presidency of Mr Justice
Cavanough. The Defendant says that the Media Release cannot be in any
way regarded by any reasonable person as defamatory because it contains
only true statements of fact. Nor does the Media Release refer to any of
Hanlon, Turnbull, Harwood or Devries by name or in any other way that might
lead any reasonable person reading the Media Release to identify any of
Page 113 of 158

them.
j. The Defendant also says that he does not understand the suggestions in the
last paragraph of Devries letter of 16 July 2008 to the effect that the
Defendant is behaving aggressively or maliciously or deliberately by pointing
out the inevitable consequences of those proceedings before the Justice
Cavanough and the actions of the Cressy Party and those promoting and
supporting her, namely that the Defendant had been financially ruined
despite all of his best efforts, and his continuing best efforts, to stay financial
and avoid the inevitability of bankruptcy.
Particulars
The Third Devries Defamations are in writing, and a copy is held by the Defendant’s
solicitors and is available for inspection by the parties to these Dorrington Street
The Defendant’s Media Release of 14 July 2008 is in writing and, along with a copy of a
second Media Release prepared by the Defendant dated 28 July 2008, is attached to
this counterclaim.
The Defendant’s Affidavit of 11 July 2008 in the Larger Proceedings is in writing (of
course) and is attached to this document and copies of the exhibits thereto are held by
the Defendant’s solicitor and are available for inspection by the parties to these
173. On 18 July 2008 (some two whole days and presumably less than 48 hours later than
the date of the 45 page Third Devries Defamations that did not have with it the
‘voluminous’ (in Devries words) supporting exhibits substantiating the claims made in
the attached affidavit materials) the Legal Services Commissioner wrote a letter to
Devries (‘Third LSC Ostrich Letter’) containing statements as follows:
‘Dear Mr Devries
Page 114 of 158

2004 (“the Act”).
I have closed your file pursuant to section 4.2.10 of the Act because the
concerns about the practitioner’s conduct that you raise in your complaint can be
said to be relevant to the Court proceedings on foot. It is not, therefore,
appropriate for me to intervene.
I note that you say His Honour Judge Cavanough has commented on the
unprofessional nature of some of Mr Johnson’s correspondence. It is
appropriate, however, for the proceedings to run their course and if the Court
makes a finding adverse to the practitioner, then you can refer the matter back to
me at that time, for my consideration.
Should you have any queries please telephone Margaret McNamara on 1300
796 344.
Yours sincerely
[per]
VICTORIA MARLES
174. The Defendant says that the Legal Services Commissioner has entirely
misconstrued her powers, responsibilities and functions under Chapter 4 of her
2004 enabling Act (the Legal Profession Practice Act 2004) and has totally
misconceived the irrelevant (for the purposes of that 2004 Act) 1993 decision of
the Supreme Court of Victoria in the case Delahunty v Howell and Mann.
175. The Defendant further says that the Legal Services Commissioner has published
to Devries a defamatory statement to the effect ‘… His Honour Judge [sic]
Page 115 of 158

Cavanough has commented on the unprofessional nature of some of Mr
Johnson’s correspondence.’ Whilst failing to make any inquiries or investigations
into the truth or substance of that scandalous remark.
176. The Defendant says that the Legal Services Commissioner, by virtue of being
put in receipt of the Defendant’s complaint materials about Devries by Devries
himself (namely the Defendant’s Affidavit in the Larger Proceedings dated 11
July 2008) the Legal Services Commissioner was under a statutory duty to
investigate those allegations of misconduct against the Devries-Berry-Turnbull
Parties to the full extent of her powers and responsibilities under her enabling
Act, but has instead failed to do her statutory duty under that Act.
177. By reason of the publication of the abovementioned words and by reason of the
matters aforesaid, the Defendant has been injured in his character, credit and
reputation and his position has been brought into public scandal, odium and
contempt and he has suffered loss and damage.
178. The Defendant says that by reason of the Legal Services Commissioner’s
defamation of him, and by reason of the Legal Services Commissioner’s failure
to perform her statutory duties under the Act the Defendant has suffered loss
and damage, namely the continuation without respite of the Cressy Blackmail
Scheme, and its accretions the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Blackmail Scheme and
the Devries-Berry Turnbull Blackmail Scheme.
179. The Hanlon Defamations
On or about 11 March 2008 Hanlon lodged with the Legal Services

Commissioner a complaint form containing complaints about the Defendant,
including several letters and other documents sent to him on a ‘private and
confidential basis’, the Defendant’s Amended Defence and Counterclaim in the
Larger Proceedings and making defamatory statements about the Defendant to
the effect that the Defendant’s actions and documentation constituted
‘inappropriate behaviour’ (‘Hanlon Defamations’).
Particulars
The Hanlon Defamations are in writing, and copies are held by the Defendant’s
Page 116 of 158

The attachments to the Hanlon Defamations included a handwritten letter sent
by the Defendant to the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties on 13 February 2008
and a copy of that letter is attached to this Counterclaim.
180. On 31 March 2008 the Legal Services Commissioner sent a letter (‘Second LSC
Ostrich Letter’) containing statements as follows:
‘Dear Mr Hanlon
2004 (“the Act”).
My reasons for this decision are as follows: -
1. Court Proceedings on foot
Proceedings in relation to this matter have already been commenced in a Court,

being a claim by your client Ms Pippin Cressy (the client) against the practitioner
in the originating proceeding and a counterclaim brought by the practitioner
against the client, you and the law practice of Harwood Andrews Lawyers.
It appears that the conduct issues raised by your complaint, relating to the
practitioner’s motives in counterclaiming against you, are directly relevant to
those Court proceedings.
Page 117 of 158

If the Court makes a finding adverse to the practitioner, then you can refer the
matter back to me for my consideration.
2. Personal Capacity
Further, your complaint relates to the practitioner’s conduct as an individual, in

his capacity as the de facto husband in the proceedings, and your complaint
does not relate to the practitioner’s conduct as a legal practitioner.
A legal practitioner has a right to pursue a matter as a private individual,

notwithstanding the emotional and financial expense that you or the client might
suffer as a result of such actions.
Merely because the practitioner is a legal practitioner does not impose on her
[sic?] a greater obligation towards you than that expected of any other private
individual in dealings with you.
For the reasons I have mentioned however, I am unable to intervene in your

ongoing problems with the practitioner, some of which it appears can only be
dealt with by a Court.
Accordingly your file is now closed.
I am aware that this result may not satisfy you but I am restricted by the
provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2004.
Yours sincerely
[per]
VICTORIA MARLES
181. The Defendant further says that the Legal Services Commissioner has published
to Hanlon and Harwood a defamatory statement to the effect that:
Page 118 of 158

‘… your complaint relates to the practitioner’s conduct as an individual, in
his capacity as the de facto husband in the proceedings, and your
complaint does not relate to the practitioner’s conduct as a legal
practitioner.
A legal practitioner has a right to pursue a matter as a private individual,

notwithstanding the emotional and financial expense that you or the client
might suffer as a result of such actions.’
whilst failing to make any inquiries or investigations into the truth or substance of
those scandalous remarks.
182. The Defendant says that the Legal Services Commissioner, by virtue of being
put in receipt of the Defendant’s complaint materials about Hanlon and Harwood
and Ingleby, being given complaint materials by Hanlon himself (namely the
materials attached to the Hanlon Defamations)) the Legal Services
Commissioner was under a statutory duty to investigate those allegations of
misconduct against the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties to the full extent of her
powers and responsibilities under her enabling Act, but has instead failed to do
her statutory duty under that Act.
183. The Law Institute of Victoria Ostrich Scheme
The Law Institute of Victoria Limited (‘Law Institute’) is a company taken to be

incorporated in Victoria for the purposes of a voluntary association by members of the
legal profession in the State of Victoria who are not members of the Victorian Bar.
184. The constitution of the Law Institute (‘Constitution’) constitutes a contract between its
members, including the Defendant, and relevant clauses of the Constitution describe the
objects and purposes of the Law Institute as follows:
‘2. Objects
The objects for which the Company is established are:
(1) to take over the funds and other assets and liabilities of the former
Page 119 of 158

statutory body known as the Law Institute of Victoria;
(2) to foster the rule of law and to promote improvements and developments
in the law;
(3) to safeguard the independence of the legal profession;
(4) to strengthen the community’s understanding and confidence both in the
legal profession and in the processes by which the law is made and
administered;
(5) to act as a public voice for the expression of members’ opinions;
(6) to represent the professional interests of members both generally and
individually in their relations with the community including governments,
courts and other institutions;
(7) to promote and ensure compliance with high standards of professional
and ethical conduct, professional practice and client service among
Australian legal practitioners and to provide advice in relation to such
matters;
(8) to accept delegated functions from the Legal Services Board and the
Legal Services Commissioner and to enter into the necessary
arrangements with those bodies for the completion of that work in
accordance with the Legal Profession Act 2004;
(9) to accept referrals from the Legal Services Commissioner to investigate
and provide recommendations in respect of disciplinary complaints in
accordance with the Legal Profession Act 2004;
(10)to provide and co-ordinate programs relating to continuing legal
education and specialist accreditation for Australian legal practitioners;
(11)to provide a useful and cost effective range of services, facilities and
benefits to members;
(12)to apply for and hold a Club Licence and any applicable permits under
the Liquor Control Act;
(13)to exercise any powers that the Company has by having the legal
capacity of a natural person, including performing any act or function
which it is authorised or required to do by any law.’
Particulars
The Constitution of the Law Institute is in writing and copies may be obtained form the
Law Institute website.
Page 120 of 158

185. On 5 March 2008 the Defendant wrote to the Professional Standards Section of the Law
Institute requesting, essentially, that the Law Institute intervene to broker a resolution of
the dispute between the Defendant and Harwood and Hanlon centring on the Cressy
Caveat and the First Harwood Caveat and the Defendant’s complaints (including to
complaints to Harwood) over the behaviour of Hanlon in promoting the Cressy Blackmail
Scheme, including in the following terms:
‘I wish to advise that on 18 February 2008 I issued, by way of cross-claims in the

Victorian Supreme Court Proceedings 9665 of 2007, claims against Harwood
Andrews and David William Hanlon for breach of duties and other
misconducts. I attach for the information of the Institute a copy of my facsimile
today to Harwood Andrews.
I have also lodged with Harwood Andrews this morning a formal complaint
regarding gross misconduct by its employee solicitor David William Hanlon. I
attach for the information of the Institute a copy of my facsimile today to
Harwood Andrews.
Purpose of this letter
The purpose of this letter is:
1. To provide the Institute, and Professional Standards with a pre-briefing on the

circumstances that have led me to the situation where I had no choice but to
take these actions against Harwood Andrews and David William Hanlon. As I
know and have until now always got along well with the Chairman of Harwood
Andrews, I am hopeful that the two of us can sort out the situation without the
need for me to make a formal complaint to the Institute regarding that firm and its
employee solicitor.
Accordingly, I request that the Institute treat this letter and the attachments as
pre-briefing information only. I do not want to make a formal complaint about
them, and hopefully that will not become necessary.
2. To keep the Institute informed of these proceedings as I am also a legal

practitioner of some 17 plus years good standing (LIV Membership Number
Page 121 of 158

17069). During the course of the proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court
and the Federal Magistrates Court (family law jurisdiction) I have been subjected
to some of the most heinous defamation and outrageous attacks imaginable,
which have been levelled against me by Ms Pippin Cressy, the plaintiff / first
respondent in these proceedings and others, such as Mr Hanlon. These have
included burglaries, thefts, destruction of property, destruction of evidence and
physical assaults against me and my/our 7 year old daughter, her two infant half-
brothers (all 3 to different men) and her infant, 8 year old aunt….
Particulars
The Defendant’s letter of 5 March 2008 to the Law Institute of Victoria is in writing, a
copy of which is held by the Defendant’s solicitors and is available for inspection by the
186. The Defendant’s letter of 5 March 2008 to Harwood was addressed to its Chairman,
Richard Anderson, the Defendant’s long-term external legal counsel, and reads as
follows:
‘Dear Richard
DAVID WILLIAM HANLON AND PIPPIN PATRICIA CRESSY
Mate, I hope you don’t live to regret standing me up for drinks on 18 Feb. No
hard feelings on my part. I hope we are in a position to have those drinks sooner
rather than later.
Attached is copy of my facsimile this morning to Collin Twigg regarding the two
aforementioned villains.
I will give you a week to throw some leadership and much needed intelligence
into shutting down these scams. This is not easy for me to do, given that I am
back in the Supreme Court over this on Wednesday. I expect more hijinks too in
the Federal Magistrates Court circus before the end of the month.
If you can’t make substantial progress in the next week, then I will reluctantly
forward the attached materials to Professional Standards at the Law Institute and
Page 122 of 158

let the big boys sort it out.
To protect my reputation, I have already pre-briefed the Law Institute on the

situation.
Best wishes
[signed]
James Johnson’
Particulars
The Defendant’s letters of 5 March 2008 to Harwood are in writing, a copy of which is
held by the Defendant’s solicitors and is available for inspection by the parties to these
187. On or about 10 March the Defendant received a letter from the Law Institute (the ‘First
LIV Ostrich Response’) dated 7 March 2008 informing him that the Law Institute did
not wish to be involved in the intermediation of this dispute, and stating:
‘I refer to your recent correspondence received by the Law Institute of Victoria

Ltd.
Please note that the Law Institute of Victoria is not able to “appoint a mediator to
compel … Harwood Andrews to meet with me” as requested by you …’
Particulars
The First LIV Ostrich Response is in writing and a copy is held by the Defendant’s
solicitors and is available for inspection by the parties to these Dorrington Street
188. On 29 October 2008 the Defendant met with the President of the Law Institute, as a last
ditched attempt to seek to obtain legal representation and/or funding and/or other
resources or support to assist the Defendant to defend himself from the Cressy
Blackmail Scheme, the Hanlon-Harwood-Devries Blackmail Scheme and the Devries-
Berry-Turnbull Blackmail Scheme.
Page 123 of 158

189. In lieu of providing the Defendant with legal advice, the President of the Law Institute
gave the Defendant financial advice and medical advice or questionable value (the
‘Second LIV Ostrich Response’) to the effect that the Defendant:
a. Should treat the experiences, including the blackmail schemes described

above, as a ‘learning experience’;
b. Should accept that ‘bad things happen’ and that ‘there is nothing anyone can
do about it’ and that ‘these family lawyers’ ‘are not real lawyers anyway’;
c. Should teach them a lesson (show them ‘up yours’) by declaring himself
bankrupt as soon as possible;
d. Should ‘go sit on a beach’ for a few months or years, after seeing a
psychiatrist for prescriptions for tranquilisers and other anti-depressants to
dope up on first;
e. Should as soon as possible seek employment as a locum and/or employee

solicitor in a low stress area of law and practice, so as to start earning an
income again.
f. Should ‘leave it to karma’ for the Cressy Party and the Hanlon-Harwood-
Ingleby Parties and the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties to ‘get what they
deserve’ including just leaving it to the Cressy Party to ‘move onto her next
[blackmail] victim(s)’.
g. Should stop caring about (and should never have cared about) any of the
Cressy Party’s three children born to three different men, and what has
happened to them and what may happen to them in the future, including the
youngest of the three who might be the Defendant’s biological offspring, and
the middle of the three who was raised for the first 9 years of his life believing
he too was the Defendant’s biological offspring.
Particulars
The Second LIV Ostrich Response was oral but is substantially evidenced in writing in
the form of a memorandum from the President of the Law Institute to the Defendant
Page 124 of 158

dated 29 October 2008, a copy of which is held by the Defendant’s solicitors and is
appointment.
190. In making the First LIV Ostrich Response and the Second LIV Ostrich Response the
Law Institute breached its contract with the Defendant (the terms of which are set out in
the Law Institute’s Constitution) and its duty of care to the Defendant to render
assistance and aid to the Defendant in his time of need, and especially to assist the
Defendant to resolve his dispute with Hanlon and Harwood (and indirectly, with the
Cressy Party).
191. By virtue of the aforementioned negligence and breach of contract by the Law Institute
the Defendant has suffered loss and damage by virtue of:
a. the non-settlement of his disputes with Hanlon and Harwood and the
consequent acerbation of those disputes, the subject now of these
Dorrington Street Proceedings and the Larger Proceedings and the Cressy
Child Protection Proceedings; and
b. the failure and breach by the Law Institute of its Constitution in failing to
provide the Defendant with assistance, support and protection and
representation in order to fairly and properly defend himself from the
allegations of the Cressy Party, the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties and the
Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties in and in connection with the Larger
Proceedings.
192. The Attorney-General’s Anti-Whistleblower Scheme
On 21 July the Defendant wrote a detailed letter to the Attorney-General and the
Minister for Community Services and others complaining about:
a. misconduct and corruption by Mr Justice Cavanough in the conduct of the

(full day) Practice Court hearing in the Larger Proceedings on 20 June 2008,
including a number of detailed attachment documents; and
b. the plight of the Cressy Party’s three children,
(‘Cavanough Corruption Complaint’) and requesting protection from reprisal
Page 125 of 158

actions and other protections under the whistleblowers protection guidelines and
laws and procedures established by the Attorney-General’s Department and
under the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001.
Particulars
The Cavanough Corruption Complaint is in writing and a copy of it and its attachments is
held by the Defendant’s solicitors and is available for inspection by the parties to these
193. On or about 1 August 2008 the Defendant received a letter from the Department of
Human Services from a person by the name of Ellen-Jane Browne expressed to be a
response to the Defendant on behalf of Lisa Neville MLA, Minister for Community
Services and in the following terms:
‘Dear Mr Johnson
I refer to your letter dated 21 July 2008 which was addressed to the Honourable
Rob Hulls MLA and a copy to Ms Lisa Neville, MLA, Minister for Community
Services. Minister Neville has requested that, on her behalf, I provide a response
to you.
In your letter, and in the attached documents, you have raised a number of
matters and have referred to making a disclosure of corruption and improper
conduct under the Whistleblower Protection Act 2001 (the Act).
The Act requires a disclosure be made to the public body to which the matter
relates, or to the Ombudsman. My review of your documents indicates that the
matters which may possibly be disclosures in accordance with the Act relate
more appropriately to the Attorney-General and the Department of Justice. I
note that your letter has been forwarded to the Attorney General, the Department
of Justice and the Ombudsman.
You have also made reference to matters regarding a number of children but
have not, from my review of the documents, specifically requested that the
department’s child protection officers should investigate. The most appropriate
contact number should you wish to report a concern regarding these children is
Page 126 of 158

131278.
Please give me a call on 90967312 if any clarification is necessary.
Yours sincerely
[signed]
Ellen-Jane Browne
Protected Disclosure Co-ordinator
Department of Human Services’
Particulars
That letter from the Department of Human Services is in writing and a copy is held by
the Defendant’s solicitors and is available for inspection by the parties to these
194. On or about 5 August 2008 the Defendant received a letter in writing from a person by
the name of Peter Johnston purporting to hold the position of a ‘Principal Consultant,
Human Resources, Deputy Protected Disclosure Co-ordinator’ and purporting to be
writing in response to the Cavanough Corruption Complaint (‘Attorney-General’s Anti-
Whistleblower Letter’), and stating, simply, that in the writer’s opinion the Defendant
was not a ‘whistleblower’ within the meaning of the Whistleblowers Protection Act.
Particulars
The Attorney-General’s Anti-Whistleblower Letter is in writing and a copy of it and its
attachments is held by the Defendant’s solicitors and is available for inspection by the
195. The Defendant has not received any further correspondence from or on behalf of the
Attorney-General relating to the Cavanough Corruption Complaint, which raises a
number of possibilities from the Attorney-General’s Anti-whistleblower Letter, namely:
b. That the Attorney-General, notwithstanding the stated objectives and

purposes of the Whistleblowers Protection Act, now has a policy of refusing
to entertain corruption complaints from persons who are not strictly
‘whistleblowers’ within the specific statutory definition thereof in that Act;
c. That it may now be lawful, in the Attorney-General’s Department’s
Page 127 of 158

interpretation of the Whistleblowers Protection Act for a person in public
office the subject of a corruption complaint to undertake reprisal actions
(otherwise, but for the identity of the whistleblower, within the meaning of that
Act); and/or
d. For some (other) reason not articulated, the Attorney-General is refusing to

consider the Defendant’s corruption complaint against Mr Justice
Cavanough.
196. By reason of the failure of the Attorney-General to promptly consider and properly action
the Cavanough Corruption Complaint, the Defendant has suffered loss and damage, by
virtue of the mistreatment of the Defendant and abuse of his human rights by members
of this Honourable Court, including Mr Justice Cavanough, and by O’Dwyer, and by the
non-settlement of his disputes with the Cressy Parties, the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby
Parties, the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties, the Legal Services Commissioner and the
Law Institute and the consequent acerbation of those disputes, the subject now of these
Dorrington Street Proceedings and the Larger Proceedings and the Cressy Child
Protection Proceedings.
197. The MGM Defamations
On or about 30 September 2007 Gail Patricia Cressy (‘GP Cressy’) made with
malicious intent statements to a Ms Rachele May of the Department of Human Services
(After Hours Child Protection Emergency Service) that were defamatory of the
Defendant (the ‘MGM Defamations’), as follows:
‘[The Cressy Party] and [the Defendant] separated in April after he physically
assaulted her – no charges were laid at the time despite report to police and
[The Cressy Party] feels very vulnerable following this – Father has continued to
threaten and attempt to control [the Cressy Party] – [The Defendant] has taken
documents from the home, taken the family car etc – [The Defendant] took [the
Cressy Party] to FLC last week …’
Particulars
The MGM Defamations have been recorded in writing in a report prepared by the said
Rachele May of the Department of Human Services (After Hours Child Protection
Emergency Service).
Page 128 of 158

198. By reason of the publication of the abovementioned words the Defendant has been
injured in his character, credit and reputation and his position has been brought into
public scandal, odium and contempt and he has suffered loss and damage.
199. The Defendant first became aware of the MGM Defamations in about March 2008 when
the Defendant, representing himself for the first time in the Cressy Child Protection
Proceedings, first inspected subpoena responses given in those proceedings by the
Department of Human Services.
200. The Laitey Defamations
On or about 30 September 2007 Matthew Laitey (‘Laitey’) made with malicious intent
statements to List that were defamatory of the Defendant (the ‘Laitey Defamations’),
and incorporated into the List Report as follows:
a. (At page 16) ‘Matt - I find James to be manipulative and vindictive. He

promises them expensive gifts for wanting to see him.’
b. (At page 17) ‘Matt – James is not a good influence on them. When he first
came on the scene he forced Treece to call him “Dad”. James isn’t their
father, and we’re more than capable of looking after them. It’s basically a
power struggle for him.’
Particulars
The Laitey Defamations have been recorded in writing in the List Report a copy of which
is attached to this Counterclaim.
The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act
201. The peace welfare and good government of the people of Victoria is vested in the
‘Crown in right of Victoria’ which pursuant to the separation of powers doctrine divides
the functions powers and responsibilities for government between three so-called arms
of government, being:
a. The supreme arm of Government in this State, being the Parliament
(‘Parliament’);
b. The executive arm of Government, being the public authorities and
Page 129 of 158

governmental agencies and tribunals of this State (‘Executive’); and
c. The judicial arm of Government (‘Courts’).
202. There are rules of law, including laws of parliament (including the Constitution Act 1975),
rules of the court (‘common law’) and inherent powers which the arms of government
(especially Parliament and Courts) are taken to possess, as the legacies and/or residual
inherent powers of absolutist monarchical powers, as Government in Victoria makes the
slow and painful transition from the absolute monarchic states that existed prior to 1215
(that is, prior to the date when King John of England signed the Magna Carta) and prior
to 1648 (that is, prior to the English reformation and the lawful execution by decapitation
of the tyrannical monarch King Charles 1st – see Robertson, Geoffrey, The Tyrannicide
Brief (Pantheon 2006) and Cooke, John, The Vindication of the Profession of Law and
those who Profess It (Graies Inne Private Monogram, 1645) and into a modern
democratic State which gives full respect to the rule of law and lawful recognition of
fundamental human and political rights for all citizens of Victoria.
203. In 2006 the Parliament enacted the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act
2006 (‘Charter’) which received Royal Assent (nb and sic) on 25 July 2006 and for the
purposes as recorded in the preamble thereof, including (so far as is relevant to these
proceedings):
‘Preamble
On behalf of the people of Victoria the Parliament enacts this Charter,

recognising that all people are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
This Charter is founded on the following principles –
• human rights are essential in a democratic and inclusive society that

respects the rule of law, human dignity, equality and freedom;
• human rights belong to all people without discrimination, and the diversity of
the people of Victoria enhances our community;
• human rights come within the responsibilities and must be exercised in a way
that respects the human rights of others …’
Page 130 of 158

204. The scheme of the Charter is as follows:
a. The Charter is, in 2006, the recognition in the State of Victoria of certain
international and political rights essentially as recorded four and a half
decades earlier in the United Nations International Convention on Political
and Civil Rights of 1961.
b. The rights and freedoms recognised in the Charter are inclusive of rights and
freedoms that otherwise arise or are recognised under any other law
(including international la, the common law, the Constitution of the
Commonwealth and a law of the Commonwealth): Charter, section 5.
c. The Charter binds the Crown in right of Victoria (that is, the Parliament, the
Executive and the Courts) and to the maximum extent permitted by the
legislative powers of the Parliament also binds he Crown in all its other
capacities (eg including the Crown in right of the Commonwealth and its
analogous three branches of parliament, executive and courts): Charter,
section 6(4).
d. Part 2 of the Charter recognises several kinds of human rights, which, so far
as are relevant to the Defendant’s counterclaims include:
i. Recognition and equality before the law: Charter, section 8;
ii. Protection from ‘… inhuman or degrading treatment’: Charter, section

10;
iii. Privacy and reputation: Charter, section 13;
iv. Freedom of expression: Charter, section 15;
v. Protection of families and children: Charter, section 17;
vi. Property rights: Charter, section 20 (and in terms that are an echo of
clauses 39 and 40 of King John’s Magna Carta of 1215 – as per the
Page 131 of 158

English language translation provided by the British Library) ; and
vii. Fair hearing: Charter, section 24;
e. Part 3 of the Charter requires by law that Parliament ensure that all laws
made by the Parliament (that is, all legislation) is compatible with the Charter
and creates the following compliance assurance scheme, whereby
Parliament is to scrutinise the compliance of that Parliamentary law ‘in the
cradle’ (that is, when it is a mere proposed law), and the Courts are to
scrutinise the compliance of that Parliamentary law once it has ‘been born’
(that is, after it becomes an actual Parliamentary law), as follows:
i. A statement of compatibility with the Charter must be prepared for

every Bill introduced to Parliament: Charter, section 28;
ii. The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee of the Parliament

must consider every Bill introduced to Parliament and report to the
Parliament whether the Bill is incompatible (sic) with the Charter:
Charter, section 30;
iii. A person who is affected, in any proceedings before a court or

tribunal, by any law (any ‘statutory provision’) of the Parliament may
raise a question of law relating to the application of the Charter to that
law and may make application for referral of that question to this
Honourable Court: Charter, section 33;
iv. On considering that question of law, this Honourable Court may make
a declaration of inconsistent interpretation (that is to say, a
declaration that that Parliamentary law is inconsistent with the
Charter: Charter, section 36;
v. The Attorney-General and the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights

Commissioner are to be given an opportunity to intervene and be
heard at the hearing of any application before this Honourable Court
that a Parliamentary law is inconsistent with the Charter: Charter,
Page 132 of 158

sections 34, 35, 36(4) and 40;
vi. There are feedback mechanisms for the Court, the Equal Opportunity
and Human Rights Commissioner and the Attorney General to inform
the Parliament, directly and indirectly via the Attorney General and/or
via reports to be prepared and tabled in Parliament, of all questions of
and declarations of inconsistent interpretation raised under this
scheme: Charter, sections 36, 37 and 43.
f. Division 4 of Part 3 of the Charter creates a scheme whereby Public

Authorities and Tribunals and Courts, including this Honourable Court (to the
extent of the re-inclusion under section 4(1)(j) of the Charter) are required to
act in compliance with the Charter, that is to say, they are required to give
proper consideration of the human rights of persons appearing before or
otherwise affect by their decisions, and are prohibited from acting in any way
that is incompatible with that persons human rights: Charter, section 38(1).
205. Pursuant to the Charter (including with reference to Division 3 of Part 3 of the Charter)
the Defendant raises the following questions with respect to the interpretation of the
following Parliamentary laws having bearing on these Dorrington Street Proceedings
and the Larger Proceedings and the Defendant’s counterclaims hereunder and makes
application to this Honourable Court for these questions to be referred to the Court of
Appeal Division of this Honourable Court in accordance with, inter alia, sections 33 to 36
of the Charter:
a. That sections 89 to 91 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (caveat provisions –

generally) cannot be interpreted consistently with the human right described
in section 8 of the Charter (‘recognition and equality before the law’),and/or
alternatively the human right described in section 20 of the Charter (‘property
rights’) and/or the human right described in section 24 (‘fair hearing’) inter
alia, because there are no requirements under these statutory provisions for
any person making a claim to a caveatable interest to property under those
statutory provisions to indemnify the person against whom they claim that
caveatable interest and/or alternatively there are no requirements under
these statutory provisions for any person making such a claim to provide
security for costs and/or loss and/or damage suffered by any person in the
Page 133 of 158

event that a Court holds that claim to be unlawful;
b. That the Supreme Court Act cannot be interpreted consistently with the
human rights described in sections 8, and/or alternatively 13 (‘privacy and
reputation’) and/or section 20 and/or section 24 of the Charter because,
unlike for example the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal Act, inter alia:
i. there is no scope under those statutory provisions generally for the

Court to require any person making a claim under that Act to provide
security for costs and/or loss and/or damage if the Court considers
that the claim might be vexatious or otherwise lacking in merit; and/or
alternatively;
ii. there is no requirement under those statutory provisions generally, in

circumstances where a litigant conducts its case deliberately and
improperly to disadvantage another party to the litigation, for the
Court to either dismiss the litigant’s claim on grounds of that improper
conduct, or to require that litigant to post security or alternatively to
order damages payable for costs and/or loss and/or damage suffered
by the other party;
c. That the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001 cannot be interpreted consistent

with the human rights described in sections 8 and/or 13 and/or 20 and/or 24
of the Charter because there are statutory provisions that expressly exclude
the Courts from the obligations that apply to public bodies under that Act;
d. That the Charter cannot be interpreted consistent with the human rights
described in sections 8 and/or 13 and/or 20 and/or 24 of the Charter because
there are statutory provisions that expressly exclude the Courts from the
obligations that apply to public bodies under that Act;
206. Pursuant to the Charter (including with reference to Division 4 of Part 3 of the Charter)
the Defendant raises the following questions with respect to the conduct of each of the
following ‘public authority’ (including by reference to paragraphs (j) and (f) of the
definition thereof in section 4(1) of the Charter) and seeks declarations as follows:
Page 134 of 158

a. That the Supreme Court sitting in its Practice Court jurisdiction is a ‘public
authority’ within the meaning of section 4(1)(j) of the Charter;
b. That in the Supreme Court Hearing on 17 February 2008 the Court failed to
adequately recognise the Defendant’s human right to a fair hearing under
section 24 of the Charter and/or failed to recognise the Defendant’s human
right of property rights under section 20 of the Charter;
c. That in the Supreme Court Hearing on 20 June 2008 the Court failed to
d. That in the Supreme Court Hearing on 14 July 2008 the Court failed to
e. That the Supreme Court sitting as a directions hearing before a Listing

Master is a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of section 4(1)(j) of the
Charter;
f. That in the Supreme Court Hearing on 11 August 2008 the Court failed to
section 24 of the Charter by failing to give the Defendant notice of that
hearing.
g. That the Attorney General is a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of section
4 of the Charter;
h. That the Attorney General, in failing to consider and failing to respond to the
Defendant’s Cavanough Corruption Complaint failed to adequately recognise
the Defendant’s human right to a fair hearing under section 24 of the Charter
and/or the Defendant’s rights not to have his privacy or reputation unlawfully
interfered with or attacked under section 14 of the Charter;
i. That the Legal Services Commissioner is a ‘public authority’ within the
Page 135 of 158

meaning of section 4 of the Charter;
j. That the Legal Services Commissioner, in failing to investigate misconduct

allegations made by the Defendant against Hanlon and Harwood, and
against Devries, Turnbull and Berry has failed to adequately recognise the
Defendant’s human right to a fair hearing under section 24 of the Charter
and/or the Defendant’s rights not to have his privacy or reputation unlawfully
interfered with or attacked under section 14 of the Charter;
207. By virtue of the aforementioned the Defendant has suffered loss and damage.
208. The Defendant’s Statements of Losses and Damages
The Defendant’s losses and damages consists of:
Monies wrongly had and received by the Cressy Party pursuant to the
Cressy Children Support Agreement (as amended from time to time)
a. monies paid to the Cressy Party pursuant to the Cressy Children Support
Agreement, as amended from time to time, being:
i. the sum of sixty two thousand and four hundred dollars ($62,400) for
the period 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2006 and calculated as four
hundred dollars ($400) per week multiplied by 156 weeks;
ii. the sum of thirty six thousand and six hundred dollars ($36600) for
the period 1 July 2006 to 15 September 2006 and calculated as six
hundred dollars ($600) per week multiplied by 61 weeks;
iii. the sum of twenty eight thousand and seven hundred dollars
($28700) for the period 16 September 2006 to 30 April 2007 and
calculated as seven hundred dollars ($700) per week multiplied by 41
weeks;
iv. the sum of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for the period 1 May 2007
Page 136 of 158

to 30 September 2007;
v. the sum of $ being costs paid by the Defendant for services enjoyed
by the Cressy Party, including telephony, foxtel and utilities charges,
for the period 1 July 2007 to 28 February 2008;
Or such other amount(s) and/or for such other period(s) as the Court may
see fit to order the Cressy Party to pay to the Defendant on a quantum
meriut basis.
b. rental forgone by the Defendant in allowing the Cressy Party the use and
enjoyment of the Defendant’s properties:
i. being forty six thousand and two hundred dollars ($46,200) for the
Cressy Party’s occupation of 2 Dorrington Street from 1 July 2003 to
15 June 2006, being calculated as three hundred dollars ($300) per
week multiplied by 154 weeks;
ii. being twenty seven thousand dollars ($27,000) for the Cressy Party’s
occupation of 166 Queen Street from 16 June 2006 to 16 July 2008,
being calculated as three hundred dollars ($300) per week multiplied
by 90 weeks;
iii. being four thousand and eight hundred dollars ($4800) for the Cressy
Party’s occupation of 166 Queen Street from 22 February 2008 to 16
July 2008, being calculated as three hundred dollars ($300) per week
multiplied by 16 weeks; and
iv. three hundred dollars per week ($300) for the Cressy Party’s
occupation of 2 Dorrington Street from 16 July 2008 to date,
Or such other amount(s) and/or for such other period(s) as the Court may
see fit to order the Cressy Party to pay to the Defendant on a quantum
Page 137 of 158

meriut basis.
c. Loss and damage flowing from the Cressy Party’s and the Hanlon-Harwood-
Ingleby Parties obstructions of the Defendant’s opportunity to sell 166 Queen
Street on 22 February 2008 pursuant to the 166 Queen Street On-Sale
Agreement, being:
i. One hundred and forty three thousand dollars ($143,000) being the
difference between the contract price of seven hundred and seventy
thousand dollars) $770,000 under the 166 Queen Street On-Sale
Contract and the six hundred and twenty seven thousand dollars
($627,000) price at which the mortgagee actually sold the property at
auction on 8 November 2008.
ii. Thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) being the aggregate of monthly

interest-only mortgage payments accruing on the 166 Queen Street
Loan Agreement from 22 February 2008 to 8 November 2008, being
7.5 payments of four thousand dollars ($4,000) each.
iii. Increased borrowing costs and charges payable by the Defendant

under the 166 Queen Street Mortgage, in an amount to be
determined at trial;
iv. Nineteen thousand and eight hundred dollars ($19,800) being the
sales commission payable by the Defendant to the Defendant’s real
estate agent for procuring the 166 Queen Street On-Sale Agreement.
d. Loss and damage flowing from the Cressy Party’s obstruction of the
Defendant’s opportunity to sell 2 Dorrington Street on 17 March 2008
pursuant to the 2 Dorrington Street On-Sale Agreement, being:
i. An amount, yet to be determined, being the difference between the

contract price of three hundred and forty five thousand dollars
($345,000) under the 2 Dorrington Street On-Sale Contract and the
price at which the Plaintiff, the Defendant, or even the Cressy Party
now is actually able to sell the property.
Page 138 of 158

ii. An amount, yet to be determined, being the aggregate of monthly
interest-only mortgage payments accruing on the 2 Dorrington Street
Loan Agreement from 17 March 2008 to the date at which the
Plaintiff, the Defendant or even the Cressy Party now is actually able
to sell the property, being monthly payments of approximately two
thousand and five hundred dollars ($2,500) each.

under the 2 Dorrington Street Mortgage, in an amount to be
determined at trial.
iv. Seven thousand and eight hundred and fifty dollars ($7,850) being
the sales commission payable by the Defendant to the Defendant’s
real estate agent for procuring the 166 Queen Street On-Sale
Agreement.
e. Loss and damage flowing from the Cressy Party’s obstruction of the
Defendant’s opportunity to sell 7 Inverloch Drive on 17 March 2008 pursuant
to the 2 Dorrington Street On-Sale Agreement, being:
i. An amount, yet to be determined, being the difference between the

contract price of one hundred and fifty five thousand dollars
($155,000) under the 7 Inverloch Drive On-Sale Contract and the
price at which the Plaintiff, the Defendant, or even the Cressy Party
now is actually able to sell the property.
ii. An amount, yet to be determined, being the aggregate of monthly

interest-only mortgage payments accruing on the 7 Inverloch Drive
Loan Agreement from 17 March 2008 to the date at which the
Plaintiff, the Defendant or even the Cressy Party now is actually able
to sell the property, being monthly payments of seven hundred
dollars ($700) each.

under the 7 Inverloch Drive Mortgage, in an amount to be determined
at trial.
Page 139 of 158

iv. Five thousand and five hundred dollars ($5,500) being the sales
commission payable by the Defendant to the Defendant’s real estate
agent for procuring the 166 Queen Street On-Sale Agreement.
Compensation for Financial Losses
f. Four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) or such other amount as the Court
deems fit being compensation to the Defendant for loss of gross earnings
during the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008;
g. An amount, yet to be ascertained, being forty thousand dollars ($40,000) per

month or such other monthly amount as the Court deems fit, for the period
from 1 July 2008 to compensate the Defendant for loss of gross earnings
during the period since 1 July 2008;
h. Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) or such other amount as the Court
deems fit being compensation to the Defendant for extra financial costs and
charges, interest and transaction costs incurred in respect of the Defendant’s
borrowings that the Defendant has incurred as a consequence of not being
able to dispose of the Defendant’s Property Portfolio so as to repay those
debts, because of the obstructions caused by the Cressy Party and the
Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties.
Compensation for damage to and/or loss and injury of reputation
i. Five million dollars ($5,000,000) or such other amount as the Court deems
fit, being compensation to the Defendant for damage, loss of and/or injury to
the Defendant’s reputation as a consequence of the Larger Proceedings, the
Dorrington Street Proceedings, the Cressy Blackmail Scheme, the Hanlon-
Harwood-Ingleby Blackmail Scheme, the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Blackmail
Scheme, the Legal Services Commissioner Ostrich Strategy and the Law
Institute Ostrich Strategy.
Compensation for emotional and psychological loss and harm
Page 140 of 158

j. Five million dollars ($5,000,000) or such other amount as the Court deems
fit, being compensation for emotional and psychological loss and harm as a
consequence of the Larger Proceedings, the Dorrington Street Proceedings,
the Cressy Blackmail Scheme, the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Blackmail
Scheme, the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Blackmail Scheme, the Legal Services
Commissioner Ostrich Strategy and the Law Institute Ostrich Strategy, the
David List Defamations, the Cavanough Perversion of Justice and the
O’Dwyer Perversion of Justice.
Costs
k. Costs on a full indemnity basis in accordance with the principles in Callinan’s

case (Flower & Hart (A firm) v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd [1999] 163 ALR
744).
209. The Defendant’s Counterclaims against the Plaintiff
The Defendant says that the Plaintiff owed at all relevant times a duty of care to the
Defendant failure to mitigate loss and damage suffered by the Plaintiff and suffered by
the Defendant by virtue, inter alia, of the Defendant’s breach of the 2 Dorrington Street
Mortgage and the 7 Inverloch Drive Mortgage but the Plaintiff has failed to take
reasonable action to mitigate those losses, including:
a. Failing to attend at the Practice Court hearings in the Larger Proceedings

on 7 May 2008 (before Mr Justice Smith) and on 20 June 2008 (before Mr
Justice Cavanough) and in the Master’s Court on 18 September 2008
(before Master Evans);
b. Failing to assist the Defendant to effect the sale of 2 Dorrington Street and
7 Inverloch Drive pursuant to the 2 Dorrington Street On-Sale Contract and
the 7 Inverloch Drive On-Sale Contract.
c. Failing to employ the Defendant’s estate agents for the sale of 2 Dorrington
Street and 7 Inverloch Drive (and thus causing a duplication of selling costs
associated with selling the properties).
210. The Defendant refers to paragraph 1 above and paragraphs 1 to 14 inclusive of the
Page 141 of 158

Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim and makes exactly the same admissions in respect of the
property known as 7 Inverloch Drive Point Cook, including as to dates and parties, but
save as to the amounts referred to in these admission are in the order of
$88,000/$340,000 (being the initial amounts of the two loans, the 7 Inverloch Drive Loan
and the 2 Dorrington Street Loan, respectively). Deleted.
211. The Defendant says that by virtue of the failure of the Plaintiff to take reasonable steps
to mitigate its and the Defendant’s loss and damage – required to indemnify the
Defendant and hold him harmless:
(a) against all selling costs incurred by the Plaintiff on any sale of 2 Dorrington Street
and 7 Inverloch Drive;
(b) any shortfall of the actual sale price of either 2 Dorrington Street or 7 Inverloch Drive
compared to the prices for which the Defendant sold them under the 2 Dorrington Street
On-Sale Contract and the 7 Inverloch Drive On-Sale Contract;
(c) all costs and charges payable under the Mortgage, including interest and mortgage
payments from 30 June 2008 (or such other date that this Honourable Court thinks best
fits the date that settlement would have been achieved under the 2 Dorrington Street
Contract and the 7 Inverloch Drive Contract.
211A The Defendant’s Counterclaims against AMP Bank
The Defendant refers to paragraph 26 above and says that AMP Bank Limited ACN 081
596 009 (‘AMP Bank’) is the lender and mortgage provider to the Defendant under the
10 Hawkhurst Court Loan Agreement and the 10 Hawkhurst Court Mortgage (both dated
about May 2003).
211B There were terms of the 10 Hawkhurst Court Loan Agreement and the 10 Hawkhurst
Court Mortgage including:
a. that the interest rate was approximately 6.06 per centum per
annum fixed for five years;
b. that the Defendant make monthly payments of approximately nine

hundred and fifty dollars ($950.00) during the term of the 10
Hawkhurst Court Loan Agreement and the 10 Hawkhurst Court
Mortgage;
Page 142 of 158

c. that those payments were interest only payments; and
d. that the Defendant was prohibited by the terms of the 10

Hawkhurst Court Loan Agreement and the 10 Hawkhurst Court
Mortgage from repaying any part of the principal amount
advanced to him pursuant to the 10 Hawkhurst Court Loan
Agreement and the 10 Hawkhurst Court Mortgage during the five
year fixed interest rate period, which should have expired in about
May 2008.
211C As at mid-January 2008 the Defendant was approximately three thousand dollars
($3,000) in arrears under the 10 Hawkhurst Court Loan Agreement and the 10
Hawkhurst Court Mortgage.
211D In late January 2008 the Defendant sold his property 12 Lisa Court and applied the net
sale proceeds:
a. first to satisfy and discharge in full the 12 Lisa Court Loan Agreement
and the 12 Lisa Court Mortgage (which loan funds were borrowed
and repaid in full to AMP Bank);
b. second, to satisfy and discharge in full the 12 Lisa Court / 10 Hoppers

Crossing Second Mortgage (which loan funds were borrowed and
repaid in full to AMP Bank, as described in paragraph 48 above);
c. third, to pay the arrears due at that date to AMP Bank under the 10
Hawkhurst Court Loan Agreement; and
d. fourth, approximately twenty six thousand dollars (twenty six

thousand dollars) in advance payments of monthly amounts payable
to AMP Bank from February 2007 up to approximately 27 months
later, being up to and including the payment due to AMP Bank in April
2009.
211E On or about 10 March 2009 the Defendant received from a Mr Geoffrey Birch of Birch
Process Service Agency a letter purporting to be on behalf of AMP Bank and enclosing
a Writ and Statement of Claim dated 10 December 2008 (and given Victorian Supreme
Page 143 of 158

Court Proceedings No. 10222 of 2008) claiming that the Defendant was at that date in
arrears of his obligations to AMP Bank under the 10 Hawkhurst Court Loan Agreement
and the 10 Hawkhurst Court Mortgage and seeking orders from this Honourable Court
giving AMP Bank possession of 10 Hawkhurst Court (the ‘Hawkhurst Court
Proceedings’).
Particulars
AMP Bank’s Writ and Statement of Claim dated 10 December 2008 are in writing.
211F AMP Bank has imposed unwarranted banking charges on the Defendant since February
2007:
a. on account of AMP Bank’s misdescription in AMP Bank’s books of account the

payments that the Defendant has made towards the 10 Hawkhurst Court Loan
Agreement as described in paragraph 211D above; and
b. on account of AMP Bank’s failure to accommodate the Defendant’s wishes to

close and rationalise his banking accounts with AMP Bank so as to put an end to
similar excess and unwarranted banking charges imposed in respect of
automatic debit transactions attempted by the Plaintiff against the Defendant’s
banking accounts with AMP Bank, which automatic debit instructions and which
bank accounts AMP Bank should have cancelled in or about February 2007.
Page 144 of 158

The Reliefs and Remedies Sought by the Defendant
212. The Defendant seeks from the Court declarations with respect to the Defendant’s
Property Portfolio as follows
a. That the Cressy Party immediately deliver up possession of 2 Dorrington

Street and 7 Inverloch Drive to the Plaintiff, for the Plaintiff to effect an
immediate mortgagee sale of those properties pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the 2 Dorrington Street Mortgage and the 7 Inverloch Drive
Mortgage and/or alternatively pursuant to the provisions of section 78(1)(b)
of the Transfer of Land Act 1958.
b. That the Plaintiff pay over to or at the direction of the Defendant the net sale
proceeds from the mortgagee sale of 2 Dorrington Street and 7 Inverloch
Drive after deduction of all selling costs and amounts secured by the 2
Dorrington Street Mortgage and the 7 Inverloch Drive Mortgage (with the
Plaintiff being entitled by consent of the Defendant and Order of the Court to
treat the 2 Dorrington Street Mortgage and the 7 Inverloch Drive Mortgage
as cross-collateralised securities for both the 2 Dorrington Street Point Cook
Loan Account and the 7 Inverloch Drive Loan Account for these purposes).
c. That the Registrar of Titles immediately remove from the Register of Titles
all record of the Cressy Caveat and the First Harwood Caveat and the
Second Harwood Caveat.
d. That the Cressy Party, the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties, the Devries-

Berry-Turnbull Parties and all other parties to these Dorrington Street
Proceedings immediately withdraw any and all caveats them may have
lodged affecting any properties owned by the Defendant, and that they are
restrained from lodging any new caveats affecting any properties owned by
the Defendant.
e. That AMP Bank is not entitled to possession of 10 Hawkhurst Court Hoppers

Crossing by reason that the Defendant is not in arrears of his payment
obligations under the 10 Hawkhurst Court Loan Agreement or the 10
Hawkhurst Court Mortgage.
Page 145 of 158

213. The Defendant seeks from the Court declarations with respect to the Legal
Profession as follows
a. That the Legal Services Commissioner must investigate the Defendant’s

complaints as recorded in these Dorrington Street Proceedings and in the
Larger Proceedings against the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties and the
Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties as the Legal Services Commissioner is
required by law (including under the Legal Practice Act) to do; and
b. That the Legal Services Commissioner cease to apply the Legal Services
Commissioner Ostrich Scheme (as described above) in connection with the
handling of complaints against legal practitioners of the kind to which Part
the Legal Practice Act applies;
c. That the Legal Services Commissioner forthwith establish Whistleblower

Protection Guidelines within the Commission as the Legal Services
Commissioner has been required since the inception of that public body so
to do;
d. That the Legal Services Commissioner is restrained from taking any reprisal
actions against the Defendant of or in connection with these Dorrington
Street Proceedings, the Larger Proceedings, of the Cressy Child Protection
Proceedings including the Defendant’s professional complaints against the
Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties and the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties.
e. That the Law Institute of Victoria cease to apply the Law Institute Ostrich
Strategy in connection with the handling of complaints and disputes between
legal practitioners where one or more of the parties to the complaint or
dispute are members of that Institute;
f. That the Law Institute of Victoria forthwith establish Whistleblower Protection

Guidelines within the Commission as that Institute has been required by law
since 2001 so to do;
g. That the Law Institute is restrained from taking any reprisal actions against
Page 146 of 158

the Defendant of or in connection with these Dorrington Street Proceedings,
the Larger Proceedings, including the Defendant’s professional complaints
against the Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties and the Devries-Berry-Turnbull
Parties.
h. That the State of Victoria (acting through the Attorney-General) must

investigate the Defendant’s whistleblowing corruption complaint against
Anthony Cavanough as the State of Victoria is required to do for the peace
order and good government of the State of Victoria and in accordance with
the principles that generally are applied in the Victorian Department of
Justice and as are enounced in the Whistleblowers Protection Act and in
accordance with the principles of human rights and responsibilities that are
enacted as law under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act
2006. Deleted.
214. The Defendant seeks from the Court declarations pursuant to the Charter of
Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 as follows
a. Declarations in the terms set out in paragraphs 205 and 206 above.
215. The Defendant claims against the Cressy Party
The Defendant refers to paragraph 208 (clauses (a) to (i)) hereof and claims against
the Cressy Party (including jointly and severally with all other Defendants by
Counterclaim other than the Plaintiff and Challenge):
a. all of the losses and damages listed therein; and
b. such further or other orders or relief as the Court deems fit.
216. The Defendant claims against Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties
each Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Party jointly and severally (including jointly and severally
with all other Defendants by Counterclaim other than the Plaintiff and Challenge):
Page 147 of 158

a. all of the losses and damages listed in clauses (b)(iii) and (b)(iv) and (c) to
(k) inclusive of paragraph 159; and
217. The Defendant claims against Devries-Berry-Turnbull Parties
each Devries-Berry-Turnbull Party jointly and severally (including jointly and severally
with all other Defendants by Counterclaim other than the Plaintiff and Challenge):
218. The Defendant claims against List
List (jointly and severally with all other Defendants by Counterclaim other than the
Plaintiff and Challenge):
a. all of the losses and damages listed in clauses (f) to (k) inclusive of
paragraph 208; and
219. The Defendant claims against O’Dwyer
O’Dwyer (including jointly and severally with all other Defendants by Counterclaim other
than the Plaintiff and Challenge):
a. all of the losses and damages listed in clauses (f) to (k) inclusive of
paragraph 208; and
Page 148 of 158

220. The Defendant claims against the Legal Services Commissioner
the Legal Services Commissioner (including jointly and severally with all other
Defendants by Counterclaim other than the Plaintiff and Challenge):
b. such further or other orders or relief as the Court deems fit. Deleted.
221. And the Defendant says by way of further pleas and vindication for his defence
and counterclaims
In early 1999 the Defendant (then aged 35 and a solicitor of 9 years good standing and
a lonely, separated father of three small children of his own) had an affair with the
Cressy Party (then aged barely 20, a prostitute and unmarried mother of two small boys
by two different men). The Defendant acknowledges the wisdom of advice (such as the
Second LIV Ostrich Scheme) to the effect that the Defendant should never have got
involved with such a dangerous and troubled woman. Unfortunately, by late summer
1999 the Defendant, a lonely and compassionate and caring soul had developed
feelings of concern and affection for the Cressy Party and her two troubled infants.
Recognising, but not fully appreciating the risks and probably outcome, the Defendant
chose to ‘risk everything’ to try to redeem the Cressy Party. At that time, the Defendant
did not know, as he knows now, that there really are some people who are not capable
of being redeemed (and perhaps may not want to be redeemed). What should have
been no more than a turbulent summer affair turned into a near decade of blackmail
and violence and emotional and psychological abuse of the Defendant by the Cressy
Party.
222. From 2000 onwards the Defendant worked hard, and tried valiantly to protect and
support the Cressy Party.
223. In April 2007 the Cressy Party, deciding ‘[she] don’t want to live that kind of life
anymore’, sought to blackmail the Defendant into entering into a de facto relationship
Page 149 of 158

with her, offering to break up with at least one of her two long-term boyfriends (a 50
year old married advertising executive from Toorak, the same age as her mother who
apart from a full-time wife had an adult son and an adult daughter only a year or two
younger than the Cressy Party). A much wiser Defendant not only declined that
proposition but decided, partly due to financial problems of his own that were becoming
pressing, and partly realising the extent of the Cressy Party’s connivances and other
abusive behaviours towards the Defendant and the three Cressy Children, to stop
paying $5,000 plus monthly blackmail payments to her.
224. The Defendant says:
a. All times up to and since 1999 he has been a good honest man.
i. For more than 18 years he has been an honest and diligent

commercial and government lawyer, serving the needs of his clients
and providing substantially of his time to serve the needs of the legal
profession, through the auspices of the Law Institute.
ii. Despite the breakdown of his marriage, the Defendant has been a
solid provider of financial support for his wife and three children of
his marriage, and has been a positive and loving and caring and
active father for his children;
iii. The Defendant has also for the past 9 years given substantial child
support to the Cressy Party (well in excess of his legal obligations)
and been a positive and loving and caring and active father for the
youngest of the three Cressy Children and equally so as a father and
role-model for both of her half-brothers.
iv. The Defendant does not deserve to have his finances ruined and his
personal and professional reputation vandalised by the smear
campaigns and blackmailing of the Cressy Party or any of the
Hanlon-Harwood-Ingleby Parties and the Devries-Berry-Turnbull
Parties.
b. In 1999 had an affair with the Cressy Party, with hindsight, clearly the wrong
Page 150 of 158

sort of woman, a dangerous woman. That was a totally ill-conceived affair
by the Defendant, but to his credit, he stuck by the Cressy Party and all
three of her children. The Defendant cared about their welfares and was
drawn in to trying to help the Cressy Party with her problems, despite
enduring dreadful abuse from the Cressy Party and those, such as
Cockram, that she associates with.
c. That affair ended in December 1999 when the Defendant suffered further
physical and psychological violence from the Cressy Party.
d. In May 2000 the Defendant resumed contact with the Cressy Party and
became again involved in caring for the Cressy Party and especially for her
three children and especially her youngest child, whom the Cressy Party has
claimed at all times to be the Defendant’s daughter.
e. In May 2001 the Defendant allowed the Cressy Party and her three children
to live with him for a period of about 2 years, when the Cressy Party and her
children were being evicted by the Salvation Army from their rented
accommodation and would otherwise not have had anywhere else to live.
f. From mid-2003 onwards, whilst living apart from the Cressy Party, the
Defendant was subjected to blackmail and deception from the Cressy Party,
whilst he continued to support her with incredibly generous child support
arrangements.
g. Since 2003 and even prior to then, and demonstrating his caring, decent
and good character –
i. The Defendant continued successful co-parenting with (estranged)

wife and three children of his (still undissolved), including generous
financial child support.
ii. The Defendant provided substantial co-parenting and financial

support to the Cressy Party (more than four thousand dollars
($4,000) per week compared to a legal obligation of less than four
hundred dollars ($400).
Page 151 of 158

iii. The Defendant built a successful law practice which, at its peak in
2006 was generating more than forty thousand dollars ($40,000) per
month in gross fees and employing 2 full time employee solicitors
and a full time personal assistant as well as, intermittently employing
the Cressy Party too.
iv. Accumulated a portfolio of 6 highly leveraged residential properties.
v. Even allowed the Cressy Party’s mother and her two additional
(infant) children, to live in one of his properties on a highly subsidised
rental basis.
h. From May 2007 with further mental deterioration of the Cressy Party,
increased blackmail from her and the Defendant’s increased resistance to
blackmail, there was a break down in the child support arrangements that
the Defendant had agreed with the Cressy Party.
i. The legal profession, the Courts, the Legal Services Commissioner and the
Law Institute have much to answer for:
i. For closing both eyes to deplorable standards of competency and

unethical behaviour within the legal profession; and
ii. In their laxity, creating an environment where such unethical and
incompetent behaviours not only thrive but are perhaps financially
rewarded.
j. It is scandalous that two law firms, and two barristers would extend the
Cressy Party more than two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) in legal
services, fully on credit, in pursuit of her claims, and in the face of her
demonstrated criminal acts to undermine the Defendant’s ability to defend
himself lawfully from those claims and in the face of all of the evidence at
their disposal to ascertain the scandalous, vexatious and fraudulent nature
of her claims.
k. Those law firms and barristers now have an investment of the order of two
hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) four hundred thousand dollars
($400,000) in the Cressy Party’s claims, being an investment that do not
Page 152 of 158

wish to lose, but that they cannot recover from the Cressy Party and which
they will it seems resort to the most scandalous unethical behaviours to try
to extract out of the Defendant.
l. It is scandalous that despite the Defendant being a member of the legal
profession and the Law Institute, neither the Law Institute nor any individual
member of the legal profession would see fit to extend any legal services on
credit or contingency to enable the Defendant to properly defend himself in
these legal actions.
m. No other professional association or trade union would stand by and allow a
member of the organisation to be persecuted and crucified like what has
happened to the Defendant.
n. It is scandalous that access to justice in this State is in such a crisis.
o. It is scandalous that the Defendant has been subjected to such horrible and
degrading accusations by the Cressy Party and by List in the shamefully
unprofessional and biased preparation and publication of a report
supposedly in the capacity of a Court appointed psychologist.
p. It is outrageous that the Victorian Police, the Child Protection Services have
totally failed to do their statutory duties to enforce the law and to protect the
Defendant and the three Cressy Children, and in doing nothing have
contributed to the continuing lawlessness of the Cressy Party.
225. This case has the potential to be a landmark case on principles of ethical standards
and practices, and disciplinary practices within the legal profession and within the
psychology profession. This case has the potential to be a landmark case on civil
rights, including the first major examination of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights
and Responsibilities Act. This case has the potential to be a landmark case on more
general and therefore further reaching principles of property law and of the law of
evidence and the law of Supreme Court practice and procedure. Any one of these
features alone would justify the Law Institute and/or law reform bodies providing
substantial funding or other practical support to the Defendant to have all of the facts
and principles of law properly presented to the Court. It is scandalous that the
Defendant, unenthusiastic and inexperienced and untrained as an advocate is required
to go it alone – especially under the enormous financial and emotional pressure and
distress inflicted on him by the vicious attacks that the Cressy Party and the Hanlon-
Harwood-Ingleby Parties. It is scandalous that in doing so, and in being his own legal
representative and advocate in Court, that is, wearing many more hats than is humanly
Page 153 of 158

or reasonably possible, the Defendant is subjected to contempt in and outside of Court
for not being able to afford independent legal representation as a direct and immediate
consequence of the financial harm he has suffered from the Cressy Caveat, the First
Harwood Caveat and the Second Harwood Caveat and from the Cressy Party and her
legal advisors conduct of the Larger Proceedings and the Cressy Child Protection
Proceedings generally.
226. The claims made by the Cressy Party against the Defendant are clearly, to the eyes of
all it seems but Hanlon, Harwood, Ingleby, Devries, Berry and Turnbull who all seek to
profit by them, are an abuse of process of this Honourable Court.
227. The Cressy Party wishes, as the full flowering of her Cressy Blackmail Scheme against
the Defendant and aided and abetted for speculation and plunder by Hanlon, Harwood,
Ingleby, Devries, Berry, Turnbull (who will otherwise not receive any payment for their
efforts on her and their behalf):
• to cheat this Honourable Court into believing that she was in some sort of a
legitimate, co-residential de facto relationship with the Defendant, both ‘bona fide’
and ‘domestic’ in nature, for some 8 years (roughly corresponding with the
conception and age of the third of her three children born to three different men),
and that she ended the relationship because of violence and cruelty by the
Defendant, of all things;
• that the Defendant is a violent, drunken abusive, man with psychiatric problems,
paedophilic and incestuous behaviour, being claims that the Cressy Party has
invented in the middle of and as late as December 2007.
• That the Defendant is abusively or maliciously attempting to cheat the Cressy Party
out of property and assets that she has legitimately contributed to and to which she
has entitlements.
228. The Defendant refers to the many admissions by the Cressy Party, notably that she has
(an insatiable addiction?) or habit of working as a prostitute, that she burgled the
Defendant and stole 4 archive boxes of the Defendant’s goods and documents (that
being the only one of several burglaries she has admitted to date, and co-incidentally
the one burglary where she was caught by the Police to be in unlawful possession of
the Defendant’s goods and records, and as evidenced in a malfeasant subpoena
issued on her own behalf by her own solicitors), that she has a penchant for living
multiple simultaneous intimate personal relationships (probably with men who, like the
Page 154 of 158

Defendant, were former clients of her prostitution), that she has a penchant for violence
and lies, other criminal acts to achieve her desired goals.
229. The Defendant says that he is a good, decent hardworking commercial lawyer of 18
years good standing, and of 19 years lawful marriage to his wife (not being the Cressy
Party), including a 10 year period of successful and co-operative post-separation co-
parenting of his three children by that lawful marriage.
230. The Defendant says that (as partially admitted in fact if not in full extent) the Cressy
Party is a drunken, violent, drug-taking, blackmailing, prostitute and liar and fraudster,
whose reign of violence and terror extends not only against the Defendant but also
against her three children by three different men.
231. The claims of the Cressy Party and the responses by the Defendant seem to require
the Court to assess states of affairs in two totally different universes that, while not
exactly running in parallel, do not seem to converge on any one common point or
grounds, except perhaps the Defendant’s belief, as cultivated by the Cressy Party, that
the Defendant is more likely than not the biological father of the third and youngest of
her three children by three different men.
232. The Defendant says that, contrary to the Cressy Party’s claims that they were living
together in a bona fide domestic relationship from September 1998 to May 2007, the
only period that the two lived under the same roof was from about June 2001 to about
July 2003 and even then that period of their relationship could not be described as a
bona fide (or even a mala fide) domestic relationship on account of the behaviours of
the Cressy Party, but were.
233. The Defendant says and can demonstrate that he lived alone in his own home from
July 2003 until well after the commencement of any of these legal proceedings, and the
period of his relationship with the Cressy Party between July 2003 and all relevant
times thereafter could only be described as a period of separate co-parenting
arrangements where the Defendant was excessively generous for several reasons,
partly out of natural love and affection for the three Cressy children to whom he has at
all times been like a father, if not a father, to them and partly out of hope to assist the
Cressy Party to rehabilitate herself, and partly in response to blackmail and other
threats against him by the Cressy Party (and fear of being subjected to the kinds of
intimidation, oppression and vexation, loss and damage that the Defendant has in fact
suffered.
Page 155 of 158

234. While substantial doubts have been raised about the honest of the Cressy Party (for
example, and even, however reluctantly by List in the List Report) and her credibility
given her statements and actions during the course of all of these proceedings, it is the
corresponding, totally opposite criticisms that seem to be made by the same
participants that the Defendant is guilty of excessive honesty and excessive
explanation of too many ‘extraneous’ facts and details about his relationship with the
Cressy Party, his own affairs, and his relationships with the Cressy Party’s three
children by three different men.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS TO THIS DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM
Description of Attachment
Copy List Report dated 17 December 2008.

Copy 14 April 2008 letter from the Defendant to Mr Warwick Nelson of
Harwood.
Copy Cressy Party’s Statement of Claim dated 26 September 2007.
Copy Defendant’s Affidavit of 11 July 2008
Copy Defendant’s 2 page submission to Mr Justice Cavanough on 20 June
2008.
Copy Defendant’s 13 July 2008 facsimile and submission to Mr Justice
Hansen.
Copies of the Defendant’s Media Releases dated 14 July 2008 and 28 July
2008.
Copy Defendant’s 13 February 2008 facsimile to Hanlon and to Harwood.
……………………………………
Sutton Lawyers Harold James Johnson
Solicitors for the Defendant (and Plaintiff by Counterclaim)
The address of the defendant is— 1st Floor 141 Osborne Street South Yarra Victoria 3141.
The address for service of the defendant is— Sutton Lawyers, 1st Floor 141 Osborne Street South
Yarra Victoria 3141.
Page 156 of 158

FILED the day of November 2008. March 2009
Page 157 of 158

SCHEDULE
PIPPIN PATRICIA CRESSY

(First Defendant by Counterclaim)
DAVID HANLON
(Second Defendant by Counterclaim)
HARWOOD ANDREWS PTY LTD ABN 98 076 868 034

(Third Defendant by Counterclaim)
RICHARD INGLEBY
(Fourth Defendant by Counterclaim)
JAMES TURNBULL
(Fifth Defendant by Counterclaim)
BERRY FAMILY LAW PTY (A FIRM) ABN 73 385 524 664

(Sixth Defendant by Counterclaim)
GRAHAM A DEVRIES
(Seventh Defendant by Counterclaim)
DAVID J LIST
(Eighth Defendant by Counterclaim)
DANIEL O’DWYER
(Ninth Defendant by Counterclaim)
LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(Tenth Defendant by Counterclaim)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR VICTORIA

(Eleventh Defendant by Counterclaim)
MINISTER FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES

(Twelfth Defendant by Counterclaim)
TRUST COMPANY FIDUCIARY SERVICES LIMITED

(FORMERLY KNOWN AS PERMANENT TRUSTEE
COMPANY LIMITED) ACN 000 000 993
(Thirteenth Defendant by Counterclaim)
AMP BANK LIMITED

ACN 081 596 009
(Fourteenth Defendant by Counterclaim)
Page 158 of 158

Amended Defence and Counterclaim 20090323

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amended Defence and Counterclaim 20090323

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FORM 10A

HEADING AND NOTICE ON COUNTERCLAIM WHERE THE DEFENDANT NEW PARTY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE

TRUST COMPANY FIDUCIARY SERVICES Plaintiff

HAROLD JAMES JOHNSON Defendant

HAROLD JAMES JOHNSON Plaintiff by Counterclaim

PIPPIN PATRICIA CRESSY and others First, Second, Third, Fourth,

DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

Street Melbourne Victoria

Law 162 Ferguson Street Williamstown Victoria

of Level 12 600 Bourke Street Melbourne Victoria

AND TO: Richard Ingleby of 0403/235 Queen Street Melbourne Victoria

AND TO: Graham A Devries of 1826/525 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Victoria

AND TO: Daniel O’Dwyer of 305 William Street Melbourne Victoria

Melbourne Victoria 3000

*THE PROPER TIME TO FILE AN APPEARANCE is as follows—

Denials and Admissions

a. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 below (the ‘Qualifications’);

Cavanough Qualification 1 – Final Interlocutory Cavanough Eviction and Gagging Orders

c. granting the Cressy Party a legal entitlement to occupy 2 Dorrington Street,

and maybe being more particularly to the effect as follows:

Cavanough Qualification 2 – Verbal Interlocutory Cavanough Eviction and Gagging

and maybe being more particularly to the effect as follows:

a. Notwithstanding the matters referred to in the Devries-Berry-Turnbull Counterclaim and in

Hansen Qualification – Interlocutory Hansen Dorrington Administration Orders

a. Further evicting the Defendant from 2 Dorrington Street;

b. Evicting the Defendant from 7 Inverloch Drive “forthwith”;

7. To the extent (if any) that:

Chronology of Facts and Events Material to Claims and Counterclaims

Material Fact or Event

8. The Cressy Party

a. Having gained occupation thereof pursuant to such interlocutory legality (if

b. Remaining in possession thereof in contravention of the Interlocutory Hansen

and otherwise unlawfully and with no legal right to do so.

15. On the morning of Saturday, 12 September 1998 at approximately 2.20 am the

b. The Cressy Party’s inability to maintain normal or socially acceptable family

c. The Cressy Party’s interference in the relationships between the Defendant

d. The Peter Cockram Stalking Behaviours (as defined below) which

24. The Defendant’s Property Portfolio – 2 Dorrington Street

34. The Cressy Children Support Agreement

40. There were elements to the Cressy Blackmail Scheme as follows:

ii. Falsely claiming that the Defendant was moonlighting as a prostitute

b. Demanding that the Defendant transfer to the Cressy Party unencumbered

c. Threatening to use those papers of the Defendant, and distorted and

There were elements to the Cockram Stalking Behaviours as follows:

a. The Cressy Party met Peter Cockram (‘Cockram’) in her capacity as a

i. Stole the Defendant’s identity, including by creating a hotmail email

ii. Stole correspondence belonging to and addressed to the Defendant

iii. Stole correspondence belonging to the Cressy Party from the

iv. Placed threatening notes from himself to the Defendant on the

v. Sent threatening notes to the Defendant’s (estranged) wife soliciting

vii. Generally sought to blackmail the Defendant to cease to provide

I am sorry to drag you into this, but the time has

Did you know that the woman that Harold James

Her name is Pippin Patricia Cressy-Sutton. She

I have tried to warn James over the past 16

This woman is using James

How does this make you feel? Does James keep

Who paid for Pippin’s breast enlargements, the

He is living at 2 Dorrington Street, Point Cook. He

He provides for them but what does he get in

Why am I telling you this?

To protect your child. To try to convince James