Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dear Michael
1. I refer to the two refer to my correspondences that I received from you last week (copies attached).
2. Firstly, my letter to you of 5 August 2009 which obviously crossed (to put it mildly) with your correspondence.
Please advise me whether the Law Institute will endorse my application to the Legal Aid Office for
legal aid funding to defend myself against the Government funded tyranny railed against me.
3. Secondly, I thank you for my 2010 Practising Certificate. I doubt that any Australian legal practitioner has
been subjected to anything like the vexation and oppression that I have endured these past 2 years, so I am
pleased to receive this.
Kind regards
JAMES JOHNSON
COMMENTS ON ‘DRAFT’ LETTER FROM LAW INSTITUTE’S
CHIEF EXECUTIVE MICHAEL BRETT YOUNG
‘DATED’ 5 AUGUST 2009
Paragraph Response
1. I did not limit my request to merely asking the Law Institute to represent by ‘liaising
with Government Departments. Requested that the Law Institute perform its
constitutional objectives, and its contractual and moral duties to me as a long-
standing member of the Law Institute.
What do you mean by the “Legal Practitioners Liability Committee Services office.”
This demonstrates gross incompetency and stupidity. How foolish. Does it also,
like Dohstovesky novel (the guilty mind reveals itself, eventually) show the
incestuous relationship between the ostensible regulators and governors of
standards within the legal profession?
2. I am grossly (incompetently?) misquoted in this paragraph.
It is embarrassing that your assistant was unable to locate the constitutional
objectives of the Law Institute without telephoning me to advise of them. Here is
my (so far) free legal advice to the Law Institute regarding the Law Institute’s
constitutional responsiblities.
It is even more embarrassing that you acknowledge the Law Institute has a written
constitution, in the same letter where you plunge the Law Institute into a gross
unconstitutional violation. There are serious statutory, corporation law, trade
practices laws (misleading and deceitful) and not merely contractual and not
merely unethical, but unlawful consequences from your letter.
3. ‘I wish to advise that the LIV Executive Committee at its meeting on
Wednesday, 15th July have considered your request and determined not to
provide assistance to your case.’
(a) It took you 20 days to write a ‘No’ letter? Not a ‘yes’ letter. Surely a
professional body exists to represent and protect its members from tyranny
(even from tyranny within). No other Trade Union or Professionals
Association would refuse aid to a member in these circumstances –
especially where the strong public interests (a professional and non-corrupt
legal profession) coincide so strongly with my personal interests.
(b) Not a ‘no because’ letter, a ‘no letter’. 2 year olds say ‘No’. Adults, and
most children over the age of 3, know that in polite and professional circles,
grown up circles, a ‘no’ has to be accompanied with its ‘becauses’.
(c) Isn’t it better to discuss the becauses and reverse the ‘no’ privately
between the Law Institute and its members already drawn into this tyranny
and corruption? Do you personally, or as representative of the Law
Institute, relish the prospect of having to explain in a public forum – an
Independent Corruption and Misconduct Commission, under the glare of
the Courts, the Parliaments, other members, other professional and trade
associations, under the public gaze?
4. I make no comment on your brochure detailing personal support services, other
than that it seems that the members of the LIV Executive Committee have greater
need of these in coming days than I.
General Michael, your institute has gleefully participated in a witch hunt initatiated against
Comments me by a corrupt barrister (Graeme Devries), and a corrupt psychologist (Dr David
List) and a corrupt family court judge (Federal Magistrate Daniel O’Dwyer) and a
corrupt public authority (Legal Services Commissioner, Victoria Marles). I attach
copies of correspondences that exchanged between your Mr Barravechio
(embarrassingly a representative of ‘professional’ ‘standards’ at the Institute).
These show that you/Ms Marles came at me with sharpened pitchforks, foaming
mouths, blood shot eyes, and pole and faggots already pre-lit. Once again, this
time in large measure thanks to the honesty and integrity of your chosen examiner,
psychiatrist Dr John Buchanan, I passed with flying colours. While I am yet to see
Dr John Buchannan’s report (despite my several patient requests now), I have
attached with the ‘Professional Standards’ exchanges of correspondences copies
of reports I obtained from psychologists Mr Michael Clarebrough, and Ms
Maryanne Love.
Do you really want to put the Law Institute and what it really stands for (and
against) up for political, regulatory, judicial, commercial and public scrutiny?
I hope that you and the LIV Executive Committee see the wisdom in my offer that
you RESCIND your letter of 5 August 2009 and make a proper decision in the right
direction. It (and perhaps the future of the LIV) is all up to you sunshine.
James Johnson
9 August 2009