RESPONSES TO SUBMISSIONS – LIST

VICTORIAN SUPREME COURT (MASTERS COURT)

HEARING(S) BEFORE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DALY: PROCEEDINGS 9263 of 2008

Overview
1. By letter dated 24 June 2009 I have been provided with written submissions made in my
absence by Dr List's Counsel, Mr Gleeson, on 11 June 2009. I have also been provided with a
copy of the transcript of Mr Gleeson's delivery of those submissions.
2. Apart from the usual, unpprofessional, bullies' attack on my character, augmented by a
contemptible remark regarding Her Honour's honour, Mr Gleeson, asserts that no matter what
wrongs Dr List has done to me , no matter what harm Dr List has caused to the children
damaged by his misconduct, Mr Gleeson asserts that Dr List is legally licensed to commit these
wrongs, as maliciously and deliberately as he pleases, without any liability or accountability to
any of his victims.
3. Her Honour will be pleased to know that Mr Gleeson's submissions are wrong in fact and in law.
Like the letter I received previously from his instructor, Mr Gleeson's submissions demonstrate
that there are serious questions of law and fact regarding Dr List's malicious and unimaginably
evil conduct that need to be adjudicated by trial judge and jury respectively.
a. As the jury will uphold, Dr List never prepared a 'family report' within the meaning of the
federal Family Law Act [see paragraphs 6 and 17 of the List Submissions]. The
document prepared by Dr list barely warrants the descriptor of a 'report'. It beggars belief
that anyone would purport to describe it as '... a report that addresses what is in the best
interests of a child ...'.
b. Dr List's report (a full copy of which is attached to my original and amended
counterclaims) constitutes an extreme and indefensible attempt by an unprofessional and
abusive man to pervert the course of justice. Indeed, in the interim until the Court of
Appeal (or if need be the High Court of Australia) rectifies the injustices, illegalities,
incompetencies and absurdities of the trial judge's decision at first instance, Dr List has in
the interim not only attempted to pervert the course of justice, Dr List has perverted the
course of justice.
c. Dr List's report also constitutes an extreme and indefensible example of criminal
defamation (section 10 of the Wrongs Act).
4. It is significant that Dr List does not seek to defend his work. Rather he takes the tyrant's way
out, asserting legal privileges and immunities to which he is not enttitled. If Dr List wishes to put
forward these weak, techinical arguments to the jury, wishes to seek to avoid liability for his

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 1 of 11
 reprehensible and criminal misconduct, then he should feel free to do so. It is not the role of an
Associate Justice presiding over a Masters Court, to be asked to pre-judge what a trial judge an
jury will make of the legal arguments and evidence to be presented at trial.
5. I have valid claims against Dr List at common law (negligence, fraud and defamation). In
addition, to the extent that Mr Gleeson asserts Dr List was appointed to a statutory office under
the Family Law Act (an office, I hasten to add he failed to perform) then I also have claims
against Dr List at common law for misconduct in office. As Ihave said many times, my
counterclaim against Dr List
6. For the reasons I have set out in my previous submissions, as supplemented by these
responses, Her Honour should:
a. rule that Dr List should stand trial;
b. dismiss these applications by him as vexatious and oppressive and an abuse of process
of the Court;
c. order that Dr List pay my costs of these applications on a full indemnity basis according
to usual solicitor-litigant rules;
d. order that this part of the proceedings be stayed pending final determination by the Court
of Appeal of my appeal against the decisions of Justice Kaye on the earlier part of these
proceedings.
7. My claims against List are intricately linked with my counterclaims against the four lawyer
defendants, and all 5 counterclaims need to be tried conjointly. For reasons I have articulated
previously, Her Honour has no jurisdiction to make orders that interfere with the deliberations of
the Court of Appeal, all 4 lawyer defendants' applications and submissions are basically
vexatious, oppresive and abusive demands that Her Honour presume how the Court of Appeal
will determine my appeal, which is something that Her Honour obviously cannot do. Accordingly,
Her Honour has no powers in respect of any of these applications by List or any of the four
lawyer defendants, other than to dismiss the applications as being vexatious, oppressive and
abusive, and to order costs of those applications in my favour #

Five KO's to List's Killer King Charles Immunity False Defence.

8. Mr Glesson wrongfully asserts that List has a killer defence to my claims – a statutory defence
under section 11D of the Family Law Act. Wrong. There are five different fatal flaws to this
defence which make it 'absolutely hopeless' for List to waste time running this defence at trial
before Judge and Jury – except to wastefully increase my solicitor-litigant entitlements to costs
and damages.

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 2 of 11
 a. Firstly, List will fail to satisfy any sane Jury or other trier of fact that his conduct and
woeful 'report' were referable to any performance of functions he was required to
discharge under the Family Law Act. For the reasons described below, List did not
prepare anything like a 'report concerning the best interests of a child'. He prepared a
report deliberately and maliciously, even criminally concealing the best interests of a
child so as to lead the 'Judge' into doing things 100% contrary to the best interests of the
child. For example (one of many) brainwashing could never be said to be in the best
interests of any child (see below).
b. Secondly, any Judge behaving like List (did) if the relevant mental adjustments could be
made for section 11D purposes, the Judge (and therefore List) would not on the facts be
eligible for any immunity or licence to inflict the deliberate harms that List did. He would
have a killer liability for misconduct in pubic office (see below), with no defence available
to him.
c. Thirdly, as a matter of interpretation, the words 'same ... as a Judge ... in the performing
the functions of a Judge' are meaningless, unintelligible and cannot have life breathed
into them. The words make as much sense as saying, lets assume and pretend that
everybody knows that chalk can always perform the same purposes as cheese, and lets
brainwash ourselves from thinking about it. Sorry but section 11D is jabberwocky
gibberish and cannot be given any possible legal interpretation or operation or effect, not
this side of a Wonderland Looking Glass at least. I suggest Gleeson and List share a
toasted chalk sandwich to drown (sic) their sorrows. Sorry, but with all Jabberwock
respect (LOL) Gleeson's funny interpretation of section 11D is as fucked up as the
interpretations that family lawyers and judges put on the secrecy and suppression
provisions of the Family Law Act – section 121. These are not laws to protect the
interests and identities of children post marriage breakdown. They are not valid laws
inter vires the constitutional constraints on the Australian Federal Parliament .They are
secrecy laws purporting to protect corrupt family lawyer and Judges from being named
and exposed and publicly criticsed in an intelligble way for their monumental human
rights abuses in the grand tradition of Australia's family law courts post-1975. 1,000,000
Australian men and children can be wronged.
d. Fourthly, even if Jabberwocky or Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee could breath something
sensible into the mutatis mutandis mutations of section 11D to the functions of a family
consultant by reference to the functions of a Judge (that's a bloody scary thought aint it
WonderDownUnderLanders– best call in an expert fool like Devries or Sofraniou for a
little help with that, or at least a Kaye and an O'Dwyer as well). Even if, etc etc, then KO

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 3 of 11
 number 4 to this bullshit is that section 11D would still be an invalid law of the
Commowealth as it is not within the Federal Constitutional 'marriage' powers of the
Parliament of the Commowealth of Australia to make a law that elevates any class of
Australians, let alone a looney tunes psychologist, above the rule of Law. Orwell's pigs
included.
e. Fifthly, as for Four, etc etc, if 'marriage powers' of the Federal Constitution purport to
entitle the Federal Parliament of the Commowealth of Australia to make a law like the
one that Gleeson imagines section 11D to be (and drunk and racist as our Constitutional
forefathers were, I don't think they meant to do that one) , then the offending plenary
provisions of the Australian Constitution are, invalid laws;
i. (fifthly point one) ab initio because it is implict ab initio that the Australian
Constitution was framed and is to be interpreted consistently with Magna Charter
of 1215 and the English Bill of Rights of 1688 (even on the US controlled island
containing Guatanamo Bay, those convict residence enjoy those basic relics of
English law freedoms, so our Australian Constitution Act must include them also);
ii. fifthly point two when our openly racists 'white Australia' oriiginal 1900
Constitution Act was fixed in the 1960s to hide all the overly racists bits against
indiginous black Australians, those amendements carried with them the principles
of rule of law, to benefit all Australians (including white ones and non-convict
stock like me) introducing rule of law at that point in Australia's constitutional
history even if such a constitutional guarantee was not there at the beginning, and
Gleesons section 11D Jaberwocky nonesense would offend the constitutional
guarantee of rule of law (if nonesense could be made into somesense like chalk
could be made into cheese);
iii. Fifthly point three, when Australia became a partial signatory to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the 1980s, all pre-existing
Commonwealth and State Parliamentary and Judge made laws had to be
henceforth read so as to ensure the Australian (arms of) Government(s) did not
put any of them in breach of our Govermentses international law obligations not to
violate our citizens basic human rights, and Gleesons section 11D Jaberwocky
nonesense would offend the constitutional guarantee of rule of law as breathed
into Australia's constititional history and laws from that time.
f. I note that under the Australian Consituttion the only forum with jurisdiction to hear questions of
constitutional law interpetation under that Constitution is the High Court of Australia. So the
Victorian Supreme Court's Masters Court has no jurisdiction to determine whether section 11D is

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 4 of 11
 a valid law of the Commonwealth, or whether it can be given any meaning. So Her Honour has
no jursidictional powers to consider Mr Gleesons's applications to the extent that they are
dependant on section 11D.

A report to conceal the best interest of the child

9. Here, briefly are 4 examples, which would aid a Jury or other sane trier of fact to conclude
beyond any measure of doubt that List did not perform any functions as a 'family consultant' as
he was statutorily required to do (see point (a) of the previous paragraph:
a. I mentioned above the brainwashing orders made by Federal Judge O'Dwyer. I attach
these, as part of the LIV/LSC correspondence in the attachments. None of the orders
made by Federal.
b. In my Responses of last month to this application I mentioned that, the child wanted a
24/7 custody arrangement. 'That's equal' Ms 8 told List. Her mother told List at first
interview that she had 'no problems' with this. My custody application showed that I was
seeking only this. So any family report properly done would have merely reported that
there was no dispute and no concerns that this 24/7 was in the 'best interests' and
wishes of all relevant persons subjecte of the report. But List goes out of his way to
conceal this and to make a wild and unsubstantiated contrary set of bullshit findings and
reports. The only question, a 'family consultant' needed to report on and consider as
being in contraversy is whether Ms Cressy's two boys (born to different men) wanted the
same deal as her daughter (she being allegedly but never proven to be my biological
child). Surely this required a simple and unbiased
c. List commits a number of crimes in preparing his 'report'. These cannot be considered
as referable to the functions of a family consultant, let alone mutatable as functions of a
'Judge'. For examples:
i. Ms 8 tells List that she is hurt 40 times a day in her mother's home environment
for no reason. Forget about mandatory reporting requirements for child abuse.
List should have investigated and reported these to the Child Support Agency, to
protect Ms 8.
ii. At that first bizarre interview, List's ape-ish behaviour concerned me greatly. He
writes in his report that at one stage I jumped up self-aggrandisingly to attend to
Ms Cressy's eldest child, who should have been at school, not in List's waiting
room anyway. The truth to this is that, it was Mr Laitey who jumped up to attend
to Master 12 (his biological and generally derelict and absentee dad, as was not
contested). It wasn't me. And Mr Laitey wasn't anywhere near the cariacature

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 5 of 11
 that List writes him as, in my name, in his report. Truth is that about 90 minutes
into the first interview List reluctantly agreed to allow us a toilet and drink (and in
my case, flu medication) break. List used the break to hastle me over when he
would get his cash for his report – like he was off his head with alcohol or drugs.
When we got back List giggled (just like he was off his head with alcohol or drugs)
and announced to Ms Cressy, Mr Laitey and I that he had only realised that he
had mixed up Mr Laitey and I in the first 90 minutes. Too addle brained to undo
his mix up before he hit print on his report? Fucking QUACK.
iii. Despite bizarrely accusing me of 'triangulation' of Ms 8 – look at List's written
report of his 'bitch session' with Ms Cressy, Mr Laitey and in the company of all 3
Cressy children, running me down in breach of the Federal Magistrates Court
orders (let alone normal standards of adult/parent behaviour) prohibiting either Ms
Cressy or I running the other down within hearing of the children – and yet that is
what he does, incites and leads violations of the Court Orders. Extraordinary that
Ms 8 had the courage to try to defend me in that hostile environment.
iv. If an 8 year old uses the word 'equals' the only conclusion a QUACK can draw is
that her 'daddy' brainwashed her to doing it. Seriously, most 3 year olds who
watch Sesame Street know the words '1 plus 1 EQUALS ...' without needing
brainwashing from anybody. And what about mummy's threats and intimidations.
v. A 'family consultant' that usurps role of Judge and Jury and Child Protection law
agencies on domestic violence against children – it's OK if mum does it, and
concerned neighbours give 4 page statements about it, and they get to seek mum
being restrained at a psychiatric hospital. List positively refused to read or refer to
Ms Deak-Fabrikant's account of Ms Cressy's (in his forgiving eyes) 'adult tantrum'
of AFL Grand Final Day 2007. Don't worry that this was just a little bit louder and
rougher than most other days of the year. But throw the book at dad if mum
falsely alleges he does it.
d. As outlined in my pleaded Counterclaim against him Lists' conduct and report could not
be described by any sane sober person as referable to any function as a psychologist or
family consultant:
i. benchmark his report against the reports prepared by each of psychologists
Marianne Love and by Michael Clairbrough (see attached).
ii. List's motives were no more than to play out his malicious ego, to would and
harm, not just me but all of the children impacted by the report, all 3, 6, 7 8 or 9
(counting Ms Cressy twice);

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 6 of 11
 iii. List's ego trip and improper purposes and vindictiveness are demonstrated:
1. by his breaching the confidential basis on which I told him Ms Cressy's
troubled history (insisting that, Like Marianne Love, he be informed of her
history but not risk her or the children from further harm from her, not
powder keg her lawyers blackmails by filling it into his report;
2. His adamant refusal to do as I begged in that he take time to reflect on this
complicated situation and do what is best for the children even if it meant
more time (funny, List can report that the situation is complex while at theh
same time criticise me for using the word 'complex').
3. His bizarre testimony, I think, in the Federal Magistrates Court (note I
walked from my application because the Judge's corruption and bias, so I
was most surprised to find out in February 2009 that Judge and corrupt
lawyers, List and even Dr Entwhistle continued with a trial (of what and for
why) in September 2008 and February 2009. Nice of Ms Cressy's lawyers
to let me know during the Supreme Court half-trial in December 2008 and
2009 that they were moonlighting their bullshit against me in the corrupt
jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrate and extorting from my pockets with
bogus cost applications and other maliciousness behind my back. What
the ....?
4. List forms, invents and generally makes findings and judgements that I am
a moral and sexual risk to Ms 8 based on what any sane man would
realise were. Ms Cressy admits her histories of violence and prostitution,
and her history of sustained sexual abuse as a pre-schooler, which was
never detected or followed up by her own mother to protect or rehabilitate
her. Ms Cressy retailiates by accusing me of being a drunken drug taking
incestuous pedephile since my teens – confessing under illicit drugs to her
she claims that I was kicked out of home by my mum in my teens for
raping my unborn niece. Where's thisl fellow List's moral compass and
bullshit meter. Surely every proper 'family consultant' has these? How
many days earlier did Ms Cressy say she had 'no problems' with a 24/7
arrangement for Ms 8? Ain't her new story a bit lacking in credibility. For
the record:
a. I attach my mother's death certificate, I attach my eulogy speech
and I attach the guest list from the funeral I gave her. My mother
died a decade before I met Ms Cressy, and so Ms Cressy could

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 7 of 11
 never have been too scared to discuss anything with my long-dead
mother. Note the guest-list. My mother sure as hell did't raise any
pedephiles or drug takers. Note my attached Affidavit of 8 July
2008 which sets out my true history – leaving home in my mid-
twenties only when I became a full-time academic (part of my
attached January 2009 professonial misconduct complaint against
barrister Graeme Devries).
b. Natural justice, and fucking plain common basic intelligence,
suggest that List should have put Ms Cressy's criminallly false
incest and pedophile allegations to me so that I could (once again,
set the record straight.
c. List couldn't even ask me about a home haircut as part of major
head lice prevention that I had to administer to Ms Cressy's
children because of Ms Cressy's own disinterest and neglect.
d. List couldn't even ask me about Ms 8's
10. List has armed a bunch of blackmailing family lawyers (Harwoods through to Devries) with a
whole lot of malicious defamations, intended by List to harm me and to harm the children the
subject of his report (and my other children besides). Suggesting that he performed 'functions'
as a 'family consultant', suggesting that List did the things he was supposed to do. I'm sorry but
Gleeson is very very close to, if not, committing professional misconduct with these claims, lying
to a Court and misleading the Court as to the contents and motivations and purposes underlying
(overlying, and plain simply lying) List's conduct. For this reason I am referring Gleeson to the
derelict L:egal Services Commissioner to investigate Gleeson's conduct in writing and making
these submissions as aggressively as he does. I am confident that in this preliminary hearing,
Her Honour is sensible enough to check the contents of List's writings rather than to blithly
assume that the label 'Family Report' is what List and Gleeson frauduently and criminally
represented it to be.

Claims against List for misconduct in office

11. If a federal 'Judge' behaved like Mr List did, say consider my pleaded complaints against his co-
defendant, Federal Judge O'Dwyer, then even the 'Judge' would have no immunity of the kind
that section 11D could mutate to him (both the 'same functions 'and the 'same ... immunity' are
none, as in null-sense. I attach for brevity copies of relevant pages from Nicholas Sedden's
Government law text book regarding the public policy behind the common law (and rule of law
compatible) actions for misconduct in public office. I encourage Mr Gleeson to read these cases

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 8 of 11
 footnoted and discussed by the learned author, prior to going to trial with this stupid defence
base on section 11D. I (with or without independent legal representation) will certainly be
reading them, especially those I've asterixed on the attachment. If former Judge Marcus Einfeld
is not immune from legal consequences for his out of court indiscretions, a 'Judge' like,say, co-
defendant O'Dwyer is not immune from his in court misconduct and corruption. And nor is a
looney tunes like List given any licences or immunities to do the kind of harm and child abuse
that he has done the subject of my claims against him.
12. List's supporting Affidavit materials suggest that he has failed to keep, to make and maybe even
deliberately destroyed evidence required for the purposes of legal proceedings. More criminal
activity (under the not so recent Evidence (Crimes) Act amendments – with a maximum penalty
of 5 years imprisonment (from memory). More indications that List's writings were not properly
done by a proper family law consultant in a manner that might conceivable attract any King
Charles immunity protections that any applicable judge made or Parliament made laws might
today have otherwise afforded him if he had acted properly, in proper ways and with proper
motives.

Similar KO's to alleged killer defences of absolute and qualified privilege

13. Gleesons's suggested second Killer defence, that List can rely at Trial before Judge and Jury on
a defence of absolute or qualified privilege will fail at Trial for exactly the same non-constitutoinal
arguments of fact and law as his 'King Charles Immunity' nonesense under section 11D. List's
published reports and indeed his false testimony on 2 Decmber 2008 at the unlawful insanity
inquisition were not 'publication[s] ... intimately connected with .. [legal] proceedings'. Nor were
they '... for the purpose of ... [legal] proceedings.' His published report was odious and
extraneous to the legal proceedings for which he was appointed under the Family Law Act
provisions. List was getting off his jollies, criminally trying to falsely pin on me all sorts of bizare
mental health problems which, his own words suggests he himself suffers (along with many
other mental problems to boot). Any lawyer or looney understand what a proper psychologist
means when they use the word 'projection'? Clearly Ms Cressy (as record by List) and clearly
List (as recorded by List) are full of projection.

If at first you don't get it right. Tell the client/patient/victim to shut up and pay up and
don't even think about trying to get it righter a second time.
14. The human in me so loves the lawyers arguments about avoiding interminable litigation. You
canna allow ohne negligence action against ohne barrister ya wee gits because it involves the
re-litigation of the barrister's case. What bullshit. Every other english law country that we like to

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 9 of 11
 compare ourselves against, not just Scotland since ... always (?) but now all of the UK, and USA,
NZ, Singapore, India, Canada allows these sorts of actions now. 11 out of 11 English law lords
in year 2000 (the AJ Mitchell case) scandalously suggested that such legal actions had to be
allowed in the UK to protect society against incompetent lawyers, as well as on human rights law
grounds. [And Victoria and the ACT at least now have comparable human rights lawyers – on
paper at least, just waiting for the lawyers to reluctantly agree to apply them.] Just imagine if
doctors and surgeons everywhere and always said, 'Oh we didn't get it right at the first
diagnosis (first operation). Well we gave it a shot. Tough luck. So you just have to live with the
results of what we did first time and no doctors or surgeons can ever try to do anything better for
you. And you can't sue us for falling short of the mark, or going backwards. We're adverse to
re-diagnosing or re-operating. Imagine life if doctor and surgeons prissed and punced like
lawyers. Don't lawyers realise that most all professionals have to re-diagnose and re-operate to
get it right. How many lifes (even lawyers lifes) be lost if surgeons refused to reoperate, like
lawyers try to do. For all real professionals, 'if [when in 99.9% of cases] at first you don't
succeed you try try and try again [and keep trying until you solve the problem.' Lawyers are
unbelievable so sensitive of criticism and failures to never try again? What a joke. If lawyers'
doctors and other profesionals (eg the long list given by Kirby J in his dissenting but only
constitutionally legitimate decision in D'Orta Endenke) did unto their lawyers as their lawyers do
unto them (no secondary or revised operations) I'm pretty sure that any surviving lawyers would
change their views on re-litigation. If lawyers who make the laws (whether in Courts 100%
controlled by lawyers, or in Parliament where almost 100% of politicians are lawyers too) are not
as a class of society subject to the burden of the [same] rule[s] of law[s] as they make for
everybody else, they/we should as a class be denied the benefit of those exact same rule[s] of
law too.

Allegations that my pleadings are 'scandalous', 'embarrasing'

15. Wow, Mr Gleeson's mumma never taught him the meaning of the word 'scandalous'. Perhaps
he tried to learn the word from a Jabberwocky? Mr Gleeson should look at List's written report
for an example of a scandalous piece of writing. Ditto for examples of 'nonesensical' and
'embarrasing' – though Mr Gleeson could look at his own written submissions as examples of
these last two words. Jaberwocky. 'Delay the fair trial of the proceeding' - ridiculous.
16. None of my amateur holding pleadings, as contrast to List's malicious writings, traverse any of
the paragraphs of Rule 23.02. And once they have been settled and vetted by independent legal
counsel with experience and skills in drafting pleadings, I am confident that they will be even
more splending and further beyond the scope of Rule 23.02.

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 10 of 11
 17. Pleadings (whether by defence or counterclaim) in response to scandalous primary claim (such
as Ms Cressy's claims as writ up in her caveat instruments (May 2007) as writ up in her
statement of claim (November 2007 and mid-half-trial in December 2008) and as writ up in List's
report of December 2007) inherently must address the scandalous allegations to which they
respond. Such responding pleadings (including my counterclaim responses to List) cannot be
struck down by the scandalous nature of the claims that they are shielding against. But the
scandal in those claims should, instead strike down the primary claims (eg List's report) and any
scandalous defences (such as those postulated by Gleeson) that are in effect just re-
manifestations of the original (Cressy, Harwoods, Devries, etc, List) scandalous claims. Rule 23
(and every other rule in the book) has to be read so as to prevent the onset and re-manifestation
of scandalous claims (like Ms Cressy's as dubiously recorded and promoted by List) not in a way
that hinders an innocent defendant from defending himself (passively or more aggressively)
against them.

18. I ask Her Honour to throw out these vexing, oppressing and abusive applications by List and
make the orders for costs and other orders in my favour, as articulated by me above.

Harold James Johnson

Defendant, Plaintiff by Counterclaim, Appellant and Respondent, Solicitor and Counsel
For proceedings No. 9665 of 2007, No. 9263 of 2008, No. 10222 of 2008, No. 3731 of 2009 and No.
3766 of 2009.

2 August 2009

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 11 of 11