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 facsimilied submission materials earlier today, with slight apology as both my covering letter to
all recipients and the enclosed letter to the Federal and State Attorney-Generals were both a bit scrappy in
form [though the substantive messages were plain and clear]. I hope that nobody reads into this any more
than that I am under severe time pressures to 'get it writ' without the luxuries with the volume of submissions
and letters I am writing to 'get it right.' Regrettable given the historic nature of these communications but
'such is life'.
2. The purpose of this letter is to convey my submissions in response to Ms Sofraniou's submissions on the
morning of 9 July 2009, including misconduct concerns about her performance, which as I demonstrated in
that earlier facsimile today the Legal Services Commissioner (even as measured and found wanting by tboth

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 1 of Many
 Justice Kaye and by the Victorian State Ombusman, as she is) continues to assert that I am legally 'obliged
[according to her failed year 7 legal studies logic] to raise th[e]se concerns in the[se] proceedings ...
otherwise [she] will not be in a position subsequently to investigate the[se] concerns.'. How drearily
incompetent and inept these faux regulators are. I'm almost inclined to believe that her protestations 'At this
stage, I am unable to determine what your complaint is' are genuine. While anyone passing grade 5 could
read and understand them, it may be persumptuous indeed given the Victorian State Ombudsman's
damning report to assume that Ms Marles and her staff have literary skills anywhere near as smart as a 5th
grader.
3. Anyway I digress. It shouldn't be necessary for me to provide any more submissions in order for Your
Honour to dismiss the Legal Services Commissioner's (criminally) misconceived costs application, with
orders for costs in my favour on a full indemity basis. But I will supply those submissions and suppporting
material in affidavit form as Your Honour has requested and as they are substantially prepared.
4. The purposes of this facsimile are to respond to Ms Sofranious outrageous oral submissions of 9 July 2009.
But of course, the interconnectedness of all these applications and responses (a bit like the
interconnectedness of everything in a University Administrative Law exam) means that there will be things in
these submissions, and things in the additional submissions that I deliver as described in paragraph 3 above
that are relevant to all of these strike out applications (including the copy cat applications by the rogue
pschologist David List).
5. I attach copies of the transcript of the morning session of 9 July 2009 (when Ms Sofraniou mostly held the
floor) on which I have handwritten my responses to her bizarre and unethical submissions. Some of these
submissions are so damned fraudulent and disturbing that I have sought refuge in humor in a number of
places. And the mindnumbing repetition. Good Lord. The mindless repetition of mindless non-truths
doesn't imbue them with any mindfulness or truthfullness. Good Lord.
6. I trust that Your Honour will now conceed that my opening submissions at the first hearing of these
applications were correct. Namely that these applications are attempts by the powerfully funded coalition of
4 city law firms and 4 city barristers funded out of the Government purse (via the Legal Practitioner's Liability
Committee) to trick your Honour into making orders in their favour which would be a perversion of the course
of justice, as an wanton and unlawful intereference in proceedings contemporaneously taking place in the
Court of Appeal. Therefore, I hope Your Honour agrees with me that (a) You have no jurisdiction to so
interefer and must defer to the Court of Appeal; (b) You should dismiss these 'try-ons' by this desperate
coalition of Government pursed wigs and order full indemnity costs of their applications in my favour – and
please allow me to give submissions at the next hearing so that these costs can be fixed for summary
payment without set off so as to partially address the fiscal 'inequality of arms' in this gargantuan adversarial
battle of universal human rights versus ancient wig supremecy laws; and (c) You should adjourn any further
applications or proceedings in this fragment 9263 of 2008 pending the 'ultimate findings of facts' in 9665 of

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 2 of Many
 2007 which Justice Kaye's bizarre findings of fact are anything but ultimate, and the 'ultimate findings' can
only come about once the Court of Appeal hands down its findings in fragment 3731 of 2009.
7. By way of amplification (and noting that these are additional to and in no way derogate from any of the many
detailed submissions I have given previously, on 'substantive aspects of Ms Sofraniou's submissions I wish
to highlight the following replies.
8. On 9 July 2009 Ms Sofraniou basically made the same submission under three different names:
(a) deceptively and fraudulently asserting res judicata;
(b) deceptively and fraudulently asserting issue estoppel arguments; and
(c) deceptively and fraudulently asserting that my actions in defending myself and counterclaiming for
wrongs done to me were “scandalous and vexatious” and for “ulteriour purposes” [when it is clearly vice
versa].
9. Of these the third one is the funniest piece of de fective “De Quoique” defence postulatino that I've ever
read. I'm sorry but to quote popular philosophy “You can't take the effect and make it the cause” (according
to the wisdom of Jack and Meg White aka the White Stripes). This is “You started it. No you started it”
childish stuff at its extreme. “You can't blame the unborn child for the pregnant mum” (Jack and Meg White
again). Suffice to say that in responding to Ms Cressy's and her lawyer's vexatious and abusive and
fraudulent ulterior purpose claims, in a word “scandalous” claims against me, in vindicating my legitimate
rights with my defence and seeking compensation for the unlawful harm done to me, as the unjustly
wronged I simply have no choice but to report their scandalous actions, the scandal that they caused.
Nobody in their right mind would blame a war correspondent as scandalous for reporting human rights
abusers and their abuses, while asserting that those human rights abusers were not acting scandalously
or causing a scandal. If the war correspondent's reporting style ingnores censureship laws or modern
tastes in ettiquette well that's an entirely different thing. The war correspondent still didn't cause the
scandal.
10. All three of these wrongful, deceiptful and fraudulent submission amount to one and the same thing –
deceitfully and fraudulently asserting that we should all just pretend that Justice Kaye's judgements at first
instance were impeccable and beyond reproach for any procedural, factual or legal defects. My
submissions before Your Honour and in the Court of Appeal, my section 35 Notice under the Victorian
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act and Attachment A thereto (my June 2009 version of
my Notice of Appeal) prove that nobody in their right mind could make such a stupid suggestion with any
belief that it could be true. This is propaganda bullshit of the worst degree. My handwritten notes
throughout all of the attached pages of transcript just reiterate everything I said when I returned to the Your
Honour's Courtroom just after midday on 9 July 2009 (see pages 243 to 262 of the Transcript).
11. Please see in particular pages 205, 230 and 232 regarding unethical and fraudulent assertions of “issue
estoppel”.
12. Please see in particular pages 198 and 220 regarding unethical and fraudulent assertions of “res judicata”.

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 3 of Many
13. And please see my notes regarding Ms Sofraniou's deceitful attempts at pages 238 and 241 to mislead Your
Honour by suggesting that some case she call's 'Moreton's case' and another called Chamberlain v DCT
have anything of relelvance to any of the fragments of these proceedings.
14. These submissions are deceitful professional misconduct of the kind that, as I've reported, the Legal
Services Commissioner instructs me I am “obliged” to raise with Your Honour for adjudication in the context
of these present proceedings. Ms Sofraniou and her instructor Ms Mendis [who as I've reported stands
presently accused by the Legal Services Commissioner of unlawfully impersonating an Australian legal
practitioner] were both paid witnesses of the debauchery before Justice Kaye that I have summarised in my
June 2009 version of my Notice of Appeal (Court's reference 3731 of 2009). Both ladies were and continue
to be fully paid from the Government purse via the Legal Practitioner's blue ribbon extras lawyers legal aid
package, of which I've made no small complaints. As Ms Sofraniou has privately confessed to me in the
Court of Appeal, and in the Masters Court and in the Trial Division Court Rooms while the presiding judiciary
have risen, she understands perfectly well my responses to these professionally obscene submissions she
makes but believes that she has a moral and legal right to keep on making them, to keep on repeating
Justice Kaye's erroneous statements and findings [Query how this world view of hers is to be unscrambled
if/when they are fixed on appeal].
15. Ms Sofraniou's continued attempts to pass off Justice Kaye's erroneous findings at first instance as “ultimate
findings” when she is fully aware that they are all subject of appeal [and indeed is being paid from the same
Government purse to participate in the appeals] and given her actual knowledge of the strength of the trial
evidence regurgitated in the Court of Appeal and before Your Honour in the Masters Court [even without
regard to her knowledge of the “new evidence” I have unearthed and filed in the Court of Appeal and in the
Masters Court since the initial trial judge's judgement in February 2009], all this demonstrates that these are
professionally obscene and unethical assertions she is making and her conduct warrants disciplinary action
from the Legal Services Commissioner under section 6.3.2(a) of the Legal Practice Act 2004 and from Your
Honour under Your Honour's residual disciplinary powers of this Honourable Court tracing back hundreds of
years (and expressly preserved under the Legal Practice Act 2004 despite the greater and concurrent
regulatory role vested by that Act in the Legal Services Commissioner.
16. On a less gloomy note, for Your Honour's ease of mind I can advise that the final two sections of this letter
are just mindful repetition of the final two sections of my facsmile of earlier today. Though I'm mindful that if
the two designated receipients of this information ain't got it by now in all probability they never will. No
doubt the designated recipients are hoping that Your Honour can be seduced by Ms Sofraniou and the three
other Melbourne barristers and their 4 instructing city solicitors firms, all 8 funded from the Government
purse via the Legal Practitioners Liability (Evasion) Committee into granting these applications. Presumably,
this huge expenditure from the Government purse is being spent in some vain hope that will somehow
progress this dispute [rather than just kicking it a few metres closer to the Full High Court as final domestic

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 4 of Many
 arbiter]; vain hopes that they might somehow avoid the necessity for them to face the reality of the situation
and act (including to negotiate) rationally according to the underlying truth of the situation. Good Lord.

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

17. 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.
18. 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

19. 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
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).
20. 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