H J AMES J OHNSON

HUMAN RIGHTS § CIVIL RIGHTS § CORRUPTION § MEDIA

D EFA M AT I O N § P R O F E S S I O N A L N E G L I G E N C E L AW
1 S T 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

Wednesday 12 August 2009 *** IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION

*** EMBARGO ON PUBLICATION (FOR

LIMITED TIME ONLY)

Mr Michael Brett Young

Chief Executive
Law Institute of Victoria
By Facsimile: 9607 9569 (… pages)

Dear Michael

AUSSIES IN WONDERLAND: WITCH HUNT, WATERGATE, WATERLOO - VICTORIAN SUPREME COURT

PROCEEDINGS 9665 OF 2007, 9263 AND 10222 OF 2008 AND 3731 AND 3366 OF 2009
MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHEL-GATE SCANDAL

1. Thank you for your phone call before lunch today.

2. I look forward to meeting with you again, and this time including some of the available LIV Councillors, early
next week to discuss the Law Institutes' proposed response to this scandal.
3. Can I suggest a meeting either Tuesday or Wednesday next week?
4. I believe that my 20 year record of loyalty and substantial service to the Law Institute goes without need of
further mention. I will continue to bring as much openness and goodwill as possible to these discussions.

5. Having spoken with some of the LIV Councillors, I wish to stress that I am not seeking any assistance from
the LIV as regards anything to do with anything under Part 9 of the Property Law Act or Ms Cressy,
whatsoever. As the evidence (and all but the last of the Trial Judge's findings) demonstrated during the half-
trial in December 2008 / February 2009, Ms Cressy is a mentally and emotionally disturbed, self-confessed
compulsive liar. And her claims were a complete fabrication. Under the undue influence of a corrupt (and
criminally so) member of the Victorian Bar, the trial judge committed monumental errors of process, errors of
fact and errors of law (failing to follow monumental unanimous High Court decisions like Brigginshaw v
Brigginshaw, Jones v Dunkell and Johnson v Johnson (for starters), even failing to apply his own
findings as to the plaintiff's lack of credibility (As adverse findings of perjury and aggravated burglary to
steal and conceal destroy/evidence ordinary have a deflating effect on the credibility of a plaintiff's self-
contradictory and uncorroborated testimony). So I am confident on the appeal process rectifying the
injustice and absurdity of the Trial Judge's adjudication on that claim.
6. What I am seeking LIV support for is my claims against certain predatory 'family law' solicitors and members
of the Victorian Bar for their outrageous, unprofessional and criminal misconduct – including skulking under
the 'cloak of privilege' to engage in defamatory and criminal conduct against me and resorting to gross
champetry, fraud and blackmail. And now the Legal Practitioners Liability (EVASION) Committee providing
hundreds of thousands of dollars of lawyers' legal aid (4 city law firms and 4 city barristers) to represent 4
rogues (2 of the bar, and 2 solicitors firms) seeking to help them totally evade liability for their wrong-doings.
Who ever heard of a bunch of family solicitors and barristers clocking up $300,000 in fees on a bogus de
facto extortion demand in return for no more than$3,000 key money from a mentally and emotionally
disturbed fraudster) without bothering to get even one skerrick of evidence to back up her wild and
unbelievable claims? [ 'They are not real lawyers anyway' is how one prominent lawyer who happens to
be included in the distribution list for this letter rationalised his advise that I should just curl up and let 'them'
get away with it.] This is Callinan's case (White Industries P/L v Flower and Hart) writ large, biggest case
yet under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities and the first real opportunity for the High
Court to fix its majority mistake in D'Orta-Edenke for affirming Gianarelli v Wraith despite it being (as
Justice Kirby noted in his dissent) 'legally [viz, 'constitutionally'] erroneous, unwarranted and unworthy.'
7. Am I the only active member of the Law Institute who thinks that Victorians deserve a bit better from their
lawyers (solicitors, barristers and judiciary), and that rule of law, Magna Carta, the United Nations
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and
Responsibilities – not to mention the Constitution of Law Institute of Victoria Limited – are not just
mindless graffiti or fancy rhetoric, but should be worth the paper they are written on?
8. As I have said many times over the past year or more, this is one of the most important cases on the laws of
government, the laws of judging and the laws of lawyering that the Victorian (and Federal) Courts,
Parliament and the executive arm of government have had to consider since Colonisation (Federation).

Kind regards

JAMES JOHNSON