H J AMES J OHNSON

S OL I C I TO R A N D B A R R I S T E R OF T HE F E DE R A L C O U RT S
A N D T HE H I G H C O U RT O F A U S T R A L I A
BRISBANE GOLD COAST SYDNEY MELBOURNE
w w w. j a m e s j o h n s o n 2 0 2 0 . c o m

Friday 12 August 2010 *** IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION

Mr Family Lawyer
Solicitor
C/- Ms ###
Family Law Firm
666 Front Street
Capital City GOTHAM 911

By Email: (5 +1 = 6 pages)
By Facsimile:

Dear Mr Family Lawyer

FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS – THURSDAY ADAMS (AN INFANT), ADAM ADAMS AND HAI KON YU

1. I refer to this matter and my important facsimile letter to you overnight 9 August 2010 to which I await your
urgent response.
2. Mr Adams informed me late yesterday that your office was seeking to organise for him to meet with Dr Smith
at 9 am this morning. I attach a copy of your direct communication to Mr Adams of 3 August 2010 recording
this (see attached).
3. You will understand that Mr Adams is prohibited by law from meeting with Dr Smith this morning, and I have
advised him accordingly. I trust that you will explain these legal reasons to Dr Smith. I apologise that there
was insufficient time for me to write you so that Dr Smith could be informed before 9 am this morning that
this (tentative?) appoint with Mr Adams this morning could not proceed for legal reasons.
 As you are aware Mr Adams it is illegal for Mr Adams to discuss his case, or his politics, with anybody at
present because he is currently subject to an undischarged witness' oath as part way through his
testimony.
 I also note that the Court Orders made on July 2010 require that Dr Smith be provided with various
court materials (including full transcripts of the 2 ½ days of hearings so far, copies of rulings and orders
etc etc) prior to him interviewing Mr Adams. Clearly this has not yet been done (the transcripts etc have
yet to be released to the parties by the Court).

Page 1 of 5
  Clearly it would be a total waste of Dr Smith's time (not forgetting the significant contempt crimes that
would be committed) if Dr Smith were to interview Mr Adams prior to receiving these materials.
 Mr Adams's “defence case” [sic, nb.] requires some balancing up of the gross imbalance that will occur if
Dr Smith is briefed with all of these cross-examination materials (all transcripts of his evidence including
the snippet personally witnessed [sic, nb.] by Dr Smith being cross examination and thus negative
without Mr Adams having yet had “his day in court” to tell a Judge his side of the story – being denied an
opportunity for hearing [sic, nb] of his evidence in chief, and at this juncture yet to enjoy such “re” [sic,
nb.]-examination as the court might allow him.]
 At the very minimum Mr Adams's “defence case” requires that copies of all 4 of my letters to date to your
office (including full sets of attachments) be provided to Dr Smith along with a reasonable opportunity for
Dr Smith to read and consider them, before Mr Adams can sensibly (not forgetting, lawfully) attend on
Dr Smith for further examination. Please confirm that you will attend to this. And please confirm when
you have so attended.
4. At the next court hearing, Mr Adams will be seeking court orders that he (and indeed his mother, the
paternal grandmother) be discharged from their witness' oaths. That will remove the serious current legal
impediment to Mr Adams attending on Dr Smith. Hopefully the informational preconditions and uncertainties
(viz how to ensure that Dr Smith obtains an “evidence in chief” and/or “re-examination” perspective on Mr
Adams's evidence can be done without prejudice (or illegality) to Mr Adams's “defence case” given that it
would be most improper, to take one example, for Mr Adams's cross-examination to be leaked “open misere”
like to the ICL legal team or to Ms Yu's legal team before Mr Adams gives his oral testimony in “re”p [sic, nb.]
examination.
5. Dr Smith was a most impressive witness during cross-examination. I have no doubts that Dr Smith will
appreciate the reasons that Mr Adams is presently unable to attend on him for examination. Indeed, I would
expect that both Dr Smith and indeed yourself might even be grateful that Mr Adams has not walked into a
situation where he would be setting up possible contempt offences (by himself and by your good self and
good Dr Smith) by innocently discussing his case and his politics contrary to his undischarged witness oath.
Could there be any other reason or any other relevant discussions that might have taken place today
between Mr Adams and Dr Smith that would not have been in contempt of Mr Adams's undischarged
witness' oath.
6. For the record:
 I refrain from commenting on the Federal Magistrates' decision not to discharge Mr Adams from his
witness oath when she brought proceedings to a temporary halt on Friday morning – these are issues for
another forum.
 I have refrained in my earlier correspondence (specifically, my facsimile letter to you overnight 10 August
2010) on a number of “jurisdictional errors”, “errors on the face of the record” and “procedural errors”
and “constitutional errors” arising out of the interlocutory steps and arising out of the 2 ½ days of

Page 2 of 5
 hearings so far, for the same noted reason that these are issues for other forums. In this regard you
might wish to read some of the High Court precedent cases I mentioned during my submissions on the
opening morning. You might also wish to read the 7:0 High Court decision handed down on 3 August
2010 (Kidd v NSW Workcover Authority). Here is a list of cases (all downloadable from
www.austlii.edu.au):

LIST OF CASES

001 Dorta-EkenaikevVictoriaLegalAid20050310HCAJudgement

002 Johnson v Johnson [2000]HCA 48; 201 CLR 488; 174 ALR 655; 74 ALJR 1380 (7 September
2000)

003 RvKirbyExparteBoilermakersSocietyofAustralia(BoilermakersCase
(1956)94CLR254(2March1956)

004 MagillvMagill20050317(CourtOfAppeal)

005 KablevDirectorOfPublicProsecutions(NSW)[1996]HCA24(1996)
189CLR51(12September1996)

006 ReesvBaileyAluminium20081205 (CrtApp)

007 ReesvBaileyAluminium20090514 (CrtAppCosts)

008 AonRiskServicesAustraliaLimitedvAustralianNationalUniversity[2009]HCA27(5 August 2009)

009 InternationalFinanceTrustCoVNSWCrimeCommission20091112(HighCourt)

010 Kirkv IndustrialRelationsCommission&KirkGroupHoldingsPtyLtd v

WorkCoverAuthorityof NewSouthWales(InspectorChilds)[2010]HCA1(3 August 2010)

 I likewise recorded, but refrained from commenting on the failure of the Federal Magistrate to react to Dr
Smith's evidence under cross-examination exposing Ms Yu's scam of pretending that she needs any
English-Korean translator to be present in Court. This is most certainly an issue, including the non-
reaction by the Federal Magistrate, to be addressed in some very, very, high, other forums indeed. I ask
that you please inform me of the ICL legal team's position (and ergo the position of the Australian federal
Government whose interests in this family affair your law firm represents – refer again to section 68LA of
the Family Law Act should you still need clarification). This is one (and the only one thus far to be

Page 3 of 5
 exposed given that cross-examination has been limited thus far to a mere 26 minutes – solely of Dr
Smith's evidence in chief) of blatant fabrications and manipulations of the Court and the “evidence” by
Ms Yu. In 20 years of legal practice I have never seen such a blatant fraud on the court so clearly
exposed (by the evidence of “the best psychiatrist in Gotham State” - as were the words of
commendation the Federal Magistrate put on Dr Smith's shoulders on the Friday morning, if memory
serves me right), for the presiding judicial officer, and the 7 government employed and/or government
funded solicitors and barristers at court (all being officers of the Court and most being also
representatives of their State and/or Federal Governments and agencies also) doing absolutely nothing
about it. I look forward to receiving your explanations for this non-batting of eyelids over this perpetrated
outrage that was well and truly 'lost in translation.'

Conclusion
7. I realise that you might not be able to forthwith respond to all of these requests and concerns I have raised
in my 10 August 2010 letter. But you should be able to respond to them at least in a preliminary fashion, and
the additional serious issues I raise above, to some extent by return email, by close of today.
8. Accordingly I look forward to an email response from your office later today.
9. As to the remainders, I ask that you respond on a timely basis to the issues (and to each issue to the extent)
that you can readily do so. I acknowledge that something of a 'drip feed' (or what the commercial lawyers
call 'continuous disclosure' may be necessary for you to provide full and complete and continuously up to
date responses to the issues and concerns I have expressed in this letter. This is of course 'good
government practice' as befits any solicitor charged with the powers and responsibilities of discharging
important functions and duties on behalf of his national government.
10. As noted above, I would welcome receiving communications from you by email (and/or email attachment) as
the speediest form of communication between us in respect of these issues and concerns.
11. I repeat my previous observations in my earlier correspondences to your office that I am very troubled by the
way that this matter has proceeded to date and remain hopeful that we might by way of lawyers
conferencing be able to put the Adams-Yu family affairs on a proper footing, even at this late stage, so that
the matter may proceed in a dignified way with minimal or even no need to trouble Her Honour or the Courts
generally for resolution of any of the issues outstanding between Mr Adams and Ms Yu.
12. I request that you respond to the issues and information requests raised in this letter as a matter of priority,
and as raised in my letter of 10 August 2010, especially (as regards my 10 August 2010 letter):
 Restoration of “Time With” - paragraphs 7 and 8 thereof;
 Citizenship – paragraphs 10 thereof;
 Breaking of Court Orders by Ms Yu - paragraphs 13 to 16 thereof;
 Continuing Breaking of Court Orders by Ms Yu – paragraphs 16, 15 and 14 thereof;
 Dissemination of Transcripts, Judgements, Orders and Rulings – paragraphs 18 and 17 thereof;

Page 4 of 5
  Further Examination by Dr Smith – paragraph 19 thereof;
 Briefing Materials for and Communications with Dr Smith – paragraphs 22 and 21 thereof;
 Basic Governmental “housekeeping” and Governmental “lawyering” - paragraphs 23 to 26 thereof.
13. I repeat my opening remarks to yourself and to counsel briefed by your office, Ms Kees-Stoops, “on the
steps of the Court” at the start of the day on 27 July 2009 that these “issues” between Ms Yu and Mr Adams
affecting Ms Thursday belong in their family rooms and not in our nation's Court rooms.
14. I note that these issues thrown up by Ms Yu to justify her maternalistic (and ergo the machinery of the
lawyers and the courts) interferences in Miss Thursday's and Mr Adams's enjoyment of normal daughter-
father relations have no legitimate place in a true court of law. I write this, as I said this almost 2 weeks ago,
in the knowledge that these “issues” raised by Ms Yu are muchly blatant, malicious and/or hysterical
fabrications (permutations and combinations of all 4). As the proceedings presently stand, I believe the only
one of these “issues” I may presently raise in correspondence is the blatant, malicious, hysterical fabrication
by Ms Yu that she requires a Korean speaking interpreter. I refer to the evidence given by Dr Smith,
evidence which I submit bears much weight on the subject given the glowing reference Her Honour gave to
Dr Smith on the morning of 29 July 2009 (the day after I cross-examined him). For the record, I note that I
was corralled and left greatly curtailed in my cross-examination of Dr Smith by being restricted to a mere 26
minutes of cross-examination time.
15. For the record I refrain from commenting on Her Honour's failure to act immediately and decisively (and
indeed refrain from commenting on the lack of interest and lack of interest from the assembled ICL legal
team) on the exposure of this language ruse of Ms Yu's coming out of that 26 minutes of Dr Smith's answers
under cross-examination. I note that these are issues to be properly raised in other forums.
16. For present purposes I repeat that I am keen that the machineries and energies of the lawyers and the
courts be engaged towards empowering and disciplining Ms Yu and Mr Adams so that these “issues” are
able to be dealt with in the proper jurisdiction of their family rooms – as is best for all parties, including the
State agencies that have been dragged into these Yu-Adams family affairs at enormous expense and use of
the public resources of the Australian people and the Gotham State peoples.
17. I look forward to your prompt response to these issues as is fitting and required of your office as legal
representative of the Australian government and the 'national interest' in these proceedings.

Best wishes

JAMES JOHNSON

Attachments:
(1) Copy ICL direct communication to Mr Adams dated 3 August 2010 (shown to me late 10 August 2010)

Page 5 of 5