Submissions For Victorian Supreme Court (Masters Court) Hearing(s) On 9

SUBMISSIONS FOR VICTORIAN SUPREME COURT (MASTERS COURT)
HEARING(S) ON 9 JULY 2009 BEFORE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DALY

PROCEEDINGS 9263 of 2008
Tragedy
1. Any way you look at it these proceedings are a tragedy. Prior to May 2007, I had for the
previous 9 years been the devoted and committed non-live with dad to my three children of my
marriage and also the devoted and committed non-live with dad to Ms Cressy’s three children
(Ms Cressy has always alleged that I am the biological father of her youngest child, claims that
she has refused throughout these proceedings to substantiate. Ms Cressy also pretended to her
three children at all reasonable times that I was the biological father of her second child, even
though he was five month’s old when I first met him. It is not easy being a non-live with dad, and
fulfilling the financial responsibilities of breadwinner for both families, with both families headed
by a ‘stay-home’ home. I also provided for my own household and financial needs. As a
successful and prominent commercial lawyer, I had two quality clients that kept me loaded with
work, and a substantial income. I was so successful as a lawyer that between 2002 and 2006 I
acquired a portfolio of six residential investment properties (including 4 newly constructed
residences).
2. Ms Cressy is a self-confessed compulsive liar, a fraudulent scammer, a manipulator who seeks
to blackmail, extort and extract money from (typically, married) men. Ms Cressy has a long
history of emotional and mental health problems, violence, alcohol and serious drug problems.
These were demonstrated by the evidence produced at the half-trial in December 2008 and
February 2009. These were demonstrated in the Trial Judge’s findings that Ms Cressy’s claims
that she made contributions to my “acquisition, maintenance and improvement” of my properties
were lies, and His other findings of serious dishonesty and criminality, including burglary, theft
and attempted concealment of evidence. However, bizarrely (or, not so bizarrely, having regard
to the general environment of bias and prejudice in which the Trial Judge carried out the
proceedings), the Trial Judge’s findings were not reflected in his final judgment and orders.
3. I should be admired for my hard work and attention and efforts (at considerable personal and
financial expense and sacrifice) to provide for (financially and emotionally) and protect Ms
Cressy’s three children, and even Ms Cressy herself, from the dangers and madness of Ms
Cressy’s life, for my successful legal career, while also doing above and beyond my legal and
moral duties to provide (financially and emotionally) for my legally married wife and three
children of my marriage. To the best of my knowledge, for all of the years 2002, 2003, 2004,
2005, 2006 and into 2007, I had been successful in steering Ms Cressy away from her life of
drunkenness, homelessness, drug taking, violence, prostitution and neglect and abuse of her
children. Not until late 2007, partially from a ‘tip off’ from her children, was I aware that Ms
Cressy had returned to her previous life of prostitution and vice during 2007.
4. The pleadings, and the evidence I produced at the half-trial during December 2008 and
February 2009, demonstrate that even after May 2007, even while Ms Cressy and her lawyers
were holding my reputation and my properties hostage to her abusive, vexatious and oppressive
claims, I was still seeking to provide for (financially and emotionally) and protect Ms Cressy’s
three children, while keeping up with my mortgage obligations (with substantially damaged and
diminished income) and keeping up my financial and emotional nurturing of Mrs Johnson and my
three Johnson children. In May 2008 I ceased contact with Illyana (allegedly my daughter) to
protect her from the death threats and violence she was subjected to by her two-years older half-
brother – the Federal Magistrates Court refusing to provide her, or me, with any protection,
refusing to hear, let alone enforce my complaints that Illyana was being abused and threatened
because of Ms Cressy’s refusals to comply with his Orders. In September 2008 I withdrew and
walked away from my family law court application in the face of insurmountable prejudice, bias
and human rights abuses.
5. In February 2009 the Trial Judge in a half-trial in the most frightening and bizarre circumstances,
a totally defective and unlawful process, found against Ms Cressy’s claims of May 2007 that she
had contributed to my acquisition, maintenance and improvement of my properties. Ms Cressy’s
lawyers had not produced any evidence at the half-trial to support her claims. And the Trial
Judge found that she had lied and committed other acts of dishonesty, including aggravated
burglary of me, and theft and attempted (?) concealment of evidence. The Trial Judge should
also have found, based on statutory records and eye witness evidence, that is as a matter of
facts, based on objective evidence and application of High Court precedents, that Ms Cressy’s
claims to be my de facto wife of 9 years. Frighteningly, that second set of findings was missing
from the Trial Judge’s decision. The Trial Judge (for reasons I speculate below) went against the
evidence and against the law, and against common sense and against his own judicial findings
as to Ms Cressy’s dishonesty as a witness. To a large extent, the Trial Judge could not make
that second set of findings without disclosing that he had 14 days early incorrectly and too early
rejected my claims for compensation against Ms Cressy’s original lawyers. A third set of findings
as to their culpability necessarily follow from correct set of findings as to the falsehood of the de
facto wife claims.
6. [Actually, a third set of findings as to the culpability of Ms Cressy’s original lawyers follows
logically and necessarily as a matter of law, automatically from the Trial Judges’ first set of
findings, since the totality of Ms Cressy’s claims against me should as a matter of law fail
by virtue of her failure to make good her claims to have made contributions even if, God
forbid, we had been de factos as she fraudulently claimed. Ms Cressy’s lawyers had to
prove [ie provide credible, uncontradicted and substantial evidence] of “contributions” to get up
on their bogus constructive trust claim. The also had to prove contributions as one of the
essential elements of their Part 9 of the Property Law Act application. All of the evidence at the
half-trial demonstrated, if the language of “contributions” and “negative contributions” could be
meaningfully applied to the facts of this case, that Ms Cressy’s contributions were predominantly
and substantially “negative contributions” [one of only 7 substantial grounds of my pending
appeal against the Trial Judge’s bizarre half-findings]. Inexplicably and frighteningly, especially
if, God forbid, the Trial Judge was seeking to cover up Ms Cressy’s lawyers mistakes (including
the mistakes of her new lawyers for continuing to champeteer and maintain her bogus claims
against me), and seeking perhaps not to have to admit his prejudicial, biased mistake dismissing
my compensation claims against her original lawyers some 14 days earlier, the Trial Judge has
only served to raised even more serious allegations of misconduct in (public) office and
perversion of the course of justice – allegations which I am confident he will one day soon be
called on to answer.]
7. My appeal against these non-sensical findings by the Trial Judge at the half-trial is essentially a
very simple appeal which should be readily fixed by the Court of Appeal. If not, the Court of
Appeal will open itself up to even greater allegations of bias and misconduct, human rights
degradations and abuses. The same non-sensical findings, if upheld by the Court of Appeal, will
be readily and simply fixed by the High Court of Australia (even more easily than the High Court
did for Mrs Baumgartner in Baumgartner v Baumgartner).
8. I am surprised, given that the Legal Practitioners Liability (Evasion) Committee, and its insureds,
Harwood Andrews Lawyers and Berry Family Lawyers and counsel engaged by them and for
them have so much to lose, given that their misconducts are blatant, risible and contemptible,
and given that the reputations and standing of the Supreme Court and several of its judges have
been brought into disrepute by their out-lawish actions, I am surprised that the Legal
Practitioners Liability (Evasion) Committee dares to let this matter proceed to trial and is not
doing everything possible to compensate me for my losses and to address the defaults by the
out-lawyers to prevent further occurrences. The Legal Practitioners Liability (Evasion)
Committee should be desperately seeking settlement out of Court with me, rather than engaging
in such outrageous and unlawful anti-SLAPP tactics. I have previously advised the Legal
Practitioners Liability (Evasion) Committee (my former client, and ten years ago the principal
foundation client of my own legal practice) of the illegality of their actions under Whistleblowers
laws, human rights laws and broader governmental laws and policies such as the Attorney-
General’s model litigation procedures) in protecting these rogue lawyers from their liabilities at
law.
Degradation and Dehumanisation

9. Any way you look at it, these are extraordinary proceedings, the like of which have never come
up before in a Court of law (let alone been split amongst 5 different numbered proceedings and
three levels of the same Court all at the same time). I hope that proceedings like this do not
come up again. I will do all I can to usher in meaningful reforms and laws to protect Australian
citizens (and their children) from the sorts of torture and abuse that I have been subjected to
during these proceedings.
10. No citizen of this country or any other country should have to suffer the abuse and oppression to
which I have been subjected by my Government (its judiciary and its executive) and members of
my own or any other profession during the past 2 plus years.
11. As the history of these proceedings demonstrates, I am a victim of a gross lack of standards and
accountability in all three branches of the legal profession in this country (solicitors, barristers
and judiciary). Australia is the only so-called advanced democratic nation where its barristers
and litigation solicitors have a common law licence to commit professional negligence [One law
for the non-lawyers, a different law of privilege and immunity for the lawyers]. As these
proceedings currently stand, it seems that these special laws have by Cressy v Johnson been
extended so that not only do the laws of Donoghue v Stephenson and MLC v Evatt apply for
but not against barristers and litigation solicitors, but they are also to be privileged and protected
by common law licences to commit fraud and other perversions of justice without immunity.
Instead of liability to compensate their victims they are likely, as these proceedings currently
stand, to be handsomely rewarded and even praised by the Trial Judge for their ill-begotten
activities – activities that even as little as 25 years ago would have earned them substantial jail
sentences for crimes of champetry and maintenance. Not only free from regulation by the legal
regulator (the Legal Services Commissioner refuses to exercise her powers and responsibilities
to rid the profession of rogue barristers and litigation lawyers), but another multi-million dollar
State government agency, the incompletely named Legal Practitioners Liability (Evasion)
Committee, supposedly established as a fund to compensate the victims of rogue lawyers, will
instead extend automatic unlimited blue ribbon legal aid (a city law firm and a city barrister – in
quadruplicate if need be) to protect the rogue lawyers from having to compensate their victims.
In the meantime the victims have to self-represent (being stripped by their aggressors of their
means to hire lawyers well before the Court hearings start in earnest), are subjected to all sorts
of torture and human rights abuse by an unsympathetic judiciary. Unable to match the unlimited
clout of the Legal Practitioners Liability (Evasion) Committee funded and judicially protected
rogue lawyers, the self-funded and emotionally and financially distressed victim (who may be
feeling the strain of other unlawful actions – other Government persecutions, financial traumas,
threats, firebombings etc outside of the “civilized” environs of the Court) has little prospect of
succeeding alone in their claim against the rogue lawyers – and faces every likelihood of being
ordered by the Court to pay substantial monies to his aggressors (including the Legal
Practitioners Liability (Evasion) Committee and the Legal Services Commissioner) for having the
audacious stupidity of thinking that the rule of law and the human rights laws supposedly
operating in this Country have substance when they are no more than lip service. As it presently
stands, the history of these proceedings demonstrates, like the history of its indigenous peoples,
that the “rule of law” has never taken root in this country. Australia remains as it has always
been, as in its penal colony days, at Botany Bay, at Eureka and at Jerilderie, a country with
government by “rule by lawyers”.
12. If these proceedings remain as they currently stand, and the Trial Judge’s judgment in the half-
trial in Cressy v Johnson stand as law (already being misquoted in ignorance by over-excited
family lawyers) then Australia and its three times three arms of government forfeit all remaining
claims to stand in the international community as an advance democratic nation. Not an
advanced democracy, with democratic rights and freedoms, but a Summer Bay idocracy of
Moorlocks and Eloi, lawyers and non-lawyers, governors and governed.
13. I have been degraded and dehumanised by the champetry and maintenance, by the promotion
of Ms Cressy’s outrageous defamations, lies and fabrications against me by “her” lawyers, the
second through to seventh defendants by counterclaim in my pleadings. [I say “her” lawyers,
because “her” first set of lawyers were in fact my lawyers for many years, including the year of
their aggressions against me, purportedly on behalf of Ms Cressy. Go figure.]
14. It is inconceivable that these lawyers are allowed to pretend that they did not know Ms Cressy
was a malicious and manipulative liar, a mentally ill, dangerous and violent woman. They
watched it happen and even interacted with (interfered with) police investigations so as to
prevent Ms Cressy from being charged with the crimes that the Trial Judge found she committed
(including aggravated burglary, which I understand carries a maximum penalty of 25 years).
15. It is inconceivable that the legal regulator, the Legal Services Commissioner, denies her powers
and responsibilities to investigate these lawyers.
16. It is inconceivable the extent to which the judges who have heard parts of these proceedings
have bent over to shelter and protect these lawyers from my legitimate claims, and have done
everything imaginable (even exceeding the imaginations of satirists such as Lewis Carroll,
Jonathan Swift and Charles Dickens) to ruin and crush my legitimate complaints against them
rather than have them aired and tried humanely and properly according to the sort of legal
process that most people expect from Courts of law in a modern democratic country.
17. I have no doubt that inquisitions will need to be held to investigate and remedy the wrongs,
violations and abuses perpetrated against me and to implement reforms of laws and process
(and appointments) to prevent such violations and abuses from occurring again.
18. A broad and growing spectrum of wrongs, violations and abuses that these lawyers (solicitors,
barristers and judiciary) have committed against me, along with assorted other family law court
hangers-on, such as unethical and unprofessional psychiatrist (the eight defendant by
counterclaim under my pleadings) and assorted government agencies (the derelict Legal
Services Commissioner who thinks I should pay her legal costs for complaining about her failure
to perform her legal duties to regulate these out-lawyers, and the Legal Practitioners Liability
EVASION Committee which is throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for 4 city law
firms and 4 city barristers to shelter and protect these out-lawyers from being held accountable –
while, despite being financially and emotionally ruined by their actions and lacking any of the
requisite experience and skill, I am left to fight these abusers off on my own – no legal aid or any
other kind of litigation support yet coming forward to succour me.
19. I will not rest until these out-lawyers are held accountable and punished according to State,
federal and (if need be) international laws, and by State, federal and (if need be) international
forums for the wrongs, violations and abused committed against me, for which my loved ones
have suffered enormously too. While I endure ongoing degradation and dehumanisation, these
violators, with all the disgraceful protections and indecent privileges the Courts and Government
agencies continue to heap on them, help themselves to what remains of my wealth after they
have destroyed most of it.
20. I have had my property portfolio and business destroyed, my reputation destroyed and my
identity stolen by technically sixth rate lawyers with ethical standards of petty thieves, bullies and
criminals. Almost every human right I supposedly have as a citizen of this State (including most
of the human rights listed in the Victoria Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities) have
been violated by these men in their vicious promotion of Ms Cressy’s outrageous lies and other
attacks on me and my property.
21. I am seeking substantial compensation from them (strictly speaking, from their/my professional
indemnity insurers and foundation client of my law firm) although no amount of compensation will
make up for the degradation and dehumanization I have suffered at their hands and by their
actions, or will make up for the injuries that they have caused to my children or to Ms Cressy’s
children (the latter three being in continuing physical, emotional, mental and moral dangers as
painfully demonstrated by the pleadings and the evidence produced at the half-trial (and
substantial other materials in the hands of Government agencies which are beyond my means to
produce at any trial).
22. No Australian citizen should have to endure the torture, the abuse, the violation, the degradation
and the dehumanisation inflicted on my by these out-lawyers and in these proceedings – all
based on the patently malicious lies and manipulation of a money-seeking mentally ill
blackmailer and extortionist. These out-lawyers should not be protected, privileged and even
encouraged (and congratulated) by the Australian Courts, laws and regulators, by the judiciary
and by Government agencies who have constitutional and political duties (under State, federal
and international laws) to protect Australian citizens from being abused and exploited.
23. I have no doubt that this is one of the most important human rights cases, one of the most
important constitutional cases, one of the most politically significant cases since Australia’s
federation. I have no doubt that I will endure these abuses and my rights and dignity as a
human being, as a devoted and loving father, and as a model citizen and lawyer will, eventually,
be vindicated. I have no doubt that history will be severe in its investigation and punishment of
my aggressors.
Claims and Counterclaims

24. There are six parts to these legal proceedings:
a. Legal proceedings first commenced in May 2007 when Ms Cressy and her then lawyers
(David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers) lodged caveats against all 6 of
my then properties. Ms Cressy claimed in her caveat that she had made contributions to
“the acquisition, maintenance and improvement” of my 6 properties. Harwood Andrews
Lawyers’ caveat claimed that Ms Cressy had granted them a charge over one of my 6
properties.
b. In September 2007, through my then lawyer, I commenced proceedings in the Federal
Magistrates Court under the Family Law Act to protect Ms Cressy’s three children, who
had been missing from their home and their school for most of that month. In these
proceedings, reluctantly commenced by me, I was seeking (i) firstly, interim orders that
Ms Cressy return them to their school and return them to their home and resume their
custody and access time with me; and (ii) secondly, permanent custody and access
orders.
c. In early November 2007 I filed documents at the Land Titles Office seeking to have Ms
Cressy’s caveats cancelled. Harwood Andrews Lawyers (with the sort of incompetence
typical of them) had mysteriously cancelled their caveat against my property (as they
later claimed, without knowing that they did so). In late November 2007 to prevent Ms
Cressy’s caveats from automatically lapsing, David William Hanlon and Harwood
Andrews Lawyers with support of Richard Ingleby of Counsel issued Supreme Court
proceedings for Ms Cressy:
i. Repeating her claims to have had made contributions to the acquisition,
maintenance and improvement of my properties; and
ii. Making claims that Ms Cressy had been my live with de facto wife from late 1998
until mid-2007.
d. In February 2008 I filed counterclaims against Ms Cressy, David William Hanlon and
Harwood Andrews Lawyers on the grounds:
i. That Ms Cressy’s claims to have made contributions to the acquisition,
maintenance and improvement of my properties were fraudulent;
ii. That Ms Cressy’s claims to have been my de facto wife were fraudulent.
iii. That Ms Cressy had stolen (including by a home invasion in November 2007)
documents and records from me, stolen evidence, with the intention of concealing
it from the Court.
iv. That David William Hanlon and/or Harwood Andrews Lawyers were acting
unethically, dishonestly and fraudulently in representing Ms Cressy and promoting
her fraudulent claims, because they knew or ought to have known, if they had
acted to the standards of due diligence expected of true legal professionals, that
Ms Cressy was a liar and a manipulator, a money seeking blackmailer, and her
claims were fabrications without any substantiation and totally lacking in merit.
v. That David William Hanlon and/or Harwood Andrews Lawyers were acting
unethically and fraudulently in their actions to get Ms Cressy off being charged
with (aggravated) burglary and in doing so, aiding and abetting her (after the fact)
in her theft and concealment of evidence.
e. During February 2008 to December 2008 Ms Cressy and her lawyers (from April 2008,
being James Turnbull and Berry Family Law and Graeme Devries of Counsel) initiated
several practice court applications seeking (and receiving) interlocutory relief that Ms
Cressy was not, at law, entitled to obtain. These actions included in mid-August 2008
getting Ms Cressy’s claims set down for trial in December 2008 based on a fraudulent 2
day hearing estimate, and without informing the Court that I had estimated at least 3 -4
weeks trial period and without informing the Court that none of the pre-trial steps
(discovery, interrogatories etc) had yet been initiated. It was not until October 2008 that I
was informed of the 2 December 2008 trial date.
f. In November 2008, I rewrote my counterclaims against my original 3 aggressors, Ms
Cressy, David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers, and included
counterclaims against my further aggressors.
25. On 2 December 2008, over my sensible objections, Justice Kaye insisted that Ms Cressy’s
claims proceed to trial. In doing so, Justice Kaye initiated a trial process that was such an abuse
of process in so many respects that it almost defies description. My draft Notice of Appeal in
proceedings No. 3731 of 2009, listing seven grounds of appeal, including 10 out of many
instances of extreme bias and prejudice, shows how far removed from reality and proper legal
process and notions of justice the Trial was.
December’s Half-Trial and Half-Findings

26. On 25 February 2009 Justice Kaye handed down the following findings in respect of Ms Cressy’s
claims (recorded in her caveat and repeated at Trial during December 2008):
a. Her claims that she contributed (deposit monies) to the acquisition of my properties were
lies.
b. Her claims that she contributed (mortgage repayment monies) to maintenance of my
properties were lies (these lies were not pressed by her at Trial);
c. Her claims that she contributed improvements to my properties were grossly exaggerated
(the Trial Judge was less clear on this point, but certainly His finding supported my
testimony and the absence of any substantiating evidence from Ms Cressy that the few
improvements that Ms Cressy did were: (i) firstly, at my expense, (ii) secondly, trivial
and/or unnecessary, (iii) thirdly referable to her tenancy of one or other property; and (iv)
any positive things Ms Cressy did to the property were completely overwhelmed by
damage that Ms Cressy, her pets and her children caused to the property.
27. At trial Ms Cressy and her lawyers produced no evidence that Ms Cressy of any income earned
by Ms Cressy at any time during the relevant period (2002 to early 2007) out of which Ms Cressy
could have made such contributions.
28. The Trial Judge found that Ms Cressy had lied to him in December 2008 when she told him that
she had returned to me all of the stolen documents, including those stolen prior to February
2008 and on the night of 16 November 2008, only to have me find them on 26 December 2008,
abandoned by her, and produced by me when the Trial resumed in February 2009).
29. Having found that Ms Cressy had committed serious lies to the Trial Judge with her false claims
to have made contributions to my properties, and with her burglary and concealment of
documents one would be forgiven for thinking that the Trial Judge would:
a. Dismiss Ms Cressy’s claims; and
b. Uphold (all of) my counterclaims against Ms Cressy.
30. Given that even as late as the Trial in December 2008 Ms Cressy’s lawyers did not present any
evidence sufficient to justify her May 2007 (false) caveat claims, it is a fairly safe bet that her
lawyers did not bother to do any due diligence whatsoever in May 2007 before throwing caveats
onto all 6 of my properties, or again in November 2007 when they drew up her fraudulent
Statement of Claim against me.
31. Given “the paucity of the [plaintiff’s] evidence” and given the Trial Judges findings of fraud and
perjury by Ms Cressy, one would be forgiven for thinking that the Trial Judge would:
a. Uphold my counterclaims against David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers;
b. Order David William Hanlon and/or Harwood Andrews Lawyers to pay my legal costs (in
the order of $900,000); and
c. Order David William Hanlon and/or Harwood Andrews Lawyers to pay me compensation.
Perversions of Justice
32. So how and why did the Trial Judge find in favour of Ms Cressy and dismiss my counterclaims
against David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers? Easy, the Trial Judge failed to
apply the law (as set down in by the High Court in Johnson v Johnson [2000] 211 CLR 488
and earlier precedents). Instead of doing what the laws of the land required him to do, the Trial
Judge did the opposite of those laws. The Trial Judge did what Ms Cressy’s Counsel (Graeme
Devries, a barrister of some 30 years or so acquaintance with many of the Judges of the
Supreme Court, including perhaps the Trial Judge) wanted him to do. But whatever possessed
the Trial Judge to expose himself to serious allegations of misconduct in (public) office and
serious allegations that he and Graeme Devries engaged in conduct amounting to the perversion
of the course of justice?
33. Why didn’t the Trial Judge punish Ms Cressy for perjury, punish her for abuse of process and
punish her for attempted perversion of justice?
34. Why didn’t the Trial Judge punish Ms Cressy’s lawyers (all of them, not just Graeme Devries) for
perjury (breaches of their oaths of admission to, inter alia, uphold the due administration of
justice), abuse of process and attempted perversion of justice?
35. Why didn’t the Trial Judge punish witness Peter Cockram (Ms Cressy’s married boyfriend of
2000-02) for perjury and attempted perversion of justice?
36. Why didn’t the Trial Judge punish Federal Magistrate Daniel O’Dwyer for attempted (effected?)
perversion of (Supreme Court) justice?
37. Why didn’t the Trial Judge punish (fraudulent) process server Steve Wittekind for perjury and
perversion of justice?
38. Why didn’t the Trial Judge punish Federal Magistrate Daniel O’Dwyer and Ms Cressy’s counsel,
Graeme Devries, for contempt of State Parliament and for contempt of Federal Parliament?
39. Did the Trial Judge abolish the common law crimes of perjury, abuse of process and perversion
of the course of justice?
40. Did the Trial Judge abolish the doctrine of precedent and overrule leading High Court precedents
including Brigginshaw v Brigginshaw, (all three limbs of) Johnson v Johnson (no relations)?
41. Did the Trial Judge reverse the onus of proof in civil trials? Levitating (or reversing) Jones v
Dunkel to the point that in a civil trial the defendant is deemed guilty until proven innocent, and
even where he produces independent evidence more than enough to satisfy an unbiased Court
of his more than innocence, and the plaintiff failed to produce any of the evidence one would
expect a genuine de facto wife to bring to trial (eg evidence of a romantic relationship that had
ended by February 2000? Seriously, Your Honour).
42. Did the Trial Judge abolish the rule of law? Expanding the doctrines of Gianarelli v Wraith and
R v D’Orta-Edenke, stratospherically so, so that not only are Australian barristers and litigation
solicitors not subject to principles of (professional) negligence that apply to all other Australian
citizens and also apply to all citizens in all other English common law countries without any
favour or discrimination or privilege for barristers and litigation lawyers in those countries,
43. Did the Trial Judge abolish basic human rights (such as the right to natural justice) in this State,
including basic human rights supposedly in force in this State by virtue of the 1215 Magna
Charta, the 1689 English Bill of Rights (which operates as a matter of inherited law not just in
Australia but even in the United States of America and its external territories such as
Guantanamo Bay) and under our home-grown 21st Century Victorian Charter of Human Rights
and Responsibilities Act?
44. As outlined in my draft Notice of Appeal and in my May 2009 affidavits and submissions to the
Court of Appeal (Chief Justice Warren and Coghlan AJA):
a. The Trial Judge shut his eyes to the (independent) evidence of eye witnesses (Ms
Cressy’s neighbour, my landlord etc) and statutory records (Ms Cressy’s youngest child’s
birth certificate);
b. The Trial Judge shut his eyes to the applicable law (including laws of evidence and laws
of procedure, burdens of proof etc);
c. The Trial Judge shut his eyes to his findings that Ms Cressy had lied to him in the witness
box, had burgled me, stole and sought to conceal evidence that her claims were lies;
d. The Trial Judge shut his eyes to Ms Cressy’s written confessions that she is a self-
confessed, compulsive liar (“I am in truth a beautiful liar” she wrote in her journals
amongst her bizarre descriptions of other men she has scammed over the years);
e. The Trial Judge shut his eyes to (and even facilitated and perpetrated) substantial
abuses of process and denials of natural justice;
f. The Trial Judge demonstrated substantial and systematic misconduct and abuse;
g. Right from the outset, and again time and time again, the Trial Judge succumbed to the
deplorable fabrications, lies, slanders and misconduct, abuses of process and
perversions of justice perpetrated by Ms Cressy’s counsel, Graeme Devries.
Masters Court Proceedings - My Aggressors Submissions and Responses

45. I have previously submitted that the part of these proceedings locked into numbering 9263 of
2008 and 10222 of 2008 cannot proceed further until final judgment is handed down (by the
Court of Appeal or by the High Court) in that part of these proceedings that went to part-trial
(proceedings No. 9665 of 2007) and which are pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
(renumbering 3731 of 2009). My application
46. My aggressors (with unlimited free legal aid in quadruplicate from the state Government agency,
the Legal Practitioners Liability EVASION Committee) are seeking to trick a judicial officer, in the
Masters Court, the lowest of the three levels of the Supreme Court, to acquit them of their
wrongs without even being put to trial, and even before my wrongs against them are properly
articulated (and even before I have either engaged independent legal representation, or self-
taught myself sufficient skills) to articulate them. In Lewis Carroll’s imagination “Sentence first.
Verdict After” is a mockery. What would Lewis Carroll think of these applications for acquittal
without trial before the wrongs are even written up? “Acquittals First. Documents After?” Go
figure.
47. On 24 and 25 June 2009 the Trial Judge held that he had no power to correct even his glaring
mathematical errors in his judgment at the half-trial and penalized me for His having drawing up
defective orders based on the seeding of Ms Cressy’s corrupt and incompetent Counsel. [My
submissions ran: “I’m not asking you to correct your errors of fact, your errors of law, or your
errors of judgment your Honour, but could you at least try to fix the maths to avoid the obvious
further injustice flowing from your mathematical mistakes?”] Go figure. Seems that the Trial
Judge, a full Justice of the Supreme Court cannot hear an application that is over the head of
and in the jurisdiction of the upper house of the Court. [Ms Cressy’s Counsel gloated of course
that I had brought my application in the “wrong forum” as a Judge can’t in effect hear an appeal
from his or her own decision [NB]. What a tragedy that a Judge has the power to make such
frightening mistakes, but no power to correct even the most obvious and easily remedied of
them, eliminating substantial work for an overloaded appellate court].
48. So how can an Associate Justice in the Masters Court (a lower Court) hear applications over the
head of and in the hands of not one but two appeals [3731 of 2009 from 9665 of 2008; 3766 of
2009 from 9263 and 10222 of 2008], including appeals that are explicitly appeals against orders
made by that same Associate Justice?
49. On 17 April 2009 the same Associate Justice refused to make orders necessary to the proper
administration of justice (to prevent Associate Justice Evans from committing further misconduct
in office and perversion of justice – having regard to the second limb of Johnson v Johnson [no
relations] and having regard to R v Einfeld) because such orders would have amounted to an
appeal against her peer’s orders. So how can this
50. Doesn’t the Associate Justice appreciate that any orders acquitting any of the defendants by
counterclaim from standing trial against claims yet to be written against them will simply:
a. Be additional subject matter of the appeals already in progress to the Court of Appeal;
and
b. Be additional subject matter for my protests of Supreme Court violations of High Court
laws regarding judicial impartiality as laid down unanimously by the High Court in
Johnson v Johnson?
51. As I have submitted on all previous occasions in the Masters Court, the presiding judicial
officer’s powers are limited to adjourning these “no case to answer” applications by these (Legal
Practitioners Liability EVASION Committee funded) out-lawyers and (following their lead) the
equally.
52. Additionally, an Associate Justice sitting in the Masters Court is a “tribunal” for the purposes of
the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Whatever the position in the higher
levels of the Supreme Court (where it is unclear whether those levels of the Supreme Court have
lawful responsibilities to respect the human rights of litigation participants under that legislation
or merely under antecedent legislation inherited from Great Britain (including the UK Bill of
Rights of 1688 which also operates as federal law in the United States of America and its
external territories, including Guantanamo Bay).
53. The Masters Court is a court of mere procedure, and has no appellate jurisdiction. It is
frightening that an Associate Justice sitting in the Masters Court could think for even an instant
that she has power to hear applications:
a. that are in effect appeals against her own, or her superiors, decisions, and/or
b. that crib or in anyway intrude on matters which are the subject of proceedings in the
higher houses of the Supreme Court.
54. The Associate Justice in the Masters Court only has power to make orders that facilitate the
proper articulation and hearing of matters that are proceeding in the higher houses of the
Supreme Court and cannot make orders overruling or cribbing the higher houses of the Court.
55. For this reason the Associate Justice should adjourn all of the present applications, for further
mention only after the Court of Appeal has handed down its final decision.
56. It is a mockery to suggest that the Associate Justice can make any orders restricting the proper
articulation of matters proceeding in the higher houses of the Supreme Court, or that any
mischief such orders might make can be averted by the Associate Justice granting stays against
those orders pending the aforementioned final decision of the Court of Appeal.
Aggressors 2 and 3 – David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers

57. These two aggressors have received substantial legal aid from the Legal Practitioners Liability
(Evasion) Committee since early 2008, in the form of representation by city law firm Lander &
Rogers and city barrister (and, frighteningly, a purported member of the Victorian Bar ethics
committee). The Legal Services Commissioner has unlawfully refused to hear my three
misconduct complaints against them – unlawfully claiming she lacks jurisdiction and risibly
claiming that the Trial Judge at the half-trial had sole jurisdiction. One of the few points of law
that the Trial Judge and I agreed on was that the Legal Services Commission had full statutory
powers of investigation, government funding, resources and responsiblities to undertake these
investigations, whilst the Trial Judge did not have them (especially the first three).
58. At half-trial in February 2009 the Trial Judge bizarrely and unlawfully ruled that my embryonic
counterclaims against them [the version I wrote up in February 2008 under numbering 9665 of
2007 not my revised version of November 2008 under numbering 9263 of 2008] did not make
out a case against them. How the Trial Judge could do this (and in particular give judgment in
the collateral claims ahead of hearing the primary claims against Ms Cressy on which they
perched, is beyond me. But it is beyond me how the Trial Judge could lock me into the February
2008 pleadings rather than the November 2008 pleadings. By giving judgments in reverse order,
clearly the Trial Judge not only demonstrated Johnson v Johnson bias, but followed it up with
even greater Johnson v Johnson prejudice and bias two weeks later with his bizarre judgment
on 25 February 2009 where his Honour found in all respects, except the final outcome, against
Ms Cressy.
59. These two aggressors are making applications in the Court of Appeal (the part of these
proceedings numbered 9665 of 2007, and renumbered 3731 of 2009) to have my appeal struck
out on the grounds (a) that my original draft notice of appeal did not express any grounds of
appeal against the Trial Judge’s judgment of 11 February 2009 in their favour; and (b) a technical
argument that my appeal was not lodged within the 14 day period. The first grounds has
substantially been rectified by my current revised draft notice of appeal and (any remaining
weaknesses) will be fully rectified once my Notice of Appeal has been reviewed and settled by
independent solicitors and counsel. The second grounds of objection is scandalous (especially
for a litigant whose solicitors and counsel are funded by a multi-million dollar Government
Agency, the Legal Practitioners Liability (Evasion) Committee which is obliged to conduct itself
according to the Victorian Attorney-General’s model litigant policies – including by not taking
sharp technical arguments to avoid running claims and defending claims according to their
proper substantive merits. Counsel funded for them by the Legal Practitioners Liability (Evasion)
Committee has admitted in submissions from the bar on two occasions that these proceedings
have been before the Court of Appeal (the Chief Justice and Coghlan AJA) that the second
grounds is not normally (and by inference, will not be) pursued as the Court of Appeal rarely
refuses leave to hear an appeal on the basis of this sort of spurious argument alone. And in any
case, as I have indicated above, this situation came about because of the Trial Judge’s bizarre
and inexplicable (mis-)conduct in granting judgment on my collateral claims against the David
William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers ahead of the primary action between Ms Cressy
and myself, on which my collateral claims piggy-backed. And in any case, at that point in the
half-trial, my claims against David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Laywers had to all
intents and purposes been postponed by the Trial Judge to be heard as part of the proceedings
with numbering 9263 of 2008 (by another mistake made in December 2008 without any
examination until it was too late in February 2009, the Trial Judge mis-conceived that these were
separate proceedings rather than a revised version of my February 2008 draft counterclaims
against David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers). As regards the half-trial, my
first draft counterclaims against David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers had
dissolved into only a claim seeking them to contribute equally with James Turnbull and Berry
Family Law and Graeme Devries of Counsel to the costs of (my successful) action against Ms
Cressy in respect of the proceedings with numbering 9665 of 2007 as adjudicated by the Trial
Judge at the half trial (ie a costs application under Order 63-23).
60. As regards my revised counterclaims against David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews
Lawyers as written in proceedings numbered 9263 of 2008, their Legal Practitioners Liability
(Evasion) Committee funded Counsel is submitting res judicata, that is, that my claims have
already been adjudicated by the Trial Judge in the half-trial.
61. It is frightening that any member of the Victorian bar, let alone a barrister who claims that she is
a member of the ethics committee of the Victorian bar, would seek to mislead the (Masters)
Court in this fashion. Ms Sofraniou was present for all of the days of the half-trial up to an
including 11 February 2009. Ms Sofraniou is well aware:
a. That these are not two sets of proceedings, but two versions of the same pleadings (I
rewrote my February 2008 counterclaims against Ms Cressy’s lawyers in November 2008
after self-educating myself on some of the basics of drafting pleadings); it is blatantly
unethical of her to claim otherwise; it is blatantly unethical of her to justify claiming
otherwise by saying she is just repeating what the Trial Judge said, knowing that the Trial
Judge got it wrong and witnessing the fact that the Trial Judge refused to receive and
didn’t even bother to look at the November 2008 version of my counterclaims until
February 2009, by which time it was far too late for Him to do anything about his 2
December 2008 mistakes);
b. In the December 2008 half trial (so nicknamed by me for these reasons) the Trial Judge
refused to try David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews according to my revised
counterclaim pleadings of November 2008. The Trial Judge insisted on hearing claims
only as to the fraudulent nature of Ms Cressy’s caveat and David William Hanlon’s
misconduct regarding Ms Cressy’s burglary and theft of evidence on 16 November 2007
and subpoenaing of them, ostensibly, as evidence in the Federal Magistrates Court
proceedings.
c. The Trial Judge refused to allow me to amend my counterclaims, and refused to allow me
to proceed with my counterclaims against David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews
Lawyers that they were motivated by ulterior purposes and could not seriously be
claimed to be brought to vindicate any legitimate rights that Ms Cressy might have
against me [where’s the evidence Your Honour? Where’s the evidence Harwood
Andrews? Where’s the evidence Berry Family Law and Graeme Devries? It certainly
wasn’t produced at trial. There certainly wasn’t any evidence to be produced.]
d. Understandably, as even a Rhodes Scholar and even the most experienced Silk would in
these circumstances be at a loss as to how to proceed, and me not even being ready for
the half-trial to commence (without discovery or other normal and important pre-trial
steps first) on 2 December 2008, I was at a lost how to reorientate myself as to how to
present my claims against Harwood Andrews Lawyers and David William Hanlon based
on the rudimentary February 2008 pleadings without the benefit of the claims as I revised
them in November 2008 – hence, although thinking it “curiouser and curiouser” and
distinctly bizarre, I was assured by the Trial Judge that my claims had been postponed
for hearing against David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers as part of a
second trial.
e. Harwood Andrews Lawyers should have investigated claims, gathered evidence,
exercised an independent mind and made a judgment as to merits of claims.
i. The “paucity of the [totality of the plaintiff’s] evidence produced at the half-trial
demonstrated they hadn’t gathered any evidence at the point of hand-over to
Berry Family Law in April 2008.
ii. It speaks for itself they hadn’t gathered any evidence (copies of their client’s tax
returns, payslips, bank statements, contracts, receipts, etc) when they drew up
and filed caveats for Ms Cressy and themselves.
iii. It speaks for itself they hadn’t gathered any evidence (copies of their client’s tax
returns, payslips, bank statements, contracts, receipts, etc) when they drew up a
statement of claim (in tandem with Richard Ingelby of Counsel) to support
generally and individually the paragraphs of assertions in Ms Cressy’s Statement
of Claim.
iv. It speaks for itself they still hadn’t gathered any evidence (copies of their client’s
tax returns, payslips, bank statements, contracts, receipts, etc) even after I
(having to that time enjoyed an 8 year professional relationship with Harwood
Andrews Lawyers as “my” external legal counsel) had put them on notice that
their client was a fraudster with serious mental health problems.
v. It speaks for itself they hadn’t gathered any evidence (copies of their client’s tax
returns, payslips, bank statements, contracts, receipts, etc) even after they
witnessed Ms Cressy’s mental health problems and dishonesties for themselves
(her serious domestic violence against her children and her home in September
2007, her aggravated burglary of my home and theft and concealment of
evidence in November 2007, their improprieties in having the police not press
charges against Ms Cressy, their further perversion of justice and abuse of Court
processes in subpoenaing irrelevant loot from the burglary, my documents,
personal items and business equipment into the family law court proceedings,
awareness that Ms Cressy lied to the police (they handed in to me (evidently,
guiltily, not to the federal magistrates court evidence room) additional stolen
documents in March 2008.
vi. This they did under cover of a Supreme Court Affidavit served on my in court
under cover of a letter of service marked “without prejudice save as to costs” –
which just underscores to all save the blind eyes of the recalcitrant Legal Services
Commissioner Harwood Andrews absolute lack of technical and ethical fitness to
continue to practices as lawyers in the family law courts or indeed any other law
courts in this country. The equally incompetent and ethically unfit Berry Family
Law then repeated this absurdity by delivering to me in April 2008 an “Affidavit of
Documents” sworn by Ms Cressy in the original proceedings that went to half trial
in December 2008, to which was attached another photocopy set of these
additional stolen documents, none of which were relevant to any of the
proceedings (as demonstrated by them not being relied on by any party in
evidence at the half trial – although risibly Graeme Devries of Counsel intimated
at one point, until I laughed out loud at him, that he was going to suggest to the
Trial Judge that the Trial Judge could pretend according to Jones v Dunkel that
the stolen documents locked up in the Federal Magistrates Court evidence room
contained self-incriminating evidence against me because I hadn’t gone and
photocopied every page of all 5 archive boxes at the princely sum of 20 cents a
page – when dear sweet Graeme had more opportunity and money to do that
himself if there had been a single page of any assistance whatsoever to support
Ms Cressy’s fraudulent claims. Lewis Carroll’s imagination doesn’t hold a candle
to the absolute mockery and corruption of this bewigged clown in a gown with
dead horse on his head.
vii. On the point of Ms Cressy’s maliciousness, mental health problems and
propensity to lie, David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews lawyers had full
access to the report prepared by David List and published on 17 December 2007.
Having regard to the frightening admissions that Ms Cressy made in that report,
and the scandalous malicious defamations she leveled at me that the good Dr List
didn’t even bother to put to me for comment before printing in all their gory,
Harwood Andrews Lawyers were well placed to realise that their client was
mentally ill, malicious and defamatory. Even without my special 8 year
relationship with Harwood Andrews Lawyers, including its chairman and senior
partner (I was in-house representative of their most valuable, government client,
worth millions of dollars annually in fee revenue) surely they had sufficient smarts
to realise that Ms Cressy’s claims that I was a drunken, violent, drug taking
incestuous pedophile and had been since my teens (kicked out of home by my
mother for raping my unborn niece), that I was a moonlighting prostitute and had
forced Ms Cressy into prostitution were fabrications of the worst kind by the worst
kind of person for the worst reasons. Even the Trial Judge commented at the half
trial that he didn’t believe that these allegations against me were true. There
were other bizarre claims Ms Cressy made against me in the context of the family
court proceedings, all gleefully trumpeted by Harwood Andrews Lawyers, and
Berry Family Lawyers, by counsel appointed by the them, and by Dr David List.
These men need their heads read if they are asserting that they don’t have the
smarts to know when they are being lied to and manipulated by a self-confessed
and mentally ill liar. These out-lawyers need their heads read for running up
some $400,000 in legal charges on their timesheets (some four times the amount
that the Trial Judge with his many mistakes, and F for maths, ordered me to pay
Ms Cressy (appeals pending), The legals probably go up to about $600,000
(600% of the judgment amount) once you take into account fees which the Legal
Practitioners Liability (Evasion) Committee will be seeking to have me reimburse
for Lander & Rogers and Ms Sofranious’ lushed out charges (appeal pending).
viii. Given the champetry and maintenance, and Harwood Andrews Lawyers, Berry
Family Lawyers and counsel engaged by them knew all along that Ms Cressy was
a destitute, so that even if [when] Ms Cressy loses her claims [on appeal] she has
no means to compensate me for damages or legal costs, and their knowledge
that their caveats and Ms Cressy’s other actions (including criminal ones) were
causing me savage damage, not only were the standards of due diligence (as to
her claims) escalated by my warnings to them of her frauds and mental illness,
not only where those standards escalated by their own first-hand witnessing her
fraudulent and mentally ill and criminal activities, but the combination of
impoverished (vexatious) litigant and gross champetry and maintenance they are
escalated further – to the extent that I should [on appeal] be awarded additional
and exemplary damages from them because of these aggravating factors.
f. Caveats are a serious clog on the property rights of a legitimate owner of freehold reality.
Their seriousness and the damage they can cause are amply demonstrated by the facts
of this case. They should not be thrown around lightly. Should they? It speaks for itself
that lawyers must gather evidence from their clients to justify issuing caveats. They must
make sure that any proceedings (including caveats) they issue are for a legitimate
vindication of the client’s rights. The must make sure that the client’s claims are not
vexatious, oppressive or an abuse of process. They must make sure that the client is not
an extortionist and blackmailer. They must make sure that they are not, zombie-like, the
unwitting instruments of fraud. They must do sufficient appropriate due diligence before
issuing legal actions on behalf of a client. Otherwise, they are unprofessional, unethical
and acting contrary to their duties to the Court (and the general public) to uphold the
proper administration of justice. It also speaks for itself that a caveator claiming an
partial interests (especially as Harwood Andrews Lawyers did, as a chargee or security
holder) acquires caveator duties not to use the caveat oppressively or waste or ruin the
caveated property. Sadly, it speaks for itself that Harwood Andrews Lawyers, and their
successors, Berry Family Law, acted like zombies.
62. Any common law licence that Harwood Andrews and David William Hanlon enjoy to commit
professional negligence towards their client is firstly an aberration because the High Court of
Australia has yet to step up to the same standards of all other English speaking common law
countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, New Zealand, Canada) where the
same laws of Donghue v Stephenson and MLC v Evatt apply to all citizens of those countries
(even barristers and litigation solicitors have to pay up compensation to victims of their
professional negligence). The legal position of this common law licence to commit professional
negligence with immunity needs to be reconsidered by the High Court, at least for Victoria in
consequence of the introduction of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities,
and secondly because continuation of this aberration constitutes a violation by the Victorian and
Australian governments (of which its judiciary are parts) of Australia’s international law
obligations to respect its citizen’s human rights, international law obligations arising from the
Australian government being a partial signatory to the United Nations Declaration of Political and
Civil Rights. Thirdly, any residual legitimacy to this Australian common law licence to committed
profession negligence is limited to clients of the malpractised barrister or solicitor – the immunity
does not and has never extended to litigation parties other than the client of the malpractised
lawyers. Fourthly, the common law licence if it has any remnant force is limited only to
professional negligence – the immunity does not extend to fraud or other criminal acts
perpetrated by the malpractised lawyers. And the evidence in these proceedings (indeed the
evidence produced at the half-trial as supplemented by additional evidence obtained since
February 2009 and filed in the appeal proceedings) demonstrates gross fraud and/or criminal
misconduct by Ms Cressy’s lawyers (including multiple counts of some or all of perversion of
justice, perjury, contempt of Court(s) and contempt of Parliament(s), and other crimes of
dishonesty including accessory (after the facts) to crimes such as burglary, abuse of process.
So, any common law licence to commit professional negligence that Richard Ingleby presently
enjoys does not entitle them to evade liability to compensate me for the wrongs they have
occasioned to me.
63. So the applications by these aggressors to be acquitted from my claims without trial and before
my claims are properly written up are vexatious and abusive and oppressive claims that should
be outright dismissed by the Associate Justice (with the usual orders as to costs on a full
indemnity basis having regard to aggravating factors described above).
64. I note that my counterclaims against Harwood Andrews Lawyers (and indeed Berry Family Law
and perhaps the two barristers too) will probably need to be updated to include various trade
practices laws violations (misleading and deceptive conduct and the like) – depending on the
advice of my soon to be appointed independent solicitors and counsel.
Aggressor 4 – Richard Ingleby

65. Richard Ingelby should not have signed and settled pleadings for Ms Cressy without satisfying
himself of the propriety of each and every allegation of fact and the legitimacy of each and every
allegation contained in Ms Cressy’s Statement of Claim. Where’s the evidence Richard? While
his instructors bear the responsibility for the failure to undertake due diligence investigations and
evidence gathering off Ms Cressy, Counsel has a responsibility to ensure that his instructions
include sufficient evidence (of the categories described above) for him to exercise an
independent judgment as to whether Ms Cressy’s claims have reasonable merit, or whether she
is a malicious, slandering, fraudulent loon. Counsel also has a responsibility to satisfy himself
that, in presenting argument to the Court on Ms Cressy’s behalf, he is not misleading the Judge
or making wrongful inferences or allegations about me that are not substantiated by evidence
before him. Counsel also has responsibilities (once he has formed the opinion that Ms Cressy is
a malicious, slandering, fraudulent loon).
66. During an intermission in the practice court hearing before Mr Justice Wheelan in March 2008
(the hearing where Harwood Andrews Lawyers handed in to me the ‘without prejudice save as to
costs’ affidavit by Ms Cressy and the originals of the stolen documents that Ms Cressy
concealed from the Police in December 2007) Richard Ingelby confessed to me that he knew
that he and Harwood Andrews Lawyers had already at that point (caveats filed, statement of
claim filed and served and first practice court application by summons filed and served and being
heard), had already gone ‘way too far’, admitted realizing that Ms Cressy is a malicious,
slandering, fraudulent loon. At that point Richard Ingelby and Harwood Andrews should have
immediately cease to represent Ms Cressy. He should not have proceeded to press Ms Cressy’s
practice court summons as that involved him in seriously misleading the Judge. Further, Richard
Ingleby should have communicated his realization as to Ms Cressy’s true character to his
instructor. And he should have ensured that his successor Graeme Devries, and his instructors
successors, Berry Family Law were well also made aware of his realization of Ms Cressy’s true
character.
67. Any common law licence to commit professional negligence that Richard Ingleby presently
enjoys does not entitle him to evade liability to compensate me for the wrongs he has
occasioned to me, for the same reasons as any common law licence to this effect does not
entitle Harwood Andrews Lawyers and David William Hanlon to evade liability to compensate me
for the wrongs they have inflicted on me.
68. So the applications by this aggressor to be acquitted from my claims without trial and before my
claims are properly written up are vexatious and abusive and oppressive claims that should be
outright dismissed by the Associate Justice (with the usual orders as to costs on a full indemnity
basis having regard to aggravating factors described above).
Aggressors 5 and 6 – James Turnbull and Berry Family Law

69. My submissions against the applications by these aggressors are identical to my submissions
against the application by David William Turnbull and Harwood Andrews Lawyers.
70. As regards due diligence investigations, James Turnbull and Berry Family Law should have
familiarized themselves with Ms Cressy’s background and the maliciousness and madness of
her claims. They should have inherited the same (deficient) database of evidence from Harwood
Andrews Lawyers. In addition, they had the benefit of the welcome letter and brief of materials
that I sent them which, again, should have put them on the highest standard of due diligence into
her claims [though bizarrely they criticized me for extending this professional courtesy to
facilitate their climbing into the saddle in place of their dysfunctional predecessors.]
Aggressor 7 – Graeme Devries

72. My submissions against Graeme Devries applications are, for starters, identical to my
submissions against the corresponding applications by David William Hanlon and Harwood
Andrews Lawyers.
74. I note, on the question of costs, and aggravation factors, that it is Graeme Devries who
instigated these series of vexatious, oppressive and abusive acquittal without trial applications in
the Masters Court (although of course his solicitors and counsel are funded by the Legal
Practitioners Liability (Evasion) Committee along with the (separate) city solicitors and barristers
purchased for each of Harwood Andrews Lawyers, Richard Ingleby and Berry Family Law by the
Legal Practitioners Liability (Evasion) Committee.
75. I also note that my counterclaims against Graeme Devries will need to be substantially rewritten
before trial to update them for Devries further outrageous and unlawful aggressions against me
since December 2008. These include:
a. His attempted perversion of the course of justice on 2 December 2008 by his unlawful
attempt to use the Order 15 of the Supreme Court rules (a rule designed to ensure that
children and mentally handicapped defendants get a fair trial by allowing them or the
Court to appoint a litigation guardian – an adult of sound body and mind) to represent
them at trial – Devries sought to pervert this order to trick the Trial Judge into using it to
gag a mentally very fit defendant (myself, a solicitor of 18 years plus good standing) from
mounting the best defence possible (without benefit of a legal professional liability
committee of any description to grant me legal aid representation). Am I the only once
who appreciates the evil and corruption in that application by Devries – the evil and
corruption in the Trial Judge hearing the application – asking a 45 year old solicitor of 18
years good standing if his mummy could come to court and represent him as a mentally
and physically sound grown? I am yet to find out how a representative of the Public
Trustee’s office was pulled in off the street after lunch, lest the Trial Judge be tempted to
grant this application. I swear Devries and Kaye should be jailed for years for
misconduct and attempted perversion of justice just for trying this one on. If the
Court of Appeal or even the High Court of Australia don’t fix the injustices caused
to date in these proceedings, it is a damned certainty that the United Nations
Human Rights Commission will speak out in loud condemnation of the Australian
judicial system for this unimaginable depravity [not even Lewis Carroll’s
imagination produced a mockery of this magnitude].
b. The turn out your pocketses experience Devries inflicted on me under the pretense of
cross examination;
c. Devries pushing for a quick trial commencing on 2 December 2008 on an estimated 2
days duration, without telling the Court that the matter was not yet ready to be set down
for trial (discovery was required, then interrogatories, then pleadings finalised – you know
– “Pleadings first. Trial after.”
d. Devries misuse and abuse of List’s lunatic report to make misleading inferences to the
Judge about my personality and character (see too below);
e. Devries wild and unsubstantiated attacks on my character – to cover up his failure to
produce any evidence (for obvious reasons) to back up Ms Cressy’s wild claims;
f. misleading the Trial Judge on many instances (such as inciting the Trial Judge to forget
about the independent evidence and form a judgment without regard to the independent
evidence and relevant High Court authorities such as Johnson v Johnson as if the sole
evidence was the testimony of Ms Cressy versus the testimony of Mr Johnson.
g. Misleading the Trial Judge into thinking that the onus was mine to prove that Ms Cressy
did not financially support me (an onus that I in any event more than adequately
discharged, with substantial independent evidence) whilst failing himself to produce any
evidence that Ms Cressy had any source of funds out of which she might have financially
supported me, let alone any evidence to support her fraudulent claims that she financially
supported me [In Countries with functional and fair courts, plaintiffs do need to produce
evidence to their solicitors and counsel before their solicitors and counsel settle her
pleadings, and especially need to produce evidence to the Judge before the judge can
grant judgment in her favour];
h. Handling stolen goods in Court (namely two items of mine stolen by Ms Cressy – one on
16 November 2007 and one prior to 2003, none of which in any case were of the slightest
evidentiary value.
i. Accusing me of burgling and stealing documents from Ms Cressy [knowing that this was
exactly the opposite of what had occurred with Ms Cressy’s aggravated burglary of me
on 16 November 2007] and even accusing me of stealing a statutory record, Illyana’s
birth certificate, which was issued to me over the counter by the Registrar of Births
Deaths and Marriages in June 2007 on a day when Ms Cressy’s diaries (as put into
evidence by me) showed that Ms Cressy was out of the country enjoying a China holiday
with her long-term boyfriend [somewhat exposing the fraud in her claims to have been
my de facto wife up to and including the previous month].
j. Strongly urging Federal Magistrate O’Dwyer to sign seal and deliver biased orders that
are a contempt of State and Federal Courts and State and Federal Parliaments (as
Devries did in August 2007 and again in February 2008].
k. Strongly urging Federal Magistrate O’Dwyer in February 2008 (O’Dwyer had said in July
2007 that he knew better than to engage in this conspiracy of Devries) with further
attempts to damage me with false accusations of mental illness, wasting the Legal
Services Commissioner’s time (and triggering an unlawful reprisal action by the Legal
Services Commissioner against me) when it was quite clear from the failure of this
Stalinist/Hitler legal tactic before the Trial Judge in December 2008 that any mental
problems are purely in the heads of Devries and List and Cressy, and not in the head of
Johnson. Risibly, the Legal Services Commissioner, via its delegate, briefed an
independent psychologist with all of List’s, Devries, Cressy and O’Dwyer toxic and
malicious bull shit, and none of the sane psychological assessments of Dr Love or Doctor
Clairbrough that I furnished at the half-trial (and accepted by Devries without objection or
cross-examination). Devries is worthy of further and additional jail time for his
gross, criminal misconduct the disgraceful lack of ethics manifest in Devries’
deliberate and calculated failures to inform Federal Magistrate O’Dwyer of those
two positive psychological assessments, and Devries further deliberate and
calculated failures to inform Federal Magistrate O’Dwyer of the Trial Judge’s
strongly favourable findings as to my extraordinary intelligence and impressive
natural abilities as an advocate. Despite this vile stacking of the odds (contrary to
relevant provisions of the Legal Practice Act, the Charter of Human Rights and
Responsibilities, the Whistleblowers Protection Act and the 1688 Bill of Rights), it is
apparent that the independent psychologist gave me a clear bill of mental health as the
Legal Services Commissioner promptly withdrew its investigation of me once it received
this report.
Aggressor 8 – David List

76. Dr David List’s application to be acquitted without trial is bloody funny. I well understand the
fright with which is professional indemnity insurer has instructed senior as well as junior counsel.
Sadly, Dr David List’s fate is sealed by the lunacy of his published report. His fate is further
sealed by his risible submissions “in support” (sic) of his application.
77. Firstly, List is not a barrister or a litigation solicitor. While there are comments by him in his
lunatic report which might be construed as evidencing his believing that he is a lawyer (and
perhaps a litigator) but it is reasonable to assume that one or both of his counsel will concede
that he is not a legal practitioner (rather than subject him to prosecution for unlicensed legal
practice). But far stranger things have happened in these proceedings. The common law
licence to commit professional negligence has, even in Australia been limited to barristers (and
only in 2005 extended to litigation solicitors). Psychologists have never enjoyed a common law
licence to commit professional negligence. I assume for present purposes that List is a
psychologist, despite the damning and disturbing evidence of his lunatic report to the contrary.
This is something that List will of course need to prove at trial, should we get that far.
78. Secondly, List’s official and responsibilities (as he now too late realises) were to prepare a
report for the Federal Magistrate as to the Cressy childrens, Ms Cressy’s and my wishes for
contact time (custody and access) between Ms Cressy’s three children and myself. List should
have heeded his professional responsiblities. He should have reported Ms Cressy’s position as
stated to him and more or less recorded in his report “I have no problem with Illyana spending
time with James, week about, eventually.” He should have reported that I was seeking only this
“week about” (24/7 or 50/50) custody for Illyana. He should have reported that Illyana wanted
50/50 “equal” time one week with Ms Cressy and one week with me. So far, all in agreement,
and nothing in dispute. All very simple. The issues of uncertainty were Ms Cressy’s two sons –
Sky who had been told for the first 9 years of his life he was my biological son wanted the same
50/50 live with time with me. I was comfortable with this. Ms Cressy was “unsure”. Again, the
parties not too far apart, an easy thing to settle by negotiation. And I would have thought that the
wishes of the children would be paramount. As it turned out by early 2008 Illyana was vetoing
any contact time with me for Sky because of the violence (including death threats that I
witnessed, and beatings that her school principal witnessed) because of Sky’s abused mental
state firstly from Ms Cressy telling him in alternative lies in the months of August 2007 (I’m not
his biological daddy – actually a truth after 9 years of lies), September 2007 (his half-brother’s
daddy is his biological daddy – despite 9 years to the contrary) and October 2007 (his half-
brother’s daddy is not his daddy (actually a truth), and he doesn’t have a biological daddy (much
as I wish that he and his half-brother were at least full brothers – as I duly informed padre file
uno and Herr Docktor). A bit much for a neglected bed-wetting, knife-wielding, angry 9 year old
boy to bear in one hit don’t you think? As for Treece’s contact time, again a simple thing to
negotiate – not having seen or heard hide or hair from padre file uno for several years (that’s
several years of total neglect and ignorance of his own kid) I was totally unaware of Ms Cressy’s
efforts during 2007 to create relationships between padre file uno and each of Sky and Treece (a
convenient third source of baby sitting so that Ms Cressy could engage in the tricks of her trade,
when her mother or I were not around for her to dump her kids on).
79. But instead of restricting himself to his professional responsibilities for which he was engaged,
List exploded into issues and assume roles which he reported, which were none of his business.
For example:
a. List set himself up as judge and jury for the purposes of dismissing (without investigation,
trial or evidence) Ms Cressy’s domestic violence against her children in September 2007
(because she had changed her mind about the interim consent orders for custody and
access she had agreed to only a few days earlier in the Federal Magistrates Court).
b. List breaches the confidential basis on which I informed him (as background to his report)
of the circumstances in which I met Ms Cressy (2.20 am on 12 September 1998 in a
brothel in Geelong called Lorraine Starr where she was working as a prostitute under the
alias “Claudia”. [Risibly, at the half-trial the Trial Judge preferred her story that I picked
her up on a surf beach, where she was sunbaking in chilly August a few weeks after
giving birth to Sky, she gave me her phone number, I moved in with her the following
weekend and two months later she told me her name. Scary stuff Trial Judge.
Questions need to be asked regarding His professional judgment too.] Ms Cressy’s
written journals, which I found abandoned by her on 26 December 2008 and produced on
resumption of the Trial on 9 February 2009 recorded in her own handwriting her first days
working at Lorraine Star (as a 14, 17 or 19 year old teenage prostitute – her handwriting
is not that legible) and even explained the origin’s of Claudia – her “confirmation name”
and she writes suggestively, the patron saint of prostitutes. He betrayed other
confidences I told him, such as her return to prostitution in mid 2007, the undesirable
outcomes of her earlier prostitution (1998 to 2002) including the Peter Cockram
stalkerpades and the risks this exposed her three children, especially her daughter; her
violence towards me and towards her children, including her 30 September 2007 assault
and battery of her own children, her aggravated burglary of me (and Illyana) on 16
November 2007 (during the List interviewing process), Ms Cressy’s story to me of Sky’s
conception, and the fabrications by Ms Cressy and padre file uno of that he was a
devoted committed father figure for either of her two boys. Far from keeping my
confidence, and far from telling me in advance that he would not treat anything I told him
as confidential, List gleefully went and asked Ms Cressy about these allegations of mine.
c. Bizarrely, perhaps under the influence of alcohol or other substances, Ms Cressy
admitted the truth of all of these allegations. List then promptly appoints himself judge
and jury and reports that her aggravated burglary was no big deal and appropriate, her
prostitution no big deal so long as it wasn’t a risk to the children (HELLO? Any intelligent
life in there Dr List) and painting me as an egotistical psychopath (a clear case of the
Doctor projecting his personality onto Mr Johnson).
d. Dr List then (I think, in a telephone conversation with Ms Cressy in December 2007, or
that’s how it appears in his report) writes down the most scandalous and vile defamations
by Ms Cressy (in his arrogance and egotism lacking all professional care and not just
lacking a bullshit barometer to identify Ms Cressy was acting maliciously, fraudulently and
slanderously in retaliation for disclosing her history) writing in his report her bizarre
allegations that I am a drunken, violent, drug taking incestuous pedophile and had been
since my teens (kicked out of home by my mother for raping my unborn niece), making
findings (without putting these bizarre and manifestly slanderous allegations to me). For
God’s sake List, how could any man with half a brain cell not reject Ms Cressy’s
December ravings as being totally inconsistent with her statements two months earlier
that she had “no problems with James having Illyana half the time, week about,
eventually.” How could List not put together her bizarre slanderous allegations, and the
“eventually” and diagnose Ms Cressy’s mental health problems?
e. Instead, List invents all manner of mental health problems which I don’t have – even
going so far as suggesting to the Trial Judge, at the half trial that I was not mentally fit to
defend myself at the half trial because (according to List’s lunacies) I allegedly suffer
mental illnesses so significant that the symptoms might not even be apparent at the trial.
This clown is risible – how can non-apparent symptoms of a non-existent mental illness
possibly present a handicap to me defending myself.
f. Dr List then engages in triangulation of the three Cressy children and, in violation of the
Court orders which he was briefed with and, as standard orders should have been
familiar with, in interview with Ms Cressy, Mr Laitey and the three children, Dr List
proceeds to run me down and criticize me (fraudulently and maliciously) in front of the
children – and it is left to Illyana to defend my honour. , combined with a clear case of
the Doctor projecting Ms Cressy’s personality onto me.
80. List produced such a mental report, even without regard to his mental behaviour in producing it,
which, well begs the question, is he irrevocably mentally disturbed or was he just intoxicated or
under the influence of non-alcoholic substances when he was conducting these interviews
and/or writing it. [His ape like manners during the interviews, which I so wish were recorded as
would have been proper in the circumstances, are strongly supportive of both theories – which of
course are far from mutually exclusive.]
81. On behalf of one law reform and child protection charity, Kids In Distress Association, I have
obtained QC advise (not yet reduced to a written opinion) that List is subject to the same laws of
professional negligence as all other Australians (aberrative exceptions for barristers and litigation
solicitors noted above). He is also subject to the same defamation laws in respect of his
professional report. This sits with comments as to liabilities of professional witnesses as
Justices Kirby and McHugh mention in passing in their written judgments in R v D’Orta-
Edenke).
82. List seems to assert that he is entitled to privileges and immunities (and presumably claims
common law licences to commit professional negligence, breach of confidence, defamation and
professional fraud) on account of being appointed to a special public officer under the relevant
Family Law Act provisions under which he was engaged. I am sorry, but even if List had stuck
squarely to the responsibilities of his office, rather than grossly and expansively frolicking into
and assuming official responsiblities of others (the Judge, the Court appointed psychiatrist etc)
he still could not claim any such grandiose immunities. In addition to his wide and (unprotected
by privilege, licence and immunity) frolicking, his misconducts in office deprive him of any
remnant privileges, licences to wrong and immunities that he might otherwise have postulated.
83. My counterclaims against List will need to be updated and revised once I have appointed
independent solicitors and counsel to represent me. IN particular, I have not updated my
counterclaims yet to take into account List’s further scandalous aggressions against me on the
first day of the half trial.
Aggressor – Legal Services Commissioner / Additional Counterclaims
84. I previously withdrew my counterclaims against the Legal Services Commissioner on the basis
that I feel sufficiently vindicated by the comments of the Trial Judge during the half trial as to the
unlawfulness of the Legal Services Commissioner for failing to exercise her powers and
responsibilities to investigate my misconduct complaints against Harwood Andrews Lawyers and
Berry Family Law. I have, since the start of 2009 filed two misconduct complaints against
Graeme Devries, James Turnbull and Berry Family Law. And I have asked the Legal Services
Commissioner to activate my complaints against David William Hanlon and Berry Family Law.
85. During the half trial the Legal Services Commissioner indicated she would be seeking me to pay
her legal costs. Seems bizarre that a State Government authority will firstly fail to do the job for
which she is given statutory powers, public funding and then seek to have the citizen who suffers
by her neglect and recalcitrant top up her public funding for her lawyers out of his own suffering
pockets – especially where the Trial Judge found in my favour on the substantive issue of law in
dispute. If the Legal Services Commissioner seeks to enforce or obtain any further costs orders
against me I will resist them as unlawful, vexatious and oppressive, and will seek damages and
costs in return. The Legal Services Commissioner should be properly investigating my
misconduct complaints against Ms Cressy’s lawyers, rather than engaging in such outrageous
and unlawful anti-SLAPP tactics. I have previously advised both Government agencies, the
Legal Practitioners Liability (Evasion) Committee and the Legal Services Commissioner of the
illegality of their actions under Whistleblowers laws, human rights laws and broader
governmental laws and policies such as the Attorney-General’s model litigation procedures) in
protecting these rogue lawyers from their liabilities at law.
86. Additionally, since March 2009 I have been subjected to two unlawful reprisal actions and
substantial defamations by the Legal Services Commissioner (because of my legal actions on
foot and my vocal criticisms of the incumbent Legal Services Commissioner’s non-regulation,
and protection even, of rogue barristers and litigation lawyers and calls for her immediate
dismissal and general overhaul of this window dressing ‘non’-regulatory model for the legal
profession in this State. I will be exercising my rights to bring further legal action against the
Legal Services Commissioner, for damages and injuries suffered from these fresh aggressions
against me, either by way of fresh counterclaims to be filed in the existing proceedings or by way
of separate legal proceedings. This will be among the raft of issues I raise with my independent
solicitors and counsel as soon as I am able to appoint them.
Other Aggressors / Additional Counterclaims

87. I have become informed only since March 2009 of additional defamatory and outrageous lies
promoted and fabricated against me by yet another supposed mental health practitioner – Dr
Timothy Entwistle – presumably to add his clout and to protect Dr David List from his scandalous
publication of negligent, fraudulent and defamatory allegations against me (as described above).
I will be exercising my rights to bring legal action against Dr Timothy Entwistle for damages and
injuries suffered from these fresh aggressions against me, either by way of fresh counterclaims
to be filed in the existing proceedings or by way of separate legal proceedings. This will be
among the raft of issues I raise with my independent solicitors and counsel as soon as I am able
to appoint them.
Closing words on the Half-Trial -- Bigamy de jure is a crime – So how is it that bigamy de
facto is a rewarded economic opportunity?
88. To succeed in her outrageous scam, Ms Cressy’s lawyers had to make good both parts of her
absurd claims:
a. That she made financial contributions towards my assets; and
b. That she was my de facto wife for the period that she claimed (or for at least a 2 year
period calculated by reference to the legislation as including a part of November 2005 to
November 2007).
89. On the evidence (and even on the Trial Judge’s findings) at the half-trial Ms Cressy’s lawyers
failed on the first part (the “contributions” part).
90. Ms Cressy’s lawyers also failed on the second part, according to the (independent) evidence, the
applicable (unanimous, High Court) law, and the Judges own findings (as to Ms Cressy’s
substantial dishonesty). But Ms Cressy’s lawyers, like Ms Cressy herself were rescued by the
figmentary imagination of the Trial Judge, as seeded by the lies and fabrications and unethical
skullduggery of Ms Cressy’s Counsel, Graeme Devries. [All of these allegations are
substantiated by the evidence at the half-trial, the pleadings and the materials I have filed on
appeal, including my current draft Notice of Appeal and complaints materials I have filed with the
Legal Services Commissioner, the Attorney-General for Victoria and the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court – on more than one occasion]. The Trial Judge at the half-trial demonstrated
substantial prejudice and bias in order to protect Ms Cressy’s lawyers (even at the necessary
expense of making unsustainable and unlawful findings in favour of Ms Cressy). The Court of
Appeal (including the Chief Justice Marilyn Warren no less) has already demonstrated
substantial prejudice and bias in order to protect the Trial Judge – as have several other
members of the Victorian Supreme Court Judiciary. In fact several Victorian Supreme Court
Judges ought face serious investigation of misconduct in office and perversion of justice in
connection with the Courts failure to properly process and conduct these proceedings – not just
Ms Cressy’s lawyers and not just Federal Magistrate O’Dwyer. Because of all of this bias and
prejudice, I am naturally cynical that the Court of Appeal will take the legally correct (though
politically painful) steps, as simple and straightforward as they should be, to correct the injustices
committed at and prior to the half-trial. I am hopeful that the High Court will remind the Trial
Judge (and if and probably as needs be) the Court of Appeal that they are bound by (unanimous)
High Court precedents, the laws of the High Court of Australia remaining laws of the State of
Victoria also at the present time. I am hopeful that the history of Cressy v Johnson will in this
regard follow the history through to the High Court of Baumgartner v Baumgartner – especially
as the High Court reversed the original trial judges’ findings of fact on only one grounds
(mistaken credibility of the protagonists) – for Cressy v Johnson the High Court will have seven
separate and distinct and powerful grounds (the Trial Judge got the hard facts wrong, not even
needing to rely on any of the uncorroborated evidence of the protagonists, and the Trial Judge
obviously got the laws wrong too). I have no idea what the independent commissions of
investigation will make of all of these manifest high jinks of the judiciary and barristers.
91. Lest I again be accused of making wild and unsubstantiated allegations against my aggressors;
A final word on the madness and abuse of these proceedings, and the mentally ill false finding
by the Trial Judge at the half-trial that Ms Cressy was my de facto wife of 8 years.
92. Where’s the evidence Your Honour? Where’s the application of Brigginshaw v Brigginshaw
and Jones v Dunkel to “the paucity of the [plaintiff’s] evidence” Your Honour (to quote your own
words, constantly refrained). Where’s the application of the more recent unanimous High Court
case, Johnson v Johnson (no relations) to the statutory, eye-witness and other independent
evidence Your Honour, demonstrating that I did not live under the same roof as Ms Cressy
during any of the relevant period? Where’s the application of all three High Court cases your
Honour to the failure of Ms Cressy to demonstrate anything like a romantic relationship with me
at any time from the start of 2000 onwards.
93. Some non-live with fathers provide financial support for and take an interest in the welfare of
their own children (by nature and by nurture) even if we are in the minority – and that’s exactly
what the laws and the evidence demonstrated in this case your Honour.
94. In other words, how about your Honour (or the Court of Appeal or the High Court of Australia if
need be) delivering an internally consistent matrix of findings based on the evidence and the law,
as corroborated by my credible evidence and consistent with the gross lack of credibility your
Honour found as regards Ms Cressy? A consistent matrix of findings would be much better than
the inconsistent and unsustainable hodge-podge of findings that His Honour handed down at
half-trial in order to avoid the factually and legally necessary findings that he should have made,
because of the embarrassment true findings would have for Ms Cressy’s [grossly culpable]
lawyers.
95. As I put in my submissions on 13 February 2009 [a proper submission according to the proper
laws of this land laid down by the High Court in 2000 in Johnson v Johnson – how about
making findings based on an assessment of the independent evidence without regard to the
(self-interested) testimony of the combatants. How about the consistent application of your
Honour’s findings that Mis Cressy was a cold-blooded perjurer, aggravated burglar and stealer
and concealer of evidence (a separate crime with a maximum penalty of 5 years)? Sure that
would result in frightening collateral judgments of the culpability of Ms Cressy’s lawyers. But
what right or power does a Trial Judge have to violate his own findings (Ms Cressy’s dishonesty),
to violate the strength of the independent evidence refuting Ms Cressy’s claims, to violate the
absence of evidence supporting Ms Cressy’s claims, to violate the doctrine of precedent, and
the abovementioned three High Court decisions, to exercise a hyperactive imagination to invent
a de facto marriage (contrary to His findings, contrary to the evidence and contrary to the law) in
order to exculpate Ms Cressy’s corrupt lawyers?
96. Ms Cressy has a horrid history as child victim of abuse and as an adolescent and adult
perpetrator of abuse. Her history is documented in the pleadings in these proceedings and in
the evidence I produced at the half-trial in December 2008 - February 2009. I met Ms Cressy in
the most tragic of circumstances, which are described in the pleadings, affidavits and evidence I
produced at the half-trial (much of it in Ms Cressy’s own handwriting). Ms Cressy left school at
15, pregnant with her first child. What followed was a couple of years of drunkenness, hard
drugs, violence and prostitution. When I met Ms Cressy in September 1998, she and (the
second of) her children were living in a home provided to her in mid-1998 by the Salvation Army
under a ‘short term accommodation’ program for ‘young women in crisis’. Ms Cressy’s youngest
child’s birth certificate demonstrates as a matter of statutory record that she still lived there in
June 2000, some 15 kilometers from my own home. Since the half-trial concluded in February
2009, I have uncovered letters from the Child Support Agency to Ms Cressy of late June 2000
demonstrating that within days of coming out of hospital after her daughter’s birth, Ms Cressy
registered with the Child Support Agency for me to pay child support payments. Other Child
Support Agency letters to her of that period demonstrate that Ms Cressy was paying child
support monies to the biological father of her eldest child (a clear demonstration that that young
male was not ordinarily resident in her home).
97. Ms Cressy and I had a non-live with, romantic relationship of sorts during calendar year 1999.
Ms Cressy’s counsel produced at the half-trial a valentine card I wrote to her in February 1999
demonstrating that relationship as at February 1999. Ms Cressy’s counsel also produced at the
half-trial a valentine card I wrote to her in February 2000, demonstrating that relationship had
ended. I do not understand how the Trial Judge viewed these valentines cards “from last century
Your Honour” as demonstrating that Ms Cressy was a devoted committed de facto wife of mine
during 1999, let alone (as He found) for 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Where were the valentine cards and birthday cards, the family photos, the home videos, the
home porn (“Even 65 year old Mr Proscepets [the darling of the Court of Appeal decision
handed down in the second week of the half-trial] had a home porn video Your Honour”.] There
is a simple reason why Ms Cressy failed to produce at the half-trial any evidence of any romantic
relationship with me after December 1999. As the (lack of) evidence demonstrated, there was
not even a romantic relationship, let alone a marriage.
98. At the half-trial, I explained the usual Kipling particulars (especially the “when”, “how” and “why”)
I allowed Ms Cressy and her two children (her eldest boy joining her later) to live under my
rented roof from May 2001 to March 2003. Ms Cressy was being evicted by the Salvation Army
and she and her children had nowhere else to go. From May 2001 I became a one-man
salvation army for Ms Cressy and her extended family. From May 2001 Ms Cressy lived in
houses which I provided to her, rent-free, as part of my child support arrangements for her and
her three children. Providing Ms Cressy (as well as all three of her children) with a home, with
money for groceries, and education (Ms Cressy returning to full-time education at my
considerable expense for 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006) the evidence I produced at the half-trial
demonstrated that I was more like a de facto father to Ms Cressy than a de facto husband.
99. Prior to May 2001 I had lived at all times separate from Ms Cressy and her children (and
separate from Mrs Johnson and my three children). With Ms Cressy continuing her revolting
and dangerous behaviours during 2001 and early 2002, living in the same house as her was
unbearable. I was subjected to being stalked and having my identity stolen and harassed by one
of her boyfriends (married man Peter Cockram). Cockram “could not remember” his relationship
with Ms Cressy when he gave evidence under subpoena at the half-trial. As Ms Cressy’s lawyer,
I had assisted her to obtain a domestic violence order against Cockram, once the police had
identified him as the culprit. Bizarrely (or not bizarrely, given the background of prejudice and
bias in which he mis-carried the half-trial), the Trial Judge’s take on this was that I had wasted
the Judge’s time by subpoenaing a random stranger as a witness. I can only imagine (my
imagination not being anywhere near as imaginative as the Trial Judge’s) that that sort of thing
happens a lot in His Honour’s Court. Fortunately a Purana Senior Detective who investigated
him and Ms Cressy was able to give evidence confirming their relationship (and that Cockram
had pleaded guilty to stalking charges). Bizarrely (or not so bizarrely, given the background of
prejudice and bias, etc) the Trial Judge firstly demoted the Senior Detective to Constable and
secondly decided her testimony was evidence that Ms Cressy and I were a couple, not evidence
that Ms Cressy and Mr Cockram were a couple during 2000 - 02. Go figure. The Trial Judge
likewise ignored the evidence that Ms Cressy and her married boy-friend Marc were a couple
during 2006 and 2007 (and “still ‘friends’” in December 2008). Seems while multiple legal
marriages, bigamy de jure, remains a crime in Victoria, de facto bigamy is not only not a crime,
but is to be richly rewarded, at least in His Honour’s Courts.
100.In April 2007 Ms Cressy came to my home with her latest scam. I explained to the Trial Judge
at the half-trial in December 2008. Ms Cressy told me that she wanted us to be a couple. She
said that she intended to break up with one of her boy-friends [evidence I provided at the half-
trial, including in Ms Cressy’s own handwriting evidence, showed they had been a couple “and
were still ‘friends’” since Spring 2006.].
101.I’m sorry, but my stupidity for my 1999 romantic relationship with Ms Cressy, my stupidity for
financially supporting and seeking to rehabilitate her (in equal measures, a consequence of my
strong sense of duty towards her children, and her explicit and implicit threats of extortion and
blackmail), and my sensibility in not taking up Ms Cressy’s frightening proposal of April 2007 do
not give the Courts of her lawyers the right to degrade and dehumanise me, to strip me of my
properties and my other rights, my identity, my welfare.
102.Despite my demonstrating to the Trial Judge at the half-trial the reasons that I refused to co-
habitate with Ms Cressy from June 2003 after 2 years of hellish madness [including the Peter
Cockram stalkerpades], and despite my demonstrating to the Trial Judge (a) my strong financial
sufficiency before Ms Cressy’s lawyers inflicted this holocaust on me; (b) no co-habitation with
Ms Cressy before May 2001 or after July 2003 (and during that period only because of Ms
Cressy’s dire circumstances); (b) Ms Cressy was not part of my romantic life after 1999 (As
demonstrated in evidence at the half-trial, Ms Cressy had other romantic relationships from 2000
onwards, as did I when I regained my stomach for relationships, from 2004 onwards).
Conclusion
103.I refer to and repeat my comments in paragraphs to 56 above (Chapter heading ‘Masters Court
Proceedings’) that these claims brought by various of my aggressors to be acquitted without
facing trial (“Acquittal first. Claims second”) are bad because an Associate Justice lacks the
power to grant these applications. These are applications that can only be heard, in due course,
by the Trial Judge, once pleadings (and all other pre-trial steps) are completed and certainly not
while issues in the claims and submission are the subject of appeals pending in the Court of
Appeal.
104.I have given indications above of aspects of my counterclaims which need to be revised to
include specific aggressions and aggressors and/or other issues I have identified since the half
trial commenced on 2 December 2008. I have made no secret that both the February 2008 and
the November 2008, and even my amended pleadings (unlawfully rejected by Associate Justice
Evans so as to save me the time and expense of having written, filed and served them [sic]) are
just holding documents. Despite my attempts to self-educate myself on drafting pleadings and
trial advocacy and procedure since late 2008, I remain an unskilled an inexperienced novice
clearly with a huge emotional involvement in these proceedings, and my pleadings need to be
reviewed and settled by independent, skilled solicitors and counsel as soon as I am able to
arrange this.
105.I further say that the Associate Justice should adjourn these applications pending the outcome
of the Court of Appeal applications.
106.Alternatively, the Associate Justice should dismiss these applications as being vexatious,
abusive and oppressive of me and for one and all of the following reasons:
a. As being brought for the ulterior purposes of taxing my resources and energies and
distracting me from my necessary tasks of attending to the Court of Appeal applications
and my important tasks of liaising with relevant Authorities (including law enforcement
agencies) and seeking to obtain funding and representation for independent legal
representatives for these proceedings;
b. As being unlawful violations of my human rights by the Legal Practitioners Liability
(Evasion) Committee, being the real second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh
defendants by counterclaim;
c. As being unlawful anti-SLAPP tactics by the Legal Practitioners Liability (Evasion)
Committee (being the real second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh defendants by
counterclaim) as violating the Legal Practitioners Liability (Evasion) Committee’s lawful
responsiblities under peak public laws legislation and policies (including but not limited to
the Attorney-General’s model litigant rules, and whistleblowers legislation).
Harold James Johnson
Defendant, Plaintiff by Counterclaim, Appellant and Respondent, Solicitor and Counsel

For proceedings No. 9665 of 2007, No. 9263 of 2008, No. 10222 of 2008, No. 3731 of 2009 and No.
3766 of 2009.
9 July 2009

Submissions For Victorian Supreme Court (Masters Court) Hearing(s) On 9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Submissions For Victorian Supreme Court (Masters Court) Hearing(s) On 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUBMISSIONS FOR VICTORIAN SUPREME COURT (MASTERS COURT)

HEARING(S) ON 9 JULY 2009 BEFORE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DALY

Degradation and Dehumanisation

Claims and Counterclaims

December’s Half-Trial and Half-Findings

Masters Court Proceedings - My Aggressors Submissions and Responses

Aggressors 2 and 3 – David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers

Aggressor 4 – Richard Ingleby

Aggressors 5 and 6 – James Turnbull and Berry Family Law

Aggressor 7 – Graeme Devries

Aggressor 8 – David List

Aggressor – Legal Services Commissioner / Additional Counterclaims

Other Aggressors / Additional Counterclaims

Harold James Johnson

Defendant, Plaintiff by Counterclaim, Appellant and Respondent, Solicitor and Counsel

You might also like