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 24 September 2009 *** IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION

Ms Victoria Marles Ms Victoria Marles

Legal Services Comissioner Chief Executive
Legal Services Commissioner Legal Services Board
Level 9, 330 Collins Street Level 10, 330 Collins Street
Melbourne Victoria 3000 Melbourne Victoria 3000

By Facsimile: 9679 8101 (... pages) By Facsimile: 9679 8100 (... pages)

Dear Ms Marles

UNITED NATIONS TOLD 'FAMILY COURTS ABUSING ONE MILLION AUSTRALIAN'S HUMAN RIGHTS
A CRY FOR HELP FOR ONE MILLION AUSTRALIAN VICTIMS OF HUMAN RIGHTS PREDATION BY
FAMILY LAW COURTS AND FAMILY LAW LAWYERS (SOLICITORS, BARRISTERS AND JUDGES)
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
1. I refer to the thirteen letters that I received from you yesterday.
2. At present, I am in a position to respond to three of them (copies attached).
3. I shall respond to the other ten as and when opportunity arises.

Letter dated 14 September 2009 – 'Concerns about Ms Rhadika Mendes'

4. This is the easiest of your letters for me to respond to.
5. I have provided you with complaint materials regarding Ms Rhadika Mendes, solicitor employed by Lander &
Rogers (including my letter to you of 2 August 2009).
6. Your response is that Ms Mendes is not according to your records (I presume, both the Legal Services
Commissioners and the Legal Services Boards, and both public public and confidentially kept records) an
Australian legal practitioner.
7. Therefore, since this person so evidently practising as an Australian legal professional is not according to
LSC/LSB statutory records a registered Australian legal professional, you propose to do nothing but 'now
close [your] file'.
8. I seem to recall that under relevant provisions of the Legal Practice Act 2004 (and going way back to the
1894 legislation and before) it is a criminal offence for a person who is not registered with the LSC/LSB as
an Australian legal practitioner to practise in this State as an Australian legal practitioner. As the peak legal

Page 1 of Many
 regulatory oligarch, as both tweedledumb (the Legal Services Commissioner) and as tweedledeed (the Chief
Executive of the Legal Services Board) I believe it is your statutory duty to investigate reports of persons
practising in this State as a Australian legal practitioners though they be neither tweedledumbly nor
tweedledeedly registered with thee or ye. And you intend to do nothing but close [your] file.
9. I demand that you investigate the issue that you raise in your letter. If Ms Mendes is not an Australian
legal practitioner, then as either dumb or deed you need to deal with that. If Ms Mendes is an Australian
legal practitioner then you must seek that your dumb / deed records are brought up to scratch. And then
you must proceed to investigate my complaint as it is your primary (paragraph (a)) statutory duty under
section 6.2.3 of the Legal Practice Act to do. As I, and the Victorian State Ombudsman, in our very little
and very loud voices have been whisperring and shouting into your dumb and deed ear drums for more than
a year it seems.

Your letter of 15 September 2009 – 'Your letter of 15 September 2009'

10. Must I remind you (further than the above) that you are both the chief statutory officer of the Legal Services
Commissioner and the chief statutory officer of the Legal Services Board? I attach a copy of a LIVAdvocacy
report from the May 2009 Law Institute Journal that confirms this. There is also a useful, and rather fitting,
mug shot of (one, or both?) of you, should you or your staff have forgotten what you look like and not just
who you are.
11. I also attach copies of sections 6.3.1 to sections 6.3.9 of the Legal Practice Act 2004. I am aware, having
read the Ombudsman Victoria's Annual Report for 2008-09 that these statutory provisions will come as a
complete and total surprise to you and many (most?) of those on the public payroll though perhaps not it
would seem in practice 'working' in your organisation(s).
12. I demand that you provide me with a copy of Dr John Buchanan's report forthwith. Stop these
deliberate violations of your obligations under information privacy laws, health records laws, legal practice
laws. Stop these further unlawful reprisals contra this State's whistleblowers protection laws.
13. Please provide me with a copy of your letter referring my letter to the Legal Services Board. I wish,
out of more than just idle curiosity, to see if you addressed your letter to yourself personally.
14. Don't you realise that in sending me this letter you are demonstrating further lack of bona fides, further
deliberate procrastination and delay, further unlawful reprisals against my whistleblower complaints against
you (both the tweedledumb and the tweedledeed of you).
15. For the reasons I have stated often previously (including above) and will continue to state (including above),
I urge you to:
a. get yourself some psychiatric and whatever other sorts of counseling you badly need; and
b. exercise your powers (if you have the capacity to do even this) under section 6.3.9(1)(c) of the Legal
Practice Act and resign both as tweedledumb and as tweedledeed, pendiing imminent criminal and

Page 2 of Many
 psychiatric investigations which are likely to see you institutionalised in one or both kinds of
institutions in the near future.

Your letter of 14 September 2009 – 'Complaint against Ms Marles'

16. I am reeling from receiving the two abovementioned letters. I am still reeling from the stories I read in the
papers on Friday of the Federal Attorney-General's open admissions that the legal profession lets down its
customers and is populated by 'sharks with wigs'. And still reeling from the Ombudsman Victoria Annual
Report for 2008-09 which records 95 complaints received by his office about you. Where do I start,
responding to this letter I received regarding your investigation of my complaint under section 6.3.2(a)
against you?
17. Firstly, I note that your letter contains errors of process, errors of fact and errors of law. Add to it your
extraordinary capacity for prejudice, all these things mean that (to quote from Lewis Carroll's King of Hearts
in Chapter 11 of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland', the mock trial of 'Who Stole the Tarts'), clearly you are
'eminently qualified' of all these points and have missed your calling as a Supreme Court Judge.
a. Errors of process:
i. You can't investigate a complaint against yourself. This is a violation of your obligations (as
both tweedledumb and tweedledeed organisations) under the Whistleblowers Protection
Act. It is another example (the fourth, I think) of unlawful reprisals against me contra that Act.
It is therefore a (fourth, I think) criminal action against me. It is also a violation of your stereo
human rights responsibilities under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsiblities Act.
You should also get anybody in your office with the literary skills of a sixth grader, or better
[and I have been reliably informed by the Victorian State Ombudsman's report that there
maybe noone this skilled anywhere in any of your organisation(s)] to read to you what the
High Court unanimously said about 'apprehended bias' in 2000 in Johnson v Johnson
[2000] 117 CLR 488. I demand that you put some proper whistleblowers protocols in
place forthwith. I also demand that you put some independent investigatory protocols
in place so that you are not judge, jury and protector of your own case in your own
court.
ii. Errors of Fact – Paragraph 5 – 'I note that mortgagee proceedings were brought against you
...struch out by the Court'. All Wrong my counterclaim against you was not 'struck out by the
Court'. Rather I unilaterally withdrew my counterclaim [prematurely it seems] despite its
merits because its puposed had already been served by Justice Kaye during the course of
the mock trial known as Cressy v Johnson (parts 1, 2 and 3). Justice Kaye confirmed (with
much hostility in my direction for having the temerity to do as you directed and direct here)
that your beloved 1993 case Delahunty v Howell and Mann is irrelevant to your duties

Page 3 of Many
 under section 6.3.2(a) of the 2004 Legal Practice Act. You are also on notice that my
mortgagee withdrew those proceedings without adjudication and is most supportive of me,
economically, pending the outcome of these proceedings [an extraordinary, praiseworthy
display of social concscience by one of the 4 big banks]. Futher your costs application is a
third unlawful reprisal against me contra the Whistleblowers Protection Act. Further, I am
contesting and expect to succeed on that contest with costs award in my favour. And
Further I have made no secret (eg my facsmile of 21 September 2009) of taking legal action
on my new claims against you for breaches of all of the abovementioned legislation.
iii. Errors of law – What will take take for your office/s/r/s to accept that your continued
assertion of Delahunty v Howell and Mann (paragraph 6 of your letter) is wrong at law.
Pending their reversal on appeal, I have hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs orders
against my name thanks to you and thanks to Justice Kaye for trying in the nicest possible
way to action this goobledy-gook that you put in this paragraph. Delahunty v Howell and
Mann was a biggoted, biased, wrongly decided decision of a single. It is a great pity, and the
headlines in the newspapers last week, 16 years later, would have been well avoided, all to
the peace, welfare and good regulatory governmen tof the peoples and lawyers of this State if
only your regulatory ancestor, Mr Howell, had appealed that wretchedly immoral decision of
Justice Gray to the appellate courts more concerned with upholding the rights of consumers
than protecting the privileges of lawyers (even rogue lawyers).
18. You are the peak lawyer-regulator for the legal profession in this State. Per capita, this gives you a
regulatory power over some 25,000 barristers and solicitors, being amongst the most educated and in the
most part ethical of all men and women in this State. In fact I would expect that better than 90% of all
25,000 barristers and solicitors are, like me, self-governing and regulating in their private and professional
lives to standards well above those imposed (or supposed to be imposed and supposed to be policed by
you) according to law. Some 90% of 25,000 who have no need for government or regulation in their private
or professional lives because they always do the right thing (and promptly and auto-matically make amends
if they don't). This means your regulatory field takes in at most some 2,500 tertiary educated men and
women of the law. These 2,500 are not hard to identify. I venture that they are the ones like Harwood
Andrews Lawyers, Berry Family Law who practise heavily in family law (with one off poorly educated and
inexperienced, needy and traumatised clients). Of these, one would hope that at least half 'mean well' even
if they don't often ''do well”, so re-education is the only required antidote. Of the others (the David Hanlons,
the James Turnbulls, and especially the Graeme Devries) well there's policing, which you are supposed to
do. For a regulator with such a small effective per capita regulatory scope to trigger 95 complaints to the
Victorian State Ombudsman in one year is a chiling indictement of dereliction of statutory duty – of criminal
dereliction at that. A regulator in your position ought not, on the numbers, generate more than one
complaint in 95 years.

Page 4 of Many
19. There is an integenerational impact of misery that you have caused. Imagine if you [someone competent in
your place] had properly regulated the Victorian legal profession – say either of the two Legal Ombudsmen
ladies that preceeded you. There is no way that Harwood Andrews, Berry Family Law, or Graeme Devries
would be practising law today if proper standards had been policed. The human toll, the damage to me, the
damage to (their mentally ill client whom they have woefully exploited) Ms Cressy, the damage to her 3
children, the damage to my 3 children, the damage to my Mrs Johnson, that's 9 lives, including 6 childhoods
irretrievably damaged and hurt. And this is just one of the 95 complaints made against you. Multiply this
95 times. That rounds to 1,000 lives damaged just last year alone. These are black friday bushfire figures
aren't they. But that's not all. There's another set of multiples. How many lives destroyed or damaged so
bad that those bitten and maimed by these 'sharks with wigs' never got their complaints to the State
Ombudsman's door. How many limp off, licking their wounds to live as best can without putting themselves
through the sort of pain and hardship of questing for justice and respect for basic human and civil rights.
Does 1,000 factor up to 5,000 or 50,000. And that's just for 2008-09. What about 2007-08, 2006-07, 2005-
06, and 2004-05. Multiply by 5 for the 5 years of your watch. Is that 25,000 or 250,000 lives mauled or lost
to 'sharks with wigs' due to your gross criminal dereliction. At what point do we label these 'crimes against
humanity'?

You should resign pending criminal and psychiatric investigations

20. I attach directly for your attention a copy of my facsimile of 21 September 2009 to the lawyer participants in
these multi-fragmented Supreme Court proceedings, including your own lawyer. I also attach my covering
facsmiles sending these materials to the Federal Attorney-General, and to my local Federal Member of
Parliament, Deputy Prime Minister Gillard.
21. How could you not get the message from the Ombudsman Victoria Annual Report.
22. You are a State disgrace. You are a national disgrace. You are an international disgrace.
23. You must resign so that real policing of 'sharks in wigs' can begin and the long and painful healing and
compensation process can begin.

With deepest sympathies for you, your loved ones, and the thousands of ordinary Victorians that you have
allowed to be mauled and maimed by 'sharks in wigs' during your 5 years of dereliction from the public
purse

JAMES JOHNSON

cc: Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls

Page 5 of Many
cc: Hon Premier of Victoria, Mr John Brumby

cc: Mr Colin Neave AM, Chairman, and all other Board Members (including Ms Marles), Legal Services Board

cc: Mr George Brouwer, Victorian State Ombudsman's

cc: Media Colleagues

Page 6 of Many