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

Tuesday 15 September 2009 *** IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION

*** PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
Dr Timothy Entwisle
Timothy J Entwisle Pty Ltd
32 Highett Street
Richmond Victoria 3121

By Facsimile: 9421 3855 (... pages)

And by Registered Mail (with attachments)

Dear Dr Entwisle

VICTORIAN SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS 9665 OF 2007, 9263 AND 10222 OF 2008
AND 3731 AND 3366 OF 2009
1. I refer to my letter dated 31 August 2009 regarding your Report dated 2 September 2008
(Your reference 07F739601 ML:la).

Documentation for your review

2. I attach copies of the following evidence from the Supreme Court trial:
 copies of Ms Cressy's 2007 diary and journal, as tendered in evidence in these
Supreme Court proceedings on 3 December 2009;
 copies of my Affidavits of 16 January 2009 (including copies of Ms Cressy's
handwritten diary notes and journals for the period circa pre-1997 to late 2001, as
found by me in the circumstances that I describe in that affidavit);
 copy of my Affidavit of 2 February 2009 – including outline of evidence and
witnesses;
3. I also attach copies of further evidence found by me in the same circumstances, but not
until April 2009 (some 2 months after conclusion of the trial):
 copies of additional diary of Ms Cressy for late 2000 – early January 2001 (ie
when Illyana was barely a few months young);
 copies of further correspondences of Ms Cressy's for the period 2000 and 2001
(Child Support Agency application and approvals given a fortnight after Illyana was
born, and utility bills for Ms Cressy's Salvation Army provided housing);

Page 1
4. Lastly, I attach copies of:
 correspondences during April through to June of this year, between myself and the
Law Institute of Victoria (as delegate of the Legal Services Board and Legal
Services Commissioner) including, inter alia a copy of your report (the first time a
copy was provided to me) and a copy of the Federal Magistrates Court judgement
(again, the first time that a copy of that judgement was provided to me).

Status of Legal Proceedings

5. In addition to the Victorian Supreme Court proceedings (defending myself against Ms
Cressy's and especially Ms Cressy's lawyers bogus de facto claims against me), now that
I have been given a copy of your report, and am awaiting the more recent report from Dr
Buchanan clearing me (I presume) of all lingering traces of these false mental illness
allegations, I am in the process of obtaining leave to appeal against all of the orders and
judgements in the family law proceedings.

Impact Assessment
6. In my letter of 31 August 2009 I expressed a number of my horrors on reading your
report. I have since read the copy of Federal Magistrate O'Dwyer's judgement as
provided to me by the Legal Services Board / Legal Services Commissioner in May of this
year.
7. I believe that I have legitimate legal claims against you for professional negligence and
misconduct in connection with your report and your testimony – assuming (which I am
reluctant to do without careful confirmation of course) that your evidence has been
accurately reported in the judgement published by the Federal Magistrate O'Dwyer. I
mention assuming any degree of accuracy in Federal Magistrate O'Dwyer's judgement for
the simple reason that I could find not a single honest or accurate finding or statement of
fact in his writing – with the possible exceptions that he might have recorded your
testimony, David List's testimony and Graeme Devries outrageous questioning with at
least an occasional degree of accuracy.
8. Your report in relation to Ms Cressy is of much better quality than the so-called 'report'
prepared by psychologist David List, but he sets a culpably low benchmark. And your
reported conclusions regarding Ms Cressy just make it all the more culpable your 'weak at
the knees' testimony before Magistrate O'Dwyer contradicting not only your written report
but all of the principles of child welfare and protection from domestic violence that are the
central pillars of the family court jurisdiction.

Page 2
9. Indeed I have already issued these Supreme Court proceedings against David List, and
Federal Magistrate O'Dwyer and I am proceeding with professional complaints to their
respective professional, governing bodies. These complaints are an integral part of and
complementary to my legal actions and professional complaints against Ms Cressy's
lawyers, who have not only defrauded me, but have also defrauded Ms Cressy as well.
10. However, I trust that once you have digested these additional materials, you will be better
placed to make a re-weighted diagnosis of Ms Cressy, and indeed of myself, and you will
realise the gross injustice and risk to the welfare of Ms Cressy's children that you have
contributed to (I recognise 'the lawyers' as being the dominant cause of these injustices).
11. I remain focused on seeking to remedy the injustices that have been done, not just to me
but all of my family (including Mrs Johnson and my three children of my marriage, as well
as all 3 of Ms Cressy's children, and Ms Cressy herself). Despite all of the bizarre and
criminally defamatory statements by Ms Cressy and others in these proceedings, the
simple fact remains that out of my great sympathy for her children (irrespective of their
biological paternity) and out of great sympathy for Ms Cressy herself (whom I though,
perhaps wrongly it seems at present, capable of much better things). I spent the greater
part of a decade providing substantial time, energy and money into housing, financially
and emotionally support her and her family. This included, even during the worst of these
proceedings and her criminal actions (aggravated burgalaries, assualts, criminal
defamations) trying to protect Ms Cressy and her family from the uncaring marrauding of
her lawyers. Please try to imagine how scared and frightened Ms Cressy's three children
(especially Illyana) and even Ms Cressy herself must be right now. Ms Cressy, has been
shamefully exploited by these evil (and criminal) family lawyers – lawyers who care
nothing for due process, proper evidence, proper legal argument – just smash (90%) and
grab (10%) lawyers. Little more than blackmailers and extortionists. Prior to her falling
under their grasp, and subjecting me to all of this abuse, Ms Cressy and her family
enjoyed substantial child support, by way of housing, food and clothing and holiday and
education monies, all provided by me. All that Ms Cressy's lawyers have done is destroy
me financiall so that I can no longer provide any housing or child support for her family
(as I predicted to her would happen, right at the outset - June 2007). And please spare a
thought for my wiife, Julie and three children from my marriage (our decade plus of post-
separation co-parenting is reported in glowing and succinct terms in the 2 page report
prepared by the Law Institute's preferred psychologist and counsellor, Michael
Clarebrough which is included in these materials). Julie and my three biological children
of my marriage, having been accustomed to child support payments substantially in

Page 3
 excess of $2,000 per month for a decade, have had to endure zero child support from me
since June 2008 when my money ran out due to these vexatious and fraudulent legal
proceedings.
12. And just imagine what impact all of this has had on Ms Cressy's three children, who know
the true situation and whom I fully expect will come looking to me for fathering and
support as soon as they are old enough to do so.

Proposal
13. My proposal, should you wish to accept it, is to give you an opportunity to reassess your
report, prepare a revised report according to this additional, genuine, hard evidence (not
wild and unsubstantatied, malicious and fradulent family law court allegations).
Essentially, my primary focus is on receiving compensation for myself and my family via
bringing some much needed standards and accountabilities into my own profession, and
those government agencies that are supposed to be regulating it. Therefore, I am
prepared to give you a chance to redress some of the evils that you have contributed to
and may be prepared to forego issuing legal proceedings and professional misconduct
complaints against you.
14. Please don't ignore this letter.
15. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you intend to 'play ostrich' and hope for the best.
But I strongly urge you not to be that way inclined as I will not hesitate to expand the
current legal proceedings to include claims against you as well as professional
misconduct charges.
16. If you are willing to accept some personal responsibility for the harm caused, I would like
to meet with you again to discuss these materials, with the view to you then preparing a
revised report. I would expect that your revised report would, much like Dr Buchanan's
report of May this year, which I await with baited breath, substantially assist the Courts
both with my Supreme Court appeals and other proceedings already on foot and with
respect to my appeal against the family law orders made by Federal Magistrate O'Dwyer.
[I am quite willing to admit that, at this stage I am undecided whether it is in the interests
of the Cressy children (each of them having different interests, so of course giving some
priority to Illyana's needs) for me to seek 24/7 or other custody orders, or simply to seek
to have all existing orders cancelled without any new orders to replace them (ie just hope
and wait until the children are old enough to do their own deciding) Of course this will
leave all three children, and especially Illyana, at considerable risk for considerable time –

Page 4
 and I recognise that the 'brainwashing' would occur even without the bizarre orders of
Federal Magistrate O'Dwyer requiring it.
17. Lastly, and correspondingly, less significantly I think, I have identified from your report a
number of obvious short-hand errors in your note taking during our appointment. I
mentioned a few of these in my 31 August 2009 letter. Your report would have benefited
from allowing me to 'proof-read' your report for accuracy of factual statements [what I
actually said to you]. It is quite normal for me, to provide my reports to my clients in draft
form so they can check the accuracy of factual statements – since if the facts aren't right,
the professional opinions (which remain written by me, not by my clients) will not be right
either. Indeed for most commercial lawyers ('real lawyers' as the Immediate Past
President of the Law Institute and many others refer to us – as opposed to 'family law
lawyers who 'are not real lawyers anyway') and many other profesisonals I had
understood this to be a normal and sensible risk management and quality control step –
certainly nothing to get paranoid about. I would welcome the opportunity to clarify these
factual statements. Perhaps I could also point out a number of statements in your report
that were not of material relevance (especially when weighed against the desirability of
maintaining the privacy rights of my extended family and acquaintances) – again a
courtesty that 'real lawyers' and most other commercial professionals extend to their
clients without fear or hesitation for risk management and quality control reasons. As far
as I am concerned, your professional opinions (good, bad, or otherwise, helpful or
unhelpful to me as they may be) remain of course your opinions and I would naturally
draw the line on intruding on the expressions of opinion of a fellow legal practitioner (well,
a 'real lawyer's' opinions, anyway) and would not dream of intruding on your rights and
responsiblities to express your opinions on matters within your field of professional
expertise.

Conclusion
18. Please don't ignore this letter and proposal to address this situation maturely and ideally
without courtroom or disciplinary proceedings in which you are personally 'in play' rather
than a 'hired gun' [if I may put that bluntly, without offence.]
19. I would appreciate you informing me by facsimile of your intentions. All goes well, I would
appreciate some suggestions of an appointment time when I could meet you to progress
these proposals.
20. In my opinion you have a professional responsibility to address some of the harm caused
in this situation without money considerations entering into it. However, if you are strongly

Page 5
 of a different view, I am happy to discuss your fee situation as part of this 'reconcilliation'
process too.

Kind regards

JAMES JOHNSON

Page 6