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

Hon. Rob Hulls Hon. Robert McClelland

Attorney-General for Victoria Attorney General for Australia
Parliament House Parliament House
Melbourne Victoria 3000 Canberra ACT 2600

By Facsimile: 9651 1188 (... pages) By Facsimile: 02 6273 4102 (... pages)

Dear Attorney-Generals

DISGRACED VICTORIAN LEGAL SERVICES REGULATOR TOLD TO RESIGN

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 my 300 plus page Section 35 Notice under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and
Responsibilities Act 2006 dated 28 August 2009. I also refer to my facsmile letters to each of you dated
24 September 2009.
2. I attach for your informations a copy of my correspondence submissions to the Victorian Supreme Court
today, together with a copy of my further letter today to the Legal Services Commission.
3. Both Mr Hulls and Mr McClelland have been very vocal in recent weeks as to the shabby status of the
Australian legal profession due its protection of rouge lawyers and rogue practices. I refer to the banner
headlines of two Friday's back 'Sharks with Wigs' and 'Lawyers fail you, McClelland warns' appearing in
the 18 September 2009 Australian in response to Mr McClelland's long overdue and legittimate criticisms of
wigs at the bar (and their instrucing solicitors). I also refer to recent headlines 'Judging the Judges' and
yesterdays' Melbourne Herald Sun's 'County Court row heats up Judges reject 'old boy' label' (see
attached) recording Mr Hull's long overdue criticims of wigs who have graduated from the bar to the bench
(and the 'old boy's network' society by which these graduations occur).
4. When you put together the combination of wigs on the bench protecting rogue wigs at the bar, instructed by
rogue family law solicitors, you get an explosive protection racket. Basic civil and political rights, the most
basic of human rights such as rights to a fair trial and the concept of equality under the law give way to the
wigs desire to protect the privileges of wigged members of society (its elite). After all, political critism will die

Page 1 of Many
 down eventually, once the next sporting event, or natural disaster comes along, even where that political
criticism comes from the top political representatives (and duly elected democratic representatives), like the
State and Federal Attorney-General's.
5. I don't underestimate the historical and political significance, and the personal moral courage required of
each of you to voice these complaints.
6. At the same time, I urge you to take action to give effect to these brave words of yours and, in particular, for
Mr Hulls to stand up for his whistleblower laws and human rights laws by:
a. Both of you intervening in these Supreme Court proceedings as amicus curae on human rights and
constitutional law grounds; and
b. By levelling the playing field, again especially Mr Hulls, by doing something to balance up the
'inequality of arms' in these proceedings.
7. There is a general, fraudulent misconception, convenient to my aggressors, that these proceedings are a de
facto relationship dispute that has got out of control.
8. The reality is that these proceedings are a pitched political and legal battle to assert the supremacy of civil
and political rights by a sole democrat and 'lever' (myself, self-funded after being financially ruined by these
corrupt wigs) against a power coalition of wigs, protected by statuory oligarchies and funded with
government agency monies (over $2m so far I estimate all funded by the Victorian Legal Practitioner's
Liability (Evasion) Committee) in a battleground where the wigs hold (and bend, and break etc) all the rules,
to cling onto their ancient privileges and self-made special laws as a bastion where their privileges prevail
over basic human rights such as the right to a fair trial and the right to equality under the law. I note that
Australia is the only country of English law origins where wigs are still in possession of a common law
licence to commit professional negligence.
9. These proceedings are first and foremost a stand against ancient, elitist, wig supremacy laws.
(such as the common law (ie wig made law) that licences wigs to commit professional negligence
(leading on to malicious frauds, defamations etc) with impunity / immunity. These elitist, wig made
wig supremecy laws are anathma with universal human rights laws, and whilst wigs continue to
apply these laws they provide an effective barrier against Mr Hull's universal human rights laws ('fair
hearing', 'equality under the law' etc). 21st Century Australia has no place for these century old elitist
wig supremacy laws.
10. I have been prepared to acknowledge that when a young, charismatic woman who is 'well practised in
deceiving men' and 'well-practised at hiding her mental health problems' [and I am parahrasing from Federal
Magistrate ordered psychiatric and psychologist reports of September 2008 and December 2007] walks into
a mere country family lawyer's office and asserts that she has been the de facto wife of a prominent
government and commercial lawyer for 9 years, the initial impression of the family lawyer is likely to be
that she is telling the truth. But any professional lawyer of any competence and ethical standards would ask
for evidence from the young woman to back up her claims – contracts, bank statements, family momentos

Page 2 of Many
 like birthday cards, family videos, photo albums, lists of friends, families and social acquaintances whose
testimony will evidence the relationship. And where the young woman can't deliver this 'almost immediately'
the lawyer should be immediately suspicious that the woman may not be telling the truth. The lawyer should
not take drastic legal actions (like freezing with caveats a residental investment portfolio of six properties all
registered in the man's name) or issuing legal proceedings six months later so the caveats wouldn't lapse,
without some hard evidence from the client first. The lawyer certainly can't purport to take a mortgage over
some of the man's properties and extend $350,000 of credit (by way of incompetent legal servies) just on
the woman's presentation at first interview. He must get some hard evidence first to be satisfied as to the
legitimacy (and worth) of his purported mortgage. He can't just 'let's hope it works' without doing any due
diligence investigations. And here, between May 2007 and by Christmas 2007 (informed by tip offs from the
falsely alleged de facto husband (one of the most valuable client's of the same firm, independent police
reports of the woman's domestic violence towards her children (September 2007) and independent
aggravated burglary to steal (and hide / destroy) evidence from the falsely alleged de facto (November -
December 2007) and the first of these mental health reports (December 2007) those family lawyers were
well imbued with all the information necessary to know that the young woman was in truth mentally ill and
her claims fraudulent. Indeed the barrister they briefed
11. Unfortunately, at some point during late 2007 and early 2008 the young woman's lawyers made an
unethical, and criminal tactical decision. They didn't do the professional and lawful thing, namely
acknwledge the young woman's problems, and her claims as fraudulent [though the barrister they briefed
privatelly admitted this on the steps of the first Court hearing in March 2008). They didn't do the right thing,
by working with the man she had falsely accused as being her de facto, in order to protect her children and
rehabilitate her. Instead they chose to go ahead with the fraud, banking on being able to extort substantial
'hush money' from the falsely accused man, without need for trial. The young woman's story is so
unremarkable, the Court requires very little by way of evidence for her claims [even perjured evidence that is
unsubstantiated by any hard evidence and totally contradicted]. Unlike me, a commercial lawyer, not a
courtier or litigator, a 'leveller' and 'democrat' not a 'wig' and not an 'elitist' I did not realise just how far a
Supreme Court judge would be prepared to go in terms of absence and abuse of due process, shutting eyes
to his own findings as to this young woman's perjury, shutting his eyes to the 'independent and hard
evidence, and shutting his eyes to binding High Court precedents, in order to yield a verdict that not only
seeks [until fixed on appeal] to exonerate these rogue lawyers, but seeks to avoid any inroads on wigs
privileges even at the expense of steamrolling human rights, and with outrageous orders as to costs spells
out a warning of what the wigs will do to anyone who dares to challenge their elitist legal privileges and
status (even, or especially if the challenger happens to be a lawyer of almost 2 decades good standing, but
of the avowed 'anti-wig' extreme minority faction.
12. My Notice of Appeal (June 2009 version) attached as exhibit A to my Section 35 Human Rights Violation
Notice records the story of this battle between myself, a lone, unfunded, democratic leveller and champion

Page 3 of Many
of human rights versus these politically and legally powerful wigs, who even have access to unlimited
government funds in order to oppresively assert their elitist privileges and status rule uber alles basic human
rights (notwithstanding Mr Hull's 2006 human rights legislation). Taking three points of abused and absent
process:
a. clearly the application by the young lady's wig, Graeme Devries of the Victorian bar, to have me
gagged from defending myself fraudulently seeking to have the senior wig (Justice Kaye) declare me
too insane to defend myself [ie to leave me defenceless] smacks of the the Stalinist and Nazi-error
tactics of elitist human rights abusers. The senior wig (Justice Kaye) even noted, as is duly recorded
in transcript, that this was an illegal application – but then, what the hell, went along with it any way.
b. The High Court decision handed down only last month in Aon v Australian National University
ruled that it is illegal (as an affront to basic notions of justice and a fair trial) for a plaintiff to amend its
Statement of Claim document on the third day of a four week trial. And yet here, the senior wig
allowed the young woman's wig (Graeme Devries) to totally amend her Statement of Claim, in the
fourth day of a four week trial after this wig had finished presenting her case. Her original claim
written a year earlier was based on her original lies that she had been my 'devoted committed stay at
home wife' for 9 years [A regular synthesis of Mrs Brady and Alice the housekeeper to my 'Mr
Brady']. After presenting her case, she changed this to a totally different set of lies, that she had
been a highly successful Heidi Fliess, channelling her brothel earned cash to me for me to purchase
real estate in her name. It mattered not that both sets of lies, especially the new ones were absurd.
(a) if she was earning lots of cash, why would any hooker hand that cash to a man, instead of buying
real estate in her own money; (b) her wig did not bring any evidence to court to support either her
original 'Mrs Brady' lies or her 'Heidi Fleiss' lies, and there was not even her explanations for “the
paucity of [her evidence] were, pauce; (c) the independent evidence, including eyewitness testimony
from her neighbour, and piles of documentary evidence (including evidence stolen by this woman
and later recovered by me after she abandonned it, proved to any 'sane', 'fair', indepenant and
unprejudiced mind not harbouring a hidden agenda (to protect fellow wigs) demonstrataed that this
young woman and I did not even share the same postcode, lived 15 – 20 kilometres apart, at all
relevant times; and (d) the independent evidence, my borrowing documents, my bank statemments
embedded therein, my fee slips for full tax years ending 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007, showed that I
was earning $40,000 to $50,000 per month, gross at the relevant time (before struck down by these
frauds) which was almost double what I needed to fund all of my admittedly high living expenses
(including staff salaries, seven highly-geared investment property mortgages, legal child support to
my Mrs Johnson of twenty plus years (over a decade estranged) plus voluntary child support to Ms
Cressy (on the pretext that the youngest of her three children by three different men is biologically
mine, and fuelled by a combination of kindness and concern on my part for the plight of Ms Cressy
and her three children and the darker side of years of blackmail and other criminal threats against me

Page 4 of Many
 by Ms Cressy herself). In many respects the actions of her champetering and maintaining lawyers
was the carrying out of blackmail threats she had made against me for years – though not going as
far as her threats to put me up on false rape charges she did make false incest and sodomy claims
against me as part of her routine for the . (racking up $350,000 on the slate for the Judge to order
me to pay them – the joke being that they depleted my $2m or so wealth pre-agression
c. My draft Notice of Appeal describes a staggeriing seven grounds demonstrating that the initial
decision of Justice Kaye at first instance (lets go along with the pretend that this is a de facto
property dispute, so as not to cast any investigation on the wrongdoing of these rogue wigs
promoting.
d. The Trial Judge even shut his eyes to pages from her handwritten diaries, testifying to her mental
illnesses and boasting of the many men she has scammed, including the extraordinary self-
confession referring to herself as “I am in truth a beautiful liar.”
13. Both Mr McClellnd and Mr Hulls are on the public record as acknowledging that there are serious elitist
problems within the Australian legal profession (including solicitors, barristers and judiciary).
14. Well, gentlemen, history has given you an opportuunity to do something about it by getting involved with and
sponsoring these proceedings, at least to the point of providing me with sufficient 'equality of arms' for
democratic rights to be effectively argued according to high principles of law, against wig forces determined
(and with unlimited access to the public purse) to asert the supremacy of their ancient and inapropriate
powers and privileges over basic human rights.
15. I might add that Mr Hulls has an additional incentive as the promotor of human rights laws and whisteblower
laws in this State. Should Mr Hulls choose not to put his words into actions, then Mr Hulls may face the
ignomy of being politically branded as a fraud and a hypocrite, by reason of becoming the first Victorian
Attorney-General to be sued in civil proceedings for deliberate violations of (his own) whistleblowers and
human rights laws. In this regard, I have made (including in my correspondences mentioned above of 28
August and 24 September this year) complaints of corruption as a consequence of Mr Justice Kaye's
decisions in the Cressy v Johnnson proceedings, which lacks any semblence of integrity and is a
frightening demonstration of the extent that this judicial wig was prepared to go to protect the scandalous
and criminal misconduct of his brother wigs at the bar (including Graeme Devries in particular, it would
seem). I havel also sent Mr Hulls reports of corruption amongs the many Supreme Court Judges who have
been invovled in these proceedings, notably Justice Cavanough, Justice Hansen (two counts of corruption))
and Associate Justice Evans (multiple counts of corruption).
16. If Mr Hull's does not intervene in these continuing and appellate proceedings on human rights grounds, and
continues to refuse to investigate my reports of judicial corruption, then I will have no choice but to issue
(fresh) claims against Mr Hulls for dereliction of statutory responsiblities and violations of responsiblities
under his own whistleblower laws and human rights laws.

Page 5 of Many
17. I make no apologies for the carrot and stick nature of my petitions. I do so in full recognition of the obvious
protection that the judicial wigs will give to anyone whom I criticise for harbouring wig supremacy intentions
or asperations. At the end of the day I am standing up not just for my basic human and democratic rights
(the first generation policital and civil rights like 'fair hearing' and 'equality under the law' set out in the
Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsiblities and supposedly also 'enshrined' in the 'common
law (from 1215 Magna Carta to Chief Justice Warren's decision in September 2009 in Re: Major Crime
Investigation Act and the High Court's ruling in AON v ANU in August 2009). I am fghting for the human
rights of Mrs Johnson and the three children of our marriage (the 'second generation' social and economic
rights to be housed and feed, supported and raised by me) and also, paradoxically for the social and
economic rights of Ms Cressy and her three children (irrespective of their biological paterntity) whose
housing and financial and mental health needs have never been the focus of attention of any of the wigs that
have pretended to be acting in her interests (while, in truth feathering and seeking to cover up and preserve
their own illegitimate positions.
18. I am standing up for a lot of reasons very dear to me, for reasons have much to do with the peace welfare
and good government and future of my loved ones and all members of this society (including in the long-run
the wigs themselves – since who shouldn't be encouraged towards the benefits of leading an ethical life?),
and these dwarf my selfish reasons of wanting to get my own life back.
19. I urge both of you to support my stand, both by way of active and financial support for these legal
proceedings, and by establishing independent (of wig influence) corruption and misconduct
commisisons to investigate the misconduct that both of you gentlemen, as well as myself, have expose to
public attention.

Regards

JAMES JOHNSON

Page 6 of Many