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

Sunday 9 August 2009 *** IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION

*** EMBARGO ON PUBLICATION (FOR

LIMITED TIME ONLY)

Mr Michael Brett Young

Chief Executive
Law Institute of Victoria
By Facsimile: 9607 9569 (… pages)

Dear Michael

VICTORIAN SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS 3731 OF 2009

1. I refer to the two refer to my correspondences that I received from you last week (copies attached).

2. Firstly, my letter to you of 5 August 2009 which obviously crossed (to put it mildly) with your correspondence.
Please advise me whether the Law Institute will endorse my application to the Legal Aid Office for
legal aid funding to defend myself against the Government funded tyranny railed against me.

3. Secondly, I thank you for my 2010 Practising Certificate. I doubt that any Australian legal practitioner has
been subjected to anything like the vexation and oppression that I have endured these past 2 years, so I am
pleased to receive this.

4. But, thirdly, what shall I do with your letter of 5 August 2009?

a. As you known (and has been proven several times over, including in the highest Courts in this State
and via your own inquisitorial methods) I am a proud, honourable, sane and highly intelligent man. I
am proud that the Law Institute is this year celebrating its 150 th year, and proud of celebrating my 20th
year of active members (see my attached professional resume). So I know the best thing to be done
with your letter. Should it come to it, I also know the ‘worst thing’ that can be done with it.
b. A few times in my 20 year legal career I have seen situations where persons or organisations have,
in the heat of the moment, acted irrationally and issued correspondence that, within a moment’s
hindsight they wish that they had not sent and wish they had acted differently. Clearly your letter of 5
August 2009 is one of these situations. I invite you to formally withdraw your letter of 5 August 2009
– I give you the opportunity, a second chance to reflect and agree with me that your abominable
letter of 5 August 2009 NEVER HAPPENED.
 c. I demand an invitation to the next Executive Committee meeting, so that I can address the Executive
Committee members directly as to what the Law Institute must legally, not just ethically and morally,
do in this situation.
d. I demand a full copy of the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting at which my request was
discussed (including a full agenda and minutes of all topics discussed for the meeting – not just mine
agenda item).
5. I attach my comments on your 5 August 2009 letter which, without putting it mildly, must be the lowest ebb of
the Law Institute’s 150 years. As the ‘chief’ executive responsible for this organisation, you should never
have signed or sent a letter to me in these terms.
6. If you do not withdraw your 5 August 2009 letter, I am afraid that you will be placing the Law Institute in
serious dispute with me. This will necessitate me taking ‘second opinions’ and advisements from relevant
regulators, courts, parliaments, members of the Institute and non-lawyer members of the public. I would so
much prefer not to have to take the Law Institute and its Executive Committee members down those paths
as there will be no joy for anyone (except the legal professions most staunchest critics).
7. Please clarify the Law Institute’s position and respond to this letter as a matter of priority.
8. I note that it took you some 20 days to send me this letter, following the meeting. This gives me some hope
that the misfired decision it conveyed is of considerable private regret to you and to some (but why not the
majority) of the Executive Committee members.
9. I await a sensible, intelligent and grown-up response my Institute. Count yourself, and the LIV Executive
Committee members lucky indeed that I am giving them a ‘second chance’ and your shameful letter of 5
August 2009 may if you choose wisely be relegated to history’s rubbish bin rather than elevated to a higher
position in the history of this noble (?) profession.
10. Oh, and I attach for interests sake a copy of my further submission materials to the Court of Appeal, Trial
Division and Masters Court Judges, the Legal Practitioners (Liability) Committee and its 4 instructed city law
firms, and to the Legal Services (Non-)Regulator regarding the sham judgement of Justice Kaye (as he
presently is) reported by him as Cressy v Johnson (No.2).
11. Am I the only active member of the Law Institute who thinks that Victorians deserve a bit better from their
lawyers (solicitors, barristers and judiciary)?

Kind regards

JAMES JOHNSON
 COMMENTS ON ‘DRAFT’ LETTER FROM LAW INSTITUTE’S
CHIEF EXECUTIVE MICHAEL BRETT YOUNG
‘DATED’ 5 AUGUST 2009

Paragraph Response
1. I did not limit my request to merely asking the Law Institute to represent by ‘liaising
with Government Departments. Requested that the Law Institute perform its
constitutional objectives, and its contractual and moral duties to me as a long-
standing member of the Law Institute.
What do you mean by the “Legal Practitioners Liability Committee Services office.”
This demonstrates gross incompetency and stupidity. How foolish. Does it also,
like Dohstovesky novel (the guilty mind reveals itself, eventually) show the
incestuous relationship between the ostensible regulators and governors of
standards within the legal profession?
2. I am grossly (incompetently?) misquoted in this paragraph.
It is embarrassing that your assistant was unable to locate the constitutional
objectives of the Law Institute without telephoning me to advise of them. Here is
my (so far) free legal advice to the Law Institute regarding the Law Institute’s
constitutional responsiblities.
It is even more embarrassing that you acknowledge the Law Institute has a written
constitution, in the same letter where you plunge the Law Institute into a gross
unconstitutional violation. There are serious statutory, corporation law, trade
practices laws (misleading and deceitful) and not merely contractual and not
merely unethical, but unlawful consequences from your letter.
3. ‘I wish to advise that the LIV Executive Committee at its meeting on
Wednesday, 15th July have considered your request and determined not to
provide assistance to your case.’

(a) It took you 20 days to write a ‘No’ letter? Not a ‘yes’ letter. Surely a
professional body exists to represent and protect its members from tyranny
(even from tyranny within). No other Trade Union or Professionals
Association would refuse aid to a member in these circumstances –
especially where the strong public interests (a professional and non-corrupt
legal profession) coincide so strongly with my personal interests.
(b) Not a ‘no because’ letter, a ‘no letter’. 2 year olds say ‘No’. Adults, and
most children over the age of 3, know that in polite and professional circles,
grown up circles, a ‘no’ has to be accompanied with its ‘becauses’.
(c) Isn’t it better to discuss the becauses and reverse the ‘no’ privately
between the Law Institute and its members already drawn into this tyranny
and corruption? Do you personally, or as representative of the Law
Institute, relish the prospect of having to explain in a public forum – an
Independent Corruption and Misconduct Commission, under the glare of
the Courts, the Parliaments, other members, other professional and trade
associations, under the public gaze?
4. I make no comment on your brochure detailing personal support services, other
than that it seems that the members of the LIV Executive Committee have greater
need of these in coming days than I.
General Michael, your institute has gleefully participated in a witch hunt initatiated against
Comments me by a corrupt barrister (Graeme Devries), and a corrupt psychologist (Dr David
List) and a corrupt family court judge (Federal Magistrate Daniel O’Dwyer) and a
corrupt public authority (Legal Services Commissioner, Victoria Marles). I attach
copies of correspondences that exchanged between your Mr Barravechio
(embarrassingly a representative of ‘professional’ ‘standards’ at the Institute).
These show that you/Ms Marles came at me with sharpened pitchforks, foaming
mouths, blood shot eyes, and pole and faggots already pre-lit. Once again, this
time in large measure thanks to the honesty and integrity of your chosen examiner,
psychiatrist Dr John Buchanan, I passed with flying colours. While I am yet to see
Dr John Buchannan’s report (despite my several patient requests now), I have
attached with the ‘Professional Standards’ exchanges of correspondences copies
of reports I obtained from psychologists Mr Michael Clarebrough, and Ms
Maryanne Love.

Do you want it to become known amongst relevant regulators, courts, parliaments,

rival professional and trade associations, exactly how the Law Institute treats its
members? I hope not.

Do you really want to put the Law Institute and what it really stands for (and
against) up for political, regulatory, judicial, commercial and public scrutiny?

Is the LIV Executive Committee really so arrogant, in denial and desperately in

need (individually and collectively) of good Dr John Buchanan’s services?

I hope that you and the LIV Executive Committee see the wisdom in my offer that
you RESCIND your letter of 5 August 2009 and make a proper decision in the right
direction. It (and perhaps the future of the LIV) is all up to you sunshine.

James Johnson
9 August 2009