H J AMES J OHNSON

1 ST
F L O O R 1 4 1 O S B O R N E S T R E E T S O U T H YA R R A V I C T O R I A 3 1 4 1
TELEPHONE: +613 9279 3932 FA C S I M I L E : + 6 1 3 9 2 7 9 3 9 5 5

Friday 28 August 2009 *** URGENT COMMUNICATION

Mr Rob Hulls Ms Helen Szoke

Attorney General for Victoria Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human
Rights Commissioner
Parliament House
Level 3, 380 Lonsdale Street
Melbourne Victoria 3002 Melbourne Victoria 3000

By Facsimile: 9651 1188 (44 pages) By Facsimile: 9281 7171

And By Registered Post And By Registered Post

Dear Attorney General and Victorian Human Rights Commissioner

LAWYERS VERSUS LAWYER – BIGGEST HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF THE CENTURY? -

VICTORIAN SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS 9665 OF 2007, 9263 AND 10222 OF 2008
AND 3731 AND 3366 OF 2009

1. I enclose a section 35 Notice pursuant to the Charter of Human Rights and

Responsibilities Act 2006 in respect of three of the abovementioned five numbered parts of
these Supreme Court proceedings.
2. I have previously informed Ms Szoke's office that the VEOHRC Chairperson, Michael Gorton
is an inappropriate person to have been appointed as a 'human rights' commissioner and
requested that these proceedings be ringfenced from Mr Gorton according to proper
protocols – it is highly likely that Mr Gorton's law firm, and himself personally, will shortly be
joined as defendants by counterclaim to the human rights abuses described in the Notice.
3. I have prepared a composite Section 35 notice in respect of parts of these proceedings
numbered parts 3731 of 2009, 3766 of 2009 and 9263 of 2008 as they are three fragments
of what is one and the same piece of Supreme Court proceedings. (It is part of my human
rights complaint that the Supreme Court has fragmented this legal dispute into 5 separately
numbered proceedings.)
4. The status of each of these numbered parts of these proceedings is as follows:
 There have been 4 preliminary hearings in the Court of Appeal for proceedings No. 3731
of 2009. An appeal hearing date has not yet been set. There is a bit of work, including
finalisation of the Notice of Appeal yet to be done.
 There have been no preliminary hearings in the Court of Appeal for proceedings No. 3766
of 2009 which is in itself an appeal from preliminary orders made in the Masters Court
and in the Practice Court as part of the part of proceedings numbered 9623 of 2008.

Page 1
  There have been a series of (vexatious and oppresive) preliminary hearings in the part of
the proceedings numbered 9623 of 2008 but those proceedings are still otherwise at a
preliminary stage. Briefly, the 6 lawyer defendants (2 family law firms, their respective
solicitor employees and the barristers retained by each of them are, via their 4 city law
firms and 4 city barristers each funded by the Government (the Legal Practitioners
Liability EVASION Committee) are seeking to be acquitted without a trial. (Judgement
first, pleadings after – as Lewis Carroll's Red Queen might say - Chapter 11 of The
Adventures of Alice in Wonderland.) No orders for directions have yet been made.
Pleadings are yet to be properly drafted and finalised, then discovery and interrogatory
processes before the proceedings can be set down for trial. And I have a threshhold
matter in that the (continuing) solicitors for Ms Cressy are refusing to acknowledge or to
accept service on behalf of Ms Cressy – and are having surprising success in having the
Supreme Court grant that lady an unprecedented and most certainly unlawful procedural
immunity from legal proceedings (despite her and her lawyers being the instigators of all
of these legal proceedings in the first place). I have made a settlement offer to the 6
Legal Practioners Liability EVASION Committee to settle my claims against their six
insured for $26 million. I have thus far settled on satisfactory terms the original complaint
to that part of the proceedings, which was brought against me by my mortgagee (ANZ
Bank via its subsidiary Trust Company Fiduciary Services Limited). It is a pity, especially
since over the past two decades bank bashing has become almost a national past-time,
that the lawyers and their Government protectors (like the Legal Practitioners Liability
EVASION Committee) and the Legal Services Commissioner, can't match the big Bank's
standards of ethics, legality and intelligence.
5. I have previously written to both of you, Mr Attorney-General, and Ms Human Rights
Commissioner, (circa 19 March 2009) requesting that you both intervene in these
proceedings. I received the attached reply from the Victorian Government Solicitors Office
(letter dated 7 May 2009) informing me that I should use the word “intervener” rather than
“co-plaintiff” and that I should 'fill in this form' (as I now do in triplicate) before the Attorney
General will notice my request. Hopefully my request will now be properly considered.
6. As you will see from the attached papers the Attorney-General was formerly a defendant by
counterclaim in these proceedings 9263 of 2008. That was before I unilaterally withdrew that
claim (withdrawn for political reasons, notwithstanding the merits and public and private
purposes of the claim).
7. With those earlier correspondences (circa 19 March 2009) I supplied a full copy of the
pleadings for Supreme Court proceedings No. 9263 of 2008., together with a substantial

Page 2
 volume of related Court documents, submissions and correspondences. These were but a
fraction of the documents that this dispute has generated thus far, notwithstanding that it is
still very early days.
8. I attach:
 The Section 35 Notice (minus Attachments A to F which because of their volume I
shall circulate to you both by registered mail);
 Previous response letter received from the Department of Justice (as described
above);
 Copy response letter (I think it is supposed to be a response letter) to my Victoria
Legal Aid Applicatoin -

9. If a white middle-class, middle aged Australian, a solicitor of 19 years good standing, is

unable to get the most basic respect for his most basic human rights, if the Courts (State
and Federal), parliaments (State and Federal) and Government agencies (State and Federal)
are prepared to sit back unseeing and unhearing while he is defrauded by the predations of
seasoned family law solicitors and barristers (the 'game keepers' of human rights in this
country turned poachers and predators), then what hope is there for the other 25 million or so
'ordinary' Australians?
10. It bothers me somewhat (as evidenced by my attachment 'F' to this Section 35 Notice – ie
copies of my submissions to the Victorian Legal Aid Office (containing useful outlines of key
legal issues) that the Victorian Government (via its Government agency the Legal
Practitioners Liability EVASION Committee) can fund 4 city law firms and 4 city barristers in
order to supress my demands that my human rights be respected, and yet the Victorian
Government cannot (via its Government agency Victoria Legal Aid) fund a fifth city law firm
and a fifth city barrister to present my case so that there is at least a pretext of matching the
funding and legal resources of the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee and the 4 city law
firms and 4 city barristers it has hired to battle against the man (me) who has been left
penniless and therefore lawyerless, to fend for himself by reason of the misconduct of the
lawyers protected by the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee.
11. Does justice in this state belong to the rich, the influential and the affluent who have access to
Government purse at the expense of those who do not have the money to hire a lawyer
because their money was fully stolen by those rich, influential and affluent privileged wrong-
doers? Put's a funny perspective on Australia's pretence of being a modern, democratic
country supposedly with good laws (such as the rule of [one law] for all and a good system of

Page 3
 laws and courts (and good lawyers to run them). For some reason, it seems all a bit too
Hitler und Stalinist from where I'm sitting right now.
12. I ask that as Attorney-General for this State, and as Human Rights Commissioner for this
State, you each please give proper recognition to the injustice that is unfolding here and the
public purpose to be served (including maybe if not restoring public confidence in the judicial
system and the legal profession, at least improving by increment the capacity for the judicial
system and the legal profession to deliver a little less self-serving injustice in the future).
Please intervene in these proceedings in accordance with your Offices' responsibilities at law,
including, inter alia under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsiblities Act 2006.

Kind regards

H JAMES JOHNSON

Page 4