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

Thursday 1 October 2009 *** IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION

TO: Ms Miranda Milne (CEO Legal Practitioners TO: Ms Jennifer Sheehan

Liability AVOIDANCE Committee “LPLAC”) (Associate to Associate Justice Lansdowne)
By Facsimile: 9670 5538 By Facsimile: 9603 6050
TO: Mr Joe Saltalamacchia CC: Ms Cath Mukhtar
Prothonotary, Supreme Court of Victoria (Associate to Associate Justice Daly)
By Facsimile: 9603 9400 By Facsimile: 9603 9320
(please copy to Justice Kaye)
TO: Ms Rena Sofraniou CC: Mr Peter Rashleigh
(barrister funded by LPLAC for Harwood (solicitor funded by LPLAC for barrister Richard
Andrews Lawyers) By Facsimile: 9229 5050 Ingleby) By Facsimile: 9274 5111
TO: Ms Radhika Mendis CC: Mr Howard Obst
(solicitor funded by LPLAC for Harwood (solicitor funded by LPLAC for barrister Graeme
Andrews Lawyers) Devries) By Facsimile: 9605 3499
By Facsimile: 9670 2723
CC: Ms Allison Grice CC: Ms Margaret McNamara (solicitor to the legal
(solicitor funded by LPLAC for Berry Family practitioners non-regulator "LSC")
Law) By Facsimile: 9603 9320 By Facsimile: 9679 8101
CC: Mr Gerry Davies (solicitor not funded by LPLAC TO: Berry Family Law
representing Dr David List) By Facsimile: 9399 9006
By Facsimile: 9600 0894

Dear Brothel-gate participants

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

PROCEEDINGS 9665 OF 2007, 9263 AND 10222 OF 2008 AND 3731 AND 3766 OF 2009

Message for Associate Justice Daly (cc: all other recipients)

1. I refer to my letter of 24 September and attach yet more extraordinary materials by way of submissions.
Additional Affidavits to follow in due course.
2. I can confirm that I received from Ms Sofraniou and her instructor, Ms Mendis last Tuesday the transcript of
the mornings proceedings on 9 July 2009 (under cover of a letter of 17 September 2009). I managed to find
time yesterday afternoon (other things, including the matters referred to in the attached correspondences
have of necessity had to take priority on my energy and resources). I will be providing some responses to
Ms Sofraniou's submissions (which raise professional misconduct issues about her performance that day.
3. I will also provide (including by way of affidavit) the follow up materials confirming the gross impropriety of
the Legal Services Commissioner's costs application against me. These materials are well advanced, but

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 1 of Many
 there is still a plethora of photocoping – a logistical problem for me, and have been delayed because events
(as recorded in my materials of 24 September 2009 and in attached correspondences continue to overtake
them). I am stunned, having regard to the damning report on her office/s/rs by the Victorian State
Ombudsman (conveyed in my letter of 24 September 2009) that the Legal Services Commissioner has the
stupidity and audacity to be continuing with this cost application of hers – which has criminal overtones as I
have explained several times previously (eg 24 September 2004 and attached correspondences), rather
than accepting my generous settlement offer (limited to that costs application, only).
4. There are some preliminary matters that must be raised at the outset of the next hearing of these
applicatoins before Your Honour, that I wish be noted here, so as not to get lost in the traffic of forthcoming
responses noted at points 2 and 3 above.

Preliminary Matters
5. At the outset of these issues, I would like to express my gratitude at Associate Justice Daly's diligent attitude
towards grasping an unfragmented picture of what these proceedings are really about – including reviewing
the fragments that the Court of Appeal is similarily (and overlappingly) grappling with. But I ask that these
expressions of gratitude not be taken out of context. In particular, I do not derogate from my criticisms of
some of Your Honour's earlier rulings [made in the rush and bustle, prior to your fulller grasp of the true
nature of these procedings] which are subject to pending appeals (recorded by the Court as proceedings
number 3766 of 2009 and recorded by me in the Notice of Appeal which is Attachment B to my Section 35
Notice under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsiblities Act.
6. Also, I apologise that your 'full picture' is not yet complete as I have not yet prepared my Notice of Appeal in
respect of the Federal Magistrates Court proceedings (recorded in Attachment D to my Section 35 Human
Rights Notice). Now that I have belatedly in extraordinary fashion been provided with a copy of the secret
psychiatric report on Ms Cressy prepared in September 2008 by Dr Entwistle (included in Attachment D), I
await only Ms Marles delivery up of Dr Buchanan's secret psychiatric report of May 2009 (plus a reallocation
or injection of energies and resources) before seeking leave [NB – and ie 'the privilege' since disgracefully
it's not a 'right'] to appeal those orders.
7. As to the three preliminary matters these are:
(a) orders as to the effectiveness of my service of process in all fragments of these proceedings on Ms
Cressy by service on her lawyers, Berry Family Law who at all times since March or April 2009 have been
her continuing legal reprsentatives;
(b) professional misconduct issues concerning Ms Mendis (who according to the Legal Services
Commissioner's correspondences I circulated last week is prima facie guilty of offences under the Legal
Practice Act for unlawfully holding herself out to be an Australian legal practitioner;

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 2 of Many
 (c) professional misconduct issues concerning Ms Mendis' and counsel instructed by her, Ms Sofraniou's
failure for more than 2 months to comply with their undertakings to Your Honour's Court to supply copies of
the transcript of proceedings before Your Honour on the morning 9 July 2009.
(d) professional misconduct issues concerning Ms Sofraniou's deceitful and disgraceful submissions
delivered to Your Honour on the morning of 9 Jully 2009.
(e) clarification (on the day of the next hearing before Your Honour) of what orders Your Honour will make
(presumably in lieu of undertakings which in light of (b) above and demonstrated history there can be no
confidence will be honoured) for the transcript for the next (and any future) hearings before Your Honour.

8. The first of these preliminaries is my request for orders confirming that documents I have validly served on
Berry Family Law (Ms Cressy's continuing lawyers in respect of fragments 9665 of 2008 and 3731 of 2009)
constitutes good and effective service on Ms Cressy for the purposes of the other fragments (including 9263
of 2008 and 3766 of 2009). In this regard I attach a copy of the 14 May 2009 (Court of Appeal) affidavit
from her lawyer, Peter Berry, the principal of that firm (page 1 only) confirming that he continued to act for
Ms Cressy as at that date. And I have not received any notices of ceasing to act from him since. Surely
Your Honour recognises the human rights violations occuring (both under Hull's Victorian Charter of
Human Rights and Responsiblities Act and under common law recognition of the basic human rights of a
fair trial and equality under the law (see the attached references to AON v ANU (unreported High Court
decision of August this year) and to Re Major Crimes Investigations Act (unreported decision of Chief
Justice Warren of September this year) which both testify as a matter of judge-made laws binding on Your
Honour's Court, that even without Hull's Victorian Charter the common law recognises these basic human
rights of a 'fair trial' and 'equality under the law'.
9. As to the second and third of these, you will see that the Legal Services Commissioner still maintains the
position [a failing grade in Year 7 legal studies] that her powers and responsibilities as peak-regulator of the
legal profession in Victoria falls under Section 6.3.2(a) and thereabouts of the 21 st Century [2004] Legal
Practice Act are circumscribed by Gray J's dismal decision in 1993 in Delahunty v Mann and Howell. I
can't express plainer than I did on the afternoon of 9 July 2009 the madness that stance. But here again at
paragraphs 4 of these rote letters 'PA Let03' this faux regulator erroneously directs me that as a matter of
law I am 'obliged' my concerns of Ms Sofraniou's actions in these proceedings beofre you because if I 'fail to
do so [she] will not be in a position subsequently to investigate those concerns.' Just like I tried to do with
Mr Justice Kaye in December 08 and Feburary 09, I raise my concerns with Ms Mendis by way of this letter
and my earlier letter of 24 September 2009. I have already raised my concerns with Ms Sofraniou (eg my
written and oral submissions of 9 July 2009 and will supplement these with my.
10. By way of comfort to Your Honour, my I call to mind the quotation [which I think I picked up from Geoffrey
iRobertson's Crime Against Humanity] that 'courts try cases and cases try courts.' It is my (usually good)
recollection that the originator of this quotation was Justice Jackson, sitting in justice at Neuremberg circa

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 3 of Many
 1949. Your Honour may also be comforted by the attached materials illustrating that this case is trying not
only to Your Honour's Court, a judicial court, but is also trying before the peoples democratic court of
parliament as well as exercising the minds of several executive branches of Governments (State and
Federal) too.
11. Hopefully some good will come from the seeds of evil sown by Ms Cressy's lawyers (and it would seem Ms
Cressy's lawyers' lawyers) by deciding to back their 'well practiced' self-confessed [and judicially and
pschiatrically if not psychologically] diagnosed liar as a bulwark to protecting their ancient elitist 'wig
supremecy laws' from their necessary abolition to make way for universal human rights laws just as has
occurred in all of our 'sibling' democratic commonwealth countries.
12. While Your Honour is agonising over the 'trying' nature of these proceedings, please remember who fully
funded and brought these proceedings (and who is the controlling mind of these proceedings given the
mentally ill status of Ms Cressy). Please remember who is suffering from these proceedings – and in this
regard I am just a 'pass-through' standing up for the legal, social and economic rights of my children and
their mothers who have the right to financial and emontional nourishment from me as a matter of legal
entitlement (in the case of Mrs Johnson and the three children of our twenty year plus legal marriage –
though estranged for over a decace) and by way of kind benevolence and sinister blackmail (in the case of
Ms Cressy and her three children – only one of whom is, and even then only allegedly, my biological child).
13. The attached snippits of newspaper articles and stories (some of which I recirculate) show the cruelty of the
family law court environment (the ultimate wig feeding machine). The article 'Lesbian wins access to ex's
child' shows that but for my mistake for inheriting X and Y chromosones from my parents (rather than an X
from each) I [and more importantly, Ms Cressy's three children] should have fared much better from the
family law wigs.

Message for Ms Milne, Legal Practitioners Liability (EVASION) Committee

14. I refer to my previous settlment offers and hereby add another rmillion to my last all up settlement offer to
$33 million (all terms otherwise unchanged). That's $34 million all up – minus a discount at my previously
offered rate per each signed apology.
15. I repeat my last settlement offer in respect of your 6 funded strike-out applications' (on costs only), all terms
unchanged.

Message for Ms MacNamara, for the Legal Services (DE-)Commissioner

16. I repeat my last settlement offer in respect of your unlawful costs application, all terms unchanged save for
the amount, which I hold steady for now at $16,500 (still a generous discount to reality). I can't believe you
guys are so stupid (or so arrogant) not to leap at this [you should seek competent legal advice on the costs
implications of your stupidity/arrogance]. I repeat that, should you wish to avail of this offer, be aware that it

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 4 of Many
 is with full reservation of fresh legal claims I shall be bringing against the (DE-)Commisssioner and officers
of her offices, as outlined in my recent communications (including 21 September 2009).
17. I shall respond to further to the (DE-)Commissioner's 14 letters [I found one more after my letter of 24
September] I received last wednesday by separate written responses as is humanly possible in the obvious
circumstances.

Kind regards from your most vexed, oppressed and abused.

JAMES JOHNSON

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 5 of Many