+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)

Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)

Date post: 30-May-2018
Author: james-johnson
View: 219 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Embed Size (px)

of 30

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)








    HAROLD JAMES JOHNSON Defendant(by original proceeding)


    HAROLD JAMES JOHNSON Plaintiff by Counterclaim


    PIPPIN PATRICIA CRESSY and othersaccording to the Schedule

    First, Second, Third, Fourth,Fifth, Sixth Seventh, Eighth,

    Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh,Twelfth and Thirteenth

    Defendants by Counterclaim


    Date of Document: 2 October 2009 Solicitors Code: 10181Filed on behalf of:The Defendant, Harold James JohnsonPrepared by:Harold James Johnson1st Floor141 Osborne StreetSouth Yarra Victoria 3141

    Telephone: 03 9279 3932Facsimile: 03 9279 3955Ref: HJJ/PC/VSC2

    I, HAROLD JAMES JOHNSON of 1st Floor 141 Osborne Street South Yarra in the State of Victoria,

    make oath and say/affirm:

    - 1 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)



    1. Ms Cressy and I are both victims of a gross lack of ethics, standards and accountabilities

    within the lawyers (solicitors, barristers and judges) in this State. A situation that has

    allowed to develop due to the lack of standards and lack of accountabilities amongst the

    regulators of the legal profession in this State, including the professional law bodies, the

    Legal Services Board and its chief executive, the Legal Services Commissioner, the Legal

    Practitioners Liability Committee and, frankly, the lack of standards and accountabilities

    within the Attorney-General's Department of Justice and within the Courts too.

    2. So bad is the lack of ethics, standards and accountabilities within the legal profession, and

    within the lawyers who regulate the lawyers, which I described in my press releases of June

    2008, July 2008, March 2009 and April 2009.

    (a) So bad is the lack of ethics, standards and accountabiltiies within the legal

    profession that, in recent days the Federal Attorney-General has described courting

    lawyers as ''Sharks with wigs', noting that the situation is so bad that even lawyers

    cannot afford lawyers and clients who are foolish enough to hire lawyers thinking that

    lawyers can solve their legal problem are soon left 'up the creek without a paddle.'

    (b) So bad are the lack of ethics, standards and accountabilities within the lawyers who

    regulate the lawyers that the Victorian Ombudsman's self-investigation, on top of 95

    complaints that his office received of the Legal Services Board's chief executive, the

    Legal Services Commissioner's failure to do her job under section 6.3.3 of the Legal

    Profession Act, that this makes the Legal Services Board and its Legal Services

    Commissioner the standout for the worst performing regulator not just in the State of

    Victoria, but possibly for the whole of Australia and probably criminally so.

    (c) So bad are the lack of ethics, standards and accountabilities within the judicial

    branch of the legal profession (who incidentally are appointed by lawyers with, interalia, powers ancient to regulate lawyers) that the Victorian Attorney-General, in

    recent months has announced a new system of 'reform school' to 'judge the judges'

    whose standards are so lacking that they require active reform and re-education

    though not so lacking as to justify their formal removal from office (or, presumably in

    such unprecedented circumstances, criminal investigation).

    - 2 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    3. Ms Cressy is a mentally and emotional troubled young woman:

    (a) Ms Cressy is and has always been in all the time that I have known her, a single

    mother with a young family towards all of whom I have always demonstrated great

    care and support - even before Ms Cressy first raised allegations that I am the

    biological father of her third and youngest child. I acknowledge that those

    allegations could be true, though statistically unlikely, even though Ms Cressy

    continues to refuse to back up those allegations via DNA authentication techniques.

    (b) Ms Cressy's mental and emotional problems were well documented in the

    independent evidence and testimony before Justice Kaye in December 2008 and

    February 2009, though His Honour steadfastly demonstrated his determination toignored all of that evidence. Ms Cressy's mental and emotional problems were also

    demonstrated amply in the police and pschologist and psychiatric reports in the lead

    up to Court hearings in December 2007 and throughough 2008

    (c) Ms Cressy has always alleged that I am the biological father of the youngest of her 3

    children (while she and her lawyers refuse all my requests for DNA tests to

    substantiate her allegations). Ms Cressy raised her younger son to believe that I am

    his biological father too at least up until about August 2007 when she put him into

    shock by telling him I am not his father, and giving him two different stories in as

    many months as to two different men as the identity of his biological father.

    (d) On these pretexts I have provided generously of my time, my money and my

    resources. This included housing Ms Cressy under my same roof as me during mid-

    2001 to mid2003, after she and her children were all but evicted by their landlord

    the Salvation Army, from their home from mid-1998 to mid-2001. This included

    housing Ms Cressy's family in one of my houses, some 20 kilometres from my own

    home, from mid-2003 up until November 2008 when the financial impact of this

    serious fraudulent crisis, all caused by the lack of ethics, standards and

    accountability of her lawyers, struck me down so far that I lost my ability to continue

    to house her. This included providing substantial non-live with time fathering all

    three of her children the only father model in any of her three children's lives, and

    even the biological father of her oldest child did not disagree with this for the purpose

    - 3 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    of the psychologist report prepared by the eighth defendant by counterclaim, Dr

    David List, in the context of my federal magistrates court child equal custody


    (e) In mid-April 2007, Ms Cressy approached me at my home and propositioned thatshe wanted a live with de facto relationship with me. I was shocked, since it was

    some 4 years since she had lived in the same house with me and those 2 years

    that she did were intolerable. I told her I would 'think about it', in order to buy some

    time to think of what to do. A few weeks later, I became aware that Ms Cressy, via

    her lawyers, had put caveats against all six of my properties, falsely claiming that

    she had contributed to my 'acquisition, maintenance and improvement' of my

    properties. This was a precursor to her false claims of a de facto relationship with

    me that she claimed had recently broken up. Ms Cressy also misused domestic

    violence laws, falsely accusing me of drunkeness and violence, all as part of a grab,

    orchestrated by her lawyers, by which she was trying to paint a false story of a

    broken de facto relationship, which ended due to a history of drunkenness and

    violence of which I was aggressor and she was the victim. The true story, as

    demonstrated by the evidence produced in the Supreme Court in December 2008

    and Febraury 2009 demonstrated the fraud being committed against me, Ms

    Cressy's criminal past, present and future, and the professional and criminal

    misconduct of Ms Cressy's lawyers in promoting her malicious lies against me, in

    what must be one of the worst examples of champetery and maintenance ($350,000

    plus) ever in Supreme Court history. Unfortunatley, the trial Judge, Justice Kaye,

    lacked the eyes, ears or the heart to even hear my claim against her lawyers, let

    alone to require due trial process, let alone to base his judgement on the actual

    evidence before him, let alone to apply correctly centuries of High Court precedents,

    all of which, if the Trial Judge had done according to laws that he was/is bound to

    observe, would have resulted in substantial judgement in my favour against Ms

    Cressy and against her original lawyers (being the only two other defendants by


    (f) Judgement in my favour would have gone some way to compensating me for the

    financial and emotional injury Ms Cressy and her lawyers have criminally inflicted on

    me. Judgement in my favour would have gone some way to empowering me to

    compensate my long-suffering wife of twenty plus years, Mrs Johnson, and the three

    - 4 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    children of my marriage (to whom I have been a world-class non-live with dad for a

    decade up until Ms Cressy's lawyers ruined me financially and my ability to provide

    for them). Judgement in my favour would have gone some way to empowering me

    to provide a safe roof and food and clothing money for Ms Cressy's three children

    (the youngest of whom is allegedly mine) and indeed to continue to protect Ms

    Cressy herself, and to seek to get for her the professional help that she needs, and

    that her three children need her to get.

    (g) But the Trial Judge had no interest in giving any judgement in my favour, according

    to proper trial process, according to proper assessment of the evidence, and

    according to proper application of decades of High Court precedents that he was/is

    bound by. The Trial Judge was hostile to any suggestion that he even hear, let alone

    make findings of, gross misconduct by Ms Cressy's lawyers. Therefore the Trial

    Judge went to extreme lengths to avoid following due process, to deny me natural

    justice, to deny me a right to a fair hearing, to uphold, against all of the odds and all

    of the truths and applicable laws, Ms Cressy's lawyers arguments that we had been

    living together as de factos for 9 years, and Ms Cressy's lawyers arguments that she

    had contributed financially, directly and indirectly to enable me to purchase my

    properties. With no knowledge of my financial worth, the Trial Judge at the strong

    urgings then over calculated the residue of my wealth (90% plus destroyed by Ms

    Cressy and her lawyers), ignored the negative financial damage done to my wealth

    by Ms Cressy and her lawyers, ignored the fact that I had 10 months earlier offered

    Ms Cressy an ex gratia settlement three times what the judge ordered. The Judge

    then ordered Ms Cressy $105,000 (more than 100% of my residual net worth at that

    time) which carries with it (subject to appeals, applications for stays etc) orders that I

    pay Ms Cressy's lawyers an amount that calculates as in excess of $350,000 (about

    300% of the amount he ordered I pay her), and orders that I reimburse the

    Government for the legal aid given to Ms Cressy's lawyers' lawyers for having the

    audacity to sue them, to seek to hold them accountable for their wrong-doing,

    another $200,000 or so (about 200% of the amount that I was wrongly ordered to pat

    Ms Cressy).

    (h) So here I am, falsely accused and found guilty of a 9 year de facto relationship that

    never was. Ambushed and railroaded into an early trial, before a hostile and

    prejudiced judge, subjected to an unlawful and fatally prejudicial application to have

    - 5 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    me declared as insane so that I would not be allowed to defend myself from these

    attacks (an insanity inquisition that I survived 'against the better judgement' of the

    Trial Judge.), unable to obtain legal aid, unable to pay for a lawyer for myself

    because my aggressors had tied up and destroyed 90% plus of my wealth, and yet I

    am ordered to pay Ms Cressy $105,000 against the millions of dollars in financial

    damage alone that her lawyers caused to me, and I am ordered to pay those lawyers

    $350,000 and ordered to reimburse the Government $200,000 plus for her lawyers'

    legal aid (that's $550,000 for (a) having the audacity to sue Ms Cressy's lawyers for

    their unlawful, unprofessional wrongs against me; and (b) suffering the misfortune of

    having my ability to pay for my own lawyer destroyed when they destroyed my

    wealth; and (c) suffering the double inequality that (i) while ordinary citizens like me

    can't afford a lawyer (especially when my aggresors have have taken all my wealth

    off me before the Court hearings even commenced) as Federal Attorney General

    Rob McClelland has in recent days so dramatically reported; (ii) lawyers who do the

    wrong thing in this State have access to millions of dollars of lawyers legal aid

    provided by the Government via the Government's Legal Pracitioners Liabliity

    (EVASION Committee).

    (i) In the context of these proceedings, the Victorian Government, via the Legal

    Practitioners Liability (EVASION) Committee has in my estimation spent in the order

    of $2 million so far, including paying for 4 city law firms and 4 city barristers, to

    represent Ms Cressy's 4 lawyers and this is on top of her 4 lawyers champetery

    and maintenance of $350,000 (champetery and maintenance being centuries old

    common law crimes in most parts of Australia even today for public policy reasons

    that are demonstrated by my case).

    (j) The tragedy here for Ms Cressy is that, before she got mixed up with her corrupt and

    incompetent lawyers, Ms Cressy had for som 6 years benefitted from my housing her

    family and providing substantial monetary support for food, clothing, education, my

    filling the role of a non-live with father not just for her three children but even for Ms

    Cressy herself. Until mid-2007 I had believed that Ms Cressy had for some 4 or 5

    years been successful in leaving her trouble past behind her perhaps permanently.

    Now, within less than 2 years of getting mixed up, manipulated and abused by her

    lawyers, Ms Cressy and her children have lost their home, lost their financial support

    from me and lost my financial and emotional support and protection? Just what

    - 6 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    exactly did she think that her lawyers were going to do for her? Ms Cressy will not

    benefit one dollar from the judgement her lawyers fraudulently obtained against me,

    nominally in her name. Even if justice is not done on appeal, a distinct possibility

    having regard to the corrupt nature of this 'justice game' (as Geoffrey Robertson SC

    of Doughty Chambers, London puts it), Ms Cressy's lawyers have already written to

    her in April of this year tellling her that whatever cash they squeeze out of the

    residue of my broken estate they will be keeping themselves, and she has to tell

    them how she intends to pay the remaining $200,000 or so that she will be left owing

    them. Small wonder that, a month after Ms Cressy's lawyers wrote to her in these

    terms, my car was firebombed in my driveway in the middle of the night and most

    suspicious of circumstances, and I continue to live in constant apprehension of Ms

    Cressy and/or her criminal associates carrying out her death threats and other

    threats against me. Used and abused by her lawyers, Ms Cressy has obtained no

    financial benefit from their blood sports against me, nor is she or her children getting

    any of the psychiatric, psychological or other Government support services that she


    (k) I shall need to report to the Federal Attorney-General that he still grossly under-

    understands the 'sharks in wigs' problem. These sharks rove in packs, with

    generations of herd mentality and generations of access to Government purses and

    procedures through which to protect their clan. Shark hunters like myself, who can

    endure the initial and ongoing pack-assaults are too few and far between perhaps

    unique. There is no point to reforming legal regulatory structures (like Victoria did in

    2004) if all that is happening is a reshuffling and re-papering over of the previous

    participants and structures. There needs to be a complete revolution in the

    regulation of 'sharks in wigs', beginning with the appointment of someone like myself,

    perhaps even me, with the requiste experience, attitude, knowledge and skills to

    protect Australian citizens from sharks, and to facilitate the introduction of access to

    justice, including legal aid and recognition of human rights in this State and country.

    Misconduct by Ms Cressy's Original Lawyers David

    William Hanlon, Collin Twigg, Richard Anderson and

    Harwood Andrews Lawyers

    - 7 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    4. In May 2007 Ms Cressy's original lawyers, David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews

    Lawyers accepted Ms Cressy as their client. They promptly did a proprietor search of my

    name of the Victorian Titles Office records. They then, fraudulently without just cause,

    registered caveats against six of my properties, falsely asserting that Ms Cressy had

    interests in my properties. They also fraudulently and without just cause convinced Ms

    Cressy to give a fraudulent charge [sic] in favour of Harwood Andrews over the most

    valuable of my six properties. They then fraudulently and without just cause registered a

    caveat of that, my most valuable property, falsely asserting that they now had a caveatable

    interest in my property. David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers did all this

    without any communication to me whatsover. Indeed, breaking all rules of professional

    ethics and polite society, David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers ignored all

    correspondences and refused to communicate with me for the remainder (8 months) of

    2007. In May 2007, Harwood Andrews Lawyers tricked Ms Cressy into signing a retainer

    agreement with that firm that included a 25% uplift. They did this notwithstanding that it

    should have been apparent then (let alone six months later) that Ms Cressy is a seriously

    emotionally and mentally ill woman who lacks the mental capacity to enter into a legally

    binding contract of this kind. They did this in full knowledge that Ms Cressy had no means

    to pay any of their legal charges. They did this without complying with relevant professional

    rules attaching to retainer letters. They did this knowing that they could cause me

    substantial financial and professional and reputational harm, that they could ruin me

    financially, as indeed they have done. They did this believing that they could extortsubstantial monies out of me if I wished to minimise the wrongful harm that they could cause

    to me. Their belief was correct but, unfortunately, because they were too ignorant, lazy,

    stupid and greedy, they could not set a blacmail payment [ 'hurt money' as it is known

    amongst family lawyers] within my means to pay, just as I warned them they would, they

    effectively ruined me and my prospects of paying any blackmail fee.

    5. By October 2007, suffering mounting financial and emotional harm, and watching helpless

    as Ms Cressy's three young children (by three different men) also suffered in the process, I

    was extremely frustrated by the refusal of David Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers to

    enter into any dialogue in order to resolve Ms Cressy's situation. After 7 years of generous

    emotional and financial support to Ms Cressy and her family (on the pretext that Ms Cressy's

    youngest child, a 7 year old girl, was allegedly my biological child) I was willing to resolve

    her fraudulent claims on favourable economic terms despite the lack of merit and the harm

    - 8 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    caused to me by her claim. In frustration at the lack of communication and excess of

    legal/financial agression from David Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers, I filed at the

    Titles Office section 89A notices seeking to have all of her caveats removed, with the

    exception of the one gripping my house at Altona, where she was in residence with her three

    children. I did not seek to have that caveat removed by the Titles Office, as I wished to

    reassure Ms Cressy's lawyers that I wanted to make a favourable settlement for her and her

    family despite the fradulent nature of her claims and the economic and personal harm she

    and they were causing me.

    6. But in November 2007, David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers commenced

    the ultimate in legal proceedings issued for an improper purpose (within the meaning of

    Calinan's Case, ieWhite Industries Limited v Flower and Hart (A Firm) [No.2]) but a

    hundred times worse having regard to the intimate personal nature of the abusiveproceedings, their exploitation of their mentally ill client, the suffering of her 3 and mine (3

    other) children.

    7. My immediate response on being served with this extortionate Supreme Court writ was to

    write to David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers warning them (again) that

    they were participating in a fradulent and vexatious scheme. David William Hanlon and

    Harwood Andrews Lawyers continued their professional (and by this stage if not earlier,

    criminal) misconduct by failing to investigate and (re-?)assess their client's and their own

    conduct in light of those warnings, and subsequent independent evidence (police reports,

    psychologist report etc) and pressed on with their quest to extract substantial 'hurt money'

    out of their unlawful endeavours.

    8. In November 2007 and December 2007, in the absence of any direct communication from

    David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers I became aware (from monitoring

    Titles Office information records for my properties) that they had done things that made me

    think that they had finally realised and were admitting that Ms Cressy's claim was

    fraudulent and she suffered severe emotional and mental health problems. Firstly, at myurgings, they convinced Ms Cressy to release one of my properties from her caveats.

    Secondly they withdrew their own single caveat over just the one of my properties. Thirdly

    they made suggestions of meeting with me to discuss settling her claims. But In February

    2008 I found out that those meeting suggestions were just a run around, tI found out that

    they convinced Ms Cressy to withdraw her caveat claim to one of my properties out of sheer

    - 9 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    stupidity and incompetence (including lack of basic reading skills), and I found out that they

    withdrew their own caveat unintentionally out of more sheer stupidity and incompetence. In

    February 2008 I received a summons for a practice court hearing where Ms Cressy's

    lawyers (against out of sheer stupidity and incompetence) were seeking Court injunctions to

    bolster their existing caveats that prevented me legitimately dealing in my own properties (as

    I needed to do to protect my wealth and my ablity to make any sort of ex gratia settlement or

    future child support payments to their client). When I informed them that they had dropped

    their caveat, they then went out knowingly in violation of section 91(4) of the Transfer of

    Land Act and registered an illegal replacement caveat.

    9. In February and March 2008 I wrote to the Professional Standards Section of the Law

    Institute of Victoria with the first 3 of 5 complaints about Ms Cressy's original lawyers, David

    William Hanlon, Collin Twigg and Harwood Andrews Lawyers. I made a formal misconduct

    complaint to Collin Twigg directly (as David Hanlon's supervising partner). I also made a

    formal complaint to Richard Anderson, the Chairman of Harwood Andrews Lawyers, and

    with whom I had a long-standing first-name relationship as one of the largest, if not the

    largest, supplier of work to him and his firm for the previous 8 years.

    10. In March 2008 I received a letter from Professional Standards section of the Law Institute

    advising me that they did no see themselves as having a role in intervening in disputes

    between members of the Law Institute and that I should make my complaint direct to the

    Legal Services Commissioner, which I subsequently did. In early 2008 I was not yet well

    informed of the regulatory framework for the legal profession. With another 12 years

    detailed experience I am now well aware of the incestuous relationship between the legal

    professional bodies and the Government regulatory bodies which structurally ensures that

    regulatory agencies that appear to the public to be empowered to protect citzens and

    regulate lawyers, do in fact quite the opposite and protect rogue lawyers, protect them from

    their liabilities towards citizens (including but not limited to their own injured clients) and

    even act to persecute citizens who have the audacity to complain of professional or criminal

    misconduct by lawyers. The Law Institute of Victoria's Professional Standards Section does

    have a very active role in regulating rogue lawyers as demonstrated by the materials in

    Attachment D to my section 35 Notice in these proceedings, being a Notice pursuant to

    section 35 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsiblities Act 2006, showing that

    the Law Institute's Professional Standards Section is regulary appointed to investigate

    complaints against its members, as delegate of the Legal Services Board, and/or the chief

    - 10 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    executive of the Legal Services Board, who also holds office as Legal Services

    Commissioner. The professional thing for the Professional Standards Section of the Law

    Institute of Victoria to do would have been to on-refer my complaint to the Legal Services

    Board and the Legal Services Commissioner and to seek a delegation of power to

    investigate my complaint. But this was not done demonstrating a misuse of both the word

    'Professional' and the word 'Standards' in the title of this section of the Law Institute.

    11. I on-sent the same complaint materials to the Legal Services Commissioner. In May 2008 I

    received a response from the Legal Services Commissioner that was as singularly stupid as

    it was bizarre. The Legal Services Commissioner, under hand of its in-house lawyer, Ms

    Margaret McNamara, referred to an unreported 1993 single Judge of the Supreme Court

    decision as authority for the proposition that she was not empowered under section 6.3.2 of

    the Legal Practice Act of 11 years later (2004) to investigate my misconduct complaint

    against David Wiliam Hanlon, his boss, Collin Twigg, and his law firm Harwood Andrews

    Limited. My immediate impression, which I have communicated many times since, is that

    both the Legal Services Commissioner, Ms Victoria Marles, and her in-house lawyer, Ms

    MacNamara, both of whom I am led to believe are qualified and admitted to practice as

    lawyers in this State, are totally ill-equiped to practice as lawyers as their standards of

    knowledge fall below those of an average (ie passing-grade) year 7 High School legal

    studies student. I note that the Victorian Ombudsman's condemning auto-informed

    investigation of the Legal Services Commissioner and at pages 21 to 23 of his 2008-09

    Annual Report to the Victorian Parliament, reports the same conclusions regarding the Legal

    Services Commissioner's staffs' lack of knowledge of their legal responsiblities under the

    Legal Practice Act, and, amongst other things, their lack of training and lack of ability to

    conduct investigations.

    12. At all times I have been of the view that even by 1993 standards, the decision of Justice

    Gray in Delahunty v Howell and Mann was wrong and absurd as a matter of law and as a

    matter of public policy, and it smacked of lawyers (the Supreme Court Judge, Justice Gray,

    and the then legal regulator) creating privilege and manipulating the system from protecting

    lawyers from the proper conseqeuences of their lack of standards. In a word, setting up a

    system that deliberately remooves legal accountabilities from lawyers quite consistent with

    the cases, including most recently as 2005 in the Australian High Court ( 'D'Orta-Edenke v

    Victoria Legal Aid and Anor) that grants barristers (and now, by extension litigation

    solicitors too) a common law licence to commit professional negligence without legal

    - 11 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    obligation or liability whatsoever. The 'Gray-Howell-Kaye Conspiracy' is a story of

    corruption that is worth telling in all 4 chapters.

    (a) Chapter 1 of the Gray-Howell-Kaye Conspiracy begins with the decision of Justice

    Gray of the Supreme Court in Delahunty v Howell and Mann. In that case, Howellwas the Registrar of the Solicitors Board,the then legal regulator. Mann had hired

    Delahunty as his solicitor to take legal action to recover a modest unpaid debt.

    Delahunty mucked up the legal proceedings (according to Mann) and the claim

    failed. Delahunty then sued Mann for his legal fees for losing his case. Delahunty

    successfully obtained judgement. It is unclear why Mann did not raise negligence as

    a defence or counterclaim. Perhaps being a small commercial debt, and 'once

    bitten' by Delahunty, Mann could't be bothered wasting his time in more chooklotto

    legal proceedings. Mann was unrpresented in these proceedings against Howell,and presumably was also represented when Delahunty obtained judgement against

    him to recover his legal charges despite losing Mann's case. Mann did lodge a

    professional misconduct complaint against Delahunty. Howell held, rightly in my

    view, that the Solicitors Board had jurisdiction to hear Mann's complaint. But Justice

    Gray upheld Delahunty's claim, based on estoppel arguments, that the Solicitors

    Board had no jurisdiction and that Mann's professional misconduct complaint should

    be dismissed by the legal regulator according to applicable provisions of 1958 Legal

    Profession Act. The reason given by the Justice Gray was that Mann ad an

    opportunity to raise negligence against Delahunty in the Court proceedings

    (Delahunty's action to recover his fees). The Judge held that Mann's failure to do so

    then, prevented him from making a professional misconduct complaint now. Justice

    Gray protected Delahunty from professional invstigation as preposterous and

    biased and corrupt as that reasoning seems today.

    (b) Chapter 2 of the Gray-Howell-Kaye Conspiracy is revealed in the Legal Services

    Commissioners' in-house lawyer's singularly stupid and corrupt letter to me of March

    2008. It struck me as wrong, for reasons that I later articulated to Justice Kaye,

    whist trying to follow the Legal Services Commissioner's direction that I had to

    intrude into the trial process, the dispute between Ms Cressy and myself, with every

    relevant detail of professional misconduct by Ms Cressy's lawyers. I agreed with

    Justice Kaye that theses investigations were the Legal Services Commissioner's

    responsiblities, as she has the statutory powers of investigation, the statutory duty

    - 12 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    under section 6.3.3 of the Legal Practice Act of this century, the budgetary

    allocations, the time and resources to conduct these investigations. The transcript of

    the hearing before Kaye J in December 2008 and February 2009 is replete with

    records of my seeking to carry out the Legal Services Commissioner's directions,

    and the Trial Judge's abhorence for, as he saw it, me raising irrelevant issues that

    were not within his jurisdiction but lay elsewhere. The transcript of the hearing is

    replete with examples of the Trial Judge criticising and abusing me for raising these

    issues and his punishing me with over the top costs orders as a consequence of his


    (c) The third chapter of the Gray-Howell-Kaye Conspiracy comes from my reading

    recently a 2008 VCAT decision Alashakshir v Lennon Mazzeo Lawyers (Legal

    Practice) [2008] VCAT 1792 (24 July 2008) where the principle in Delahunty vHowell and Mann was applied in 'almost identical circumstances' to deny justice to

    an injured client and to protect a negligent performing solicitor. The irony here is that

    the VCAT Senior Member who applied the judgement in Delahunty v Howell and

    Mann to similar (human rights abusing) effect was a Senior Member Malcolm

    Howell. Now, Howell is not a common surname in Australia, though it is a surname

    well connected with the Victorian legal profession for several generations. One of

    the most successful barristers clerks operating at the Victorian Bar at Melbourne is

    Rick Howell, with some 200 plus barristers including pre-eminent Senior Counsel all

    on 'Howell's List'.

    (d) Chapter 4 of the Gray-Howell-Kaye Conspiracy comes from my briefing, in March of

    this year, of 4 barristers, including 2 Senior Counsel and one junior counsel

    advertising themselves as prominent human rights lawyers. Two of these barristers

    (a Senior Counsel and a junior counsel) are barristers on 'Howell's List'. The day of

    the hearing was 17 March 2009 before Associate Justice Gardner, a dear friend of

    the barrister Graeme Devries who is Ms Cressy's barrister and the seventh

    defendant by counterclaim in these proceedings. Both of the barristers from Howell's

    List, including the Human Rights Senior Counsel, failed to show up for the hearing,

    despite being fully briefed and despite all of the ancient traditions of the bar,

    including the hypothetical hallowed 'taxi-cab' principle. I subsequently received an

    email from Rick Howell (back in the days when I had begun to restore my access to

    email technology before my access broke down again) informing me that all of the

    - 13 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    barristers on his list (all 200 plus) were marvellously too busy to accept a brief in my

    case [against their dear friend and fellow bar-member Graeme Devries as he is the

    seventh defendant by counterclaim in these proceedings]. At the bar, wig loyalty to

    wig takes precedence even over lip service references to taxi-rank principles that

    wigs assert as if it were some sort of justification for all sorts of wig supremecy laws

    such as the High Court's majority judgement in D'Orta-Edenke v Victoria Legal Aid

    and Anor.

    13. I recount the story of the Gray-Howell-Kaye Conspiracy not just because of the irony of the

    appearances of members of the Howell family at all 4 chapters, but to highlight the

    defectively shallow nature of the gene pool of the Victorian legal profession and how this

    contributes yet another structural impediment to the delivery of human rights to the citizens

    of this State and country. This is of course a more organic and intergenerational structuralimpediment to the more blatant inorganic structural impediments such as lack of access to

    justice (even the lawyers can't afford lawyers' as the Federal Attorney-General reports

    and 'rogue lawyers get access to unlmited blue ribbon legal aid that their vicitms are denied'

    as I report), and the natural biases in the system for judges, being ex-barristers, to protect

    their fellow (current) barristers especially in proceedings where the defendant is not

    represented (including almost half of all appeals from the Trial Division of the Victorian

    Supreme Court to the Victorian Court of Appeal). I could give dozens of other examples of

    lack of access to justice (ranging from prohibitive court fees and charges, lack of access to

    transcripts, excess formality and red tape and duplication of documents) quite apart from the

    reality that it is near impossible for a defendant like me to survive from a long-term position

    of zero income, with huge administrative charges for photocopying etc, to maintain a

    defence against even a fraudulent proceeding like this let alone to do battle against 4

    champeteering lawyers, and those 4 lawyers Government funded lawyers all the while

    dealing with the finanical and emotional fall-out from these criminal actions against me. As

    the Victorian Ombudsman notes in his 2008-09 Annual Report (incorporating a list of dirty

    and corrupt tactics complied by the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission), all these

    rogue lawyers and their Government protectors (and Government funded protectors) have to

    do is to delay out indefinitely these proceedings (for example with rounds of vexatious and

    abusive strike out applications) and I will eventually be ground down financially by the

    unsustainability of my situation that I will have nothing left to defend myself with and my

    case against them will disappear without getting within cooee of a fair hearing or fair justice.

    - 14 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    And that is the ultimate structural impediment to fair access to justice, and impediment to fair

    recognition of human rights in this State and this country. As I am now better able to

    express it, these 'elitist wig supremecy laws, attitudes, procedures and institutions' (with

    most of the latter feeding out of the public purse) are an affront to the 21st century realities

    of universal human rights laws (both those that the Common law recognises, international

    human rights treaties to which Australia is a signatory, and Hull's Victorian Charter of

    Human Rights and Responsiblities Act.

    14. I have recounted the human rights violations (denial of access to justice, denial of fair

    hearing, denial of natural justice) that occurred on and as a result of the Trial Judge

    deciding, against my logical and elaborate submissions and requests, to put Ms Cressy's

    claims against me to trial on 2 December 2008 and locking me into the February 2008

    version of my counterclaims against her and her original lawyers (David William Hanlon andHarwood Andrews Lawyers) rather than stepping the matter down for proper pre-trial

    procedures to be completed first, to enable me to continue my efforts to get independent

    legal representation, and to get a jury trial (as a protection against further lawyer-judicial

    corruption and abuse). I have recounted these human rights violations in my appeal

    documents, including my Notice under section 35 of the Charter of Human Rights and

    ResponsiblitiesAct 2006 and my previous submissions in the Court of Appeal and in the

    Masters Court (which I believe I have consistently cross-filed between these two levels of

    the Court during these contemporaneously held hearings on the same applications by the

    Legal Practitioners Liability Committee funded lawyers for Ms Cressy's original lawyers

    David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers. But as some of the readers of this

    Affidavit will not yet have full access to all of those appeal materials and submissions, I feel

    the need to summarise them again.

    (a) On 2 December 2008 I sought to have the trial date vacated so that we could have

    normal pre-trial process observed (discovery, consolidation of proceedings etc).

    Despite being a duly qualified Australian legal practitioner of 18 plus years good

    standing, I had practiced all my career in the commercial world (as an Australian

    corporate and government lawyer, including with two of the top national commercial

    law firms) and I am a complete novice when it comes to litigation and the language

    and documents and procedures of the Court. Despite my novitiate status, I drafted

    in January 2008 a holding Defence (three sentences of one line each) to Ms

    Cressy's lawyer's fraudulent Statement of Claim. In February 2008 I added to this a

    - 15 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    holding Counterclaim against Ms Cressy and her then lawyer David William Hanlon

    and his employer Harwood Andrews Lawyers. In November 2008 I drafted a revised

    counterclaim against all 3 of them and 9 others, including Ms Cressy's barrister, her

    new lawyer and his law firm, and her new barrister. I filed the revised counterclaim in

    proceedings number 9263 of 2008, as I was due to file a defence to those

    proceedings (brought against me by the mortgagee of the house I ownned that Ms

    Cressy was living in under Court orders granted 6 months earlier in the originally

    numbered proceedings). I filed a consolidation application, for both numbered

    proceedings to be heard together (the concerned the same property, and the same

    claims by Ms Cressy against me, and my reasons for being in diffulty with the

    repayment of that mortgage were the consequences of Ms Cressy's and her lawyers

    original fraudulent claims against me. My two paragraph affidavit in support of that

    consolidation application which was listed for hearing on 1 December 2008, reads

    very suscinctly:

    1. I seek the orders specified in the Summons dated on or about the same date as

    this my Affidavit for, inter alia, these proceedings to be consolidated and heard

    jointly with Supreme Court proceedings No. 9665 of 2007.

    2. These proceedings concern one, and possibly two of my properties which are the

    subject of proceedings No. 9665 of 2007, namely 2 Dorrington Street Point Cook,

    and 7 Inverloch Drive Point Cook and interlocutory orders affecting both of these,

    my properties were made in proceeding No. 9665 of 2007 by Mr Justice Cavanough

    in the Practice Court of this Honourable Court on and/or about 20 June 2008 and by

    Mr Justice Hansen on or about 14 July 2008.

    Paragraph 5 of my submission of 2 December 2008 (which I have quoted previously and have

    exhibited in full in this fragment 9263 of 2008 of these proceedings) reads suscinctly as follows:


    15. Sadly, and unlawfully the Trial Judge spent the first 3 hours of the first (4 hour) day

    hearing an unlawful application by Ms Cressy's barrister, Graeme Devries, to have me

    declared as mentally insane and unable to defend myself. The materials Graeme Devries

    - 16 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    relied upon included a psychiatrists report by a Dr Timothy Entwistle the existence of which

    had been kept secret frome me prior to 2 December 2008 (lawfully, it should have been

    disclosed to me well in advance of the trial date). Despite my requests I was refused a copy

    of that report on that day (though I was supposed to respond to it) and at other times I

    requested it during the trial. The Trial Judge did nothing to assist me to obtain a copy. I

    finally obtained a copy via the Law Instiutute of Victoria's Professional Standards Division,

    as delegate of the Legal Services Board and its chief executive, the Legal Services

    Commissioner in May 2009. This was some six months after the Trial Judge's ruling on his

    and Devries' unlawful insanity inquistion of me [a beautiful piece of illegal blood sport]. It

    was also some months after the Trial Judge's erroneous judgement in favour of Ms Cressy

    and her lawyers and her lawyers' [Legal Practitiioners Liability EVASION Committee funded]

    lawyers. That Psychicatric report erroneously misdiagnosed me as suffering from narcisstic

    personality disorders. That erroneous diagnosis was due to the psychiatrist putting reliance

    on Ms Cressy's malicious lies about me even despite the psychiatrists diagnosis of her far

    more disturbing mental problems and that she was well practised in the arts of deception.

    Even though the psychiatrist grossly under diagnoses Ms Cressy's illnesses, his report

    spoke more of the deceptive and unlawful nature of Ms Cressy's and her lawyers' claims

    against me, and would have been invaluable for my defence and counterclaims if I had been

    provided with a copy of that report and opportunity to subpoena that psychiatrist to give

    evidence at the trial. The making of that application, and the biased way that Ms Cressy's

    lawyer Graeme Devries' and the Trial Judge made use of it, created substantial bias andprejudice from which this trial process was never going to recover. It is clear to me, and

    evidenced from the 16 days of transcript that followed, that the Trial Judge had already pre-

    judged this case, as a result of the prejudicial and inaccurate information improperly

    presented to him by Graeme Devries during that first 3 hours of unlawful insanity

    inquisition against me. The Chief Justice and the Attorney General for Victoria should be

    immediately standing Justice Kay down from the bench, pending full investigation and laying

    of criminal charges (for perversion and corruption) for what occurred during those first 3

    hours on 2 December 2008 alone, even without regard to all of the other subsequent thingsthat he did that also require investigation and laying of charges.

    16. Grossly side-tracked and displeased by the unlawful insanity application (although

    expressing his gratituted to Graeme Devries for initiating that unlawful process) the Trial

    Judge refused to see reason and refused to require natural justice (including normal pre-trial

    - 17 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    procedures) to be observed. Justice Kaye insisted on proceeding with the trial, even though

    none of the pleadings were settled, mine were unhinged between two differently numbered

    proceedings so I was thrown back to the 11 month old, draft counterclaims documents, and

    none of the parties were ready for trial. This was demonstrated by Graeme Devries moving

    to amend Ms Cressy's Statement of Claim after she had given evidence, as a result of my

    cross-examination of her, and his desire to manipulate and exploit the dark side of her that

    my cross-examination had exposed. I thought that it must have been unlawful for a plaintiff

    to amend their twelve month old claim not only during the trial, but when her evidence had

    been presented and her case all but closed. It seems from the High Court decision in AON v

    ANU handed down on 7 August 2008, that the Full High Court agrees with my judgement on

    this point and not with the judgement of Justice Kaye. Justice Kaye's judgement totally

    stinks having regard to his failure to allow me to argue my case against David William

    Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Laywers according to my November 2008 revision of my

    counterclaims. There is the strong stench of lack of 'equality under the law' and lack of 'right

    to a fair trial' and protection from 'torture and degrading treatment' (3 basic human rights

    protected since 1 January 2008 by the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities

    Act 2006). Justice Kaye should be stood down pending investigation and laying of criminal

    charges as a consequence of this poor (to put it kindly and least colorfully) judgement on his

    part. There is also a tie in with the 'Gray-Howell-Kaye Conspiracy' here. In his closing

    paragraphs in the 2008 VCAT case Alshakshir v Lennon Mazzeo Lawyers (chapter 3 of

    the Gray-Howell-Kaye Conspiracy). Senior Member Malcolm Howell reports at paragraphs25 and 26 of his judgement:

    '25. It will be recalled that Mr Alashakshir relied in the present proceedings upon a letteer

    received from the Court Advice Officer at the Magistrates' Court. In substance, the letter

    informed Mr Alshakshir that, because the proceedings in the Magistrates Court had

    concluded, he could raise the issues that he wanted to raise by lodging a new complaint.

    26. The advice given in that letter was misleading, partly because the letter faild to take into

    account that most of the issues that Mr Alshakshir wished to raise already had been

    determined by the Magistrates' court, and partly because it failed to mention that Mr

    Alshakshir might be estopped from raising additional issues in a separate proceeding.'

    17. It is disgraceful that a Supreme Court Judge, Justice Kaye, should make the same mistakes

    as a court Advice Officer at a Magistrates Court, namely Justice Kaye's ruling that he could

    - 18 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    proceed to hear Ms Cressy's original complaint against me, without prejudice to my

    counterclaims filed under proceeding number 9263 of 2008. Lazily, and with singular

    stupidity, Justice Kaye did not bother even looking at the contents of my counterclaims filed

    in proceedings number 9263 until February 2009, some 2 months after he made that ruling..

    What Justice Kaye did with his misleading and failing ruling is falsely create the impression,

    which of course Ms Cressy's Legal Practitioners Liability (EVASION) Committee funded

    lawyers have corruptly seized upon, of claiming that my revised counterclaim filed under

    proceedings number 9263 of 2008 give rise to estoppels, as in Port of Melbourne

    Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589, when nothing could be further from the

    truth. This injustice follows from misleading and failing rulings and judgements by a

    Supreme Court Judge and ought not act as an estoppel or any other barrier to justice

    (especially when those orders and judgements are subject to on-going appeals). Ms

    Cressy's lawyers (and her lawyers lawyers) should not be allowed to benefit from the wrong-

    doings and mistakes that they induced the Trial Judge to make. Such incompetence (or

    worse) might be forgiven in a Court Advice Officer of a Magistrates Court, but for a Supreme

    Court Judge to demonstrate such wanton lack of technical knowledge and care requires that

    Justice Kaye be stood down pending investigation and laying of criminal charges. Judges,

    of any level of any level of Court, simply should not behave in ways that give rise to so many

    serious complaints of incompetence, bias and misconduct all in just the one case. I note

    that my complaints of Ms Cressy's lawyers, and of Justice Kaye are very temperate and

    mild, having regard to the recent criticisms and judgements of lawyers and judges recentlypublished by the Victorian Attorney-General and by the Federal Attorney-General.

    18. I sought before Justice Kaye to proceed to air my complaints aginst ms Cressy's former and

    present lawyers according to the Legal Services Comissioner's written directions of May

    2009. I knew that those directions were bunkum but felt I had no choice but do do so. I was

    expecting that the Trial Judge would ignore my protests, but wished to make them so that

    the Legal Services Commissioner would have no logical grounds to refuse to re-hear my

    complaints once the trial was finished. I sought to get the Trial Judge to publish a ruling that

    would at least clarify that Justice Gray's 1993 decision had no crimping impact on the Legal

    Services Commissioner's very clear responsiblities under section 6.3.3 of the 2004 Legal

    Practice Act. The Transcript is quite revealing of my efforts, with many passages recording

    tha the Trial Judge was quite hostile and even abusive to my attempts, and this is reflected

    - 19 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    in his published (and unpublished) orders and rulings, including his draconian orders as to

    costs against me.

    19. On 11 February 2009 I was devastated by Justice Kaye's rulings against me that Ms

    Cressy's original lawyers, David William Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers had nocase to answer against my claims. Worse, Justice Kaye accused my counterclaims of being

    vexatious and abusive when I was only defending myself against the vexatious and

    abusive claims against me. With singular stupidity, Justice Kaye ruled that I had violated

    David William Hanlon's and Harwood Andrews Pty Ltd's human rights (to the best of my

    knowledge whatever the lack of human rights countries afford to their humans, artificial

    entities like exempt proprietary corporations law entities do not enjoy human rights anwhere

    in the world, except perhaps in Justice Kaye's court pending appeal), not vice versa.

    Justice Kaye ruled that I had abused my privileges as a barrister and solicitor to defame andabuse them from the privileged position of the bar table, not vice versa. This was even after

    I had given an impassioned submission that such ancient privileges, relics from the days

    when the King, and all the Kings horses and all the Kings men, could do no wrong, were

    ipso facto violations of human rights (including equality under the law, rights to fair hearings

    and natural justice) that no longer have any rightful place in a modern democracy that is

    constitutionally and politically committed to principles of universal human rights and the

    concept of equality under the law. This was even after I had given an impassioned

    submission that lawyers should have to set higher standards of professional care and ethics,

    for holding themselves out as leaders by example for the community, so any inequality in the

    law should be to the privilege of the common people rather than to protect lawyers from

    liablities for negligence, fraud, defamation and other like rules, as made by lawyers to be

    applied to non-lawyers. Rules that lawyers seem to think ought not apply to them equally,

    let alone more equally.

    20. On 25 Febraury 2009 I was devastated by the Trial Judge's judgement. His judgement

    totally ignored the independent evidence. His judgement totally ignored my closing

    submissions of 13 February 2009. His judgement totally ignored his comments during the

    trial as to the paucity of the evidence presented by Ms Cressy's lawyers. His judgement

    was replete with errors of law and errors of fact. No doubt His Honour was, even before I

    gave my closing submissions on 13 February 2009, already locked into ruling in favour of

    Ms Cressy's claim; any other judgement would have exposed the flaws of process, fact and

    law in His Honour's ruling on 11 February 2009 that Ms Cressy's lawyers David William

    - 20 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    Hanlon and Harwood Andrews Lawyers had no case to answer not no answer to my case

    against them. His Honour's criticism of me, that I had failed to produce any evidence that

    Ms Cressy's lawyers failed to produce any evidence at trial to justify them promoting her

    crazy claims against me is absurd. His Honour had eyes and ears enough to call out the

    paucity of the evidence [not] presented by Ms Cressy's lawyers. His Honour lacked the

    moral courage and all the hallmarks of a true justice to judge, to make a judgement,

    accordingly. Instead, His Honour totally ignored the lack of due process, His Honour ignored

    the hard (independent) evidence, His Honour ignored the applicable laws and decades of

    High Court precedents, His Honour ignored his own findings as to Ms Cressy's unreliability

    and untruthfullness as a witness (from which He should as a matter of law ruled her a

    witness of zero credibility and indeed prosecuted her for perjury and numerous other

    evidentiary offences wildly and unjustifiable sledged me as a liar at large [as Devries

    maliciously paraphrased Him, a person who thinks the truth is dependent on the purposes

    at hand - an apt description of Devries himselfnot me] without pointing out any single piece

    of my testimony that was not corroborated by independent evidence [I had told the Trial

    Judge before putting myself in the witness box to question myself in chief that I was well

    aware of Devries tendancy to make these sorts of claims, and I was well aware of the

    dangers of the situation of me being a barrister and solicitor and officer of the Court of 18

    years good standing for whom any adverse findings as to honesty or character would be

    serious findings professionally as well as personally, and for this reason I would be confining

    my testimony to only giving evidence corroborating the independent evidence]. I have now,this month of September, read the two days plus of Devries closing submissions [excusing

    myself from Court on those three days because there was no need and no benefit to me

    being in Court those days]. I have commented on my amazemment that Devries spent more

    than twice as long in closing submissions as he did in presenting his client's evidence. In

    now understand why. Not content with leading and deceiving the Trial Judge from the

    witness box, notwithstanding gleefully promoting Ms Cressy's lie filled claims,

    notwithstanding deliberately and unlawfully concealling Ms Cressy's mental health problems

    from the Trial Judge whilst falsely promoting will malicious lies that I suffered mental healthproblems. Not content with unlawfully changing Ms Cressy's story after she gave evidence

    (adding to or replacing her Mrs Brady Statement of Claim with a Heidi Fleiss Amended

    Statement of Claim) without bringing any evidence to support either set of claims. Graeme

    Devries should have, in closing been summarising Ms Cressy's pauce evidence and

    fraudlent claims. nstead of making findings based on the evidence. Instead, Devries spent

    - 21 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    notwithstanding her pauce [in truth, non-existent] evidence and the paucity of her lawyers

    excuses for not having any evidence to support their claims. The Trial Judge was simply not

    lawfully entitled to make the findings that he made on which he based his judgements in

    favour of Ms Cressy and her lawyers and her lawyers' lawyers. Further bias was

    demonstrated by comparison of Justice Kaye's attitude towards me during my closing

    submissions on 13 February 2009 (just one day of closing submissions since the blood

    sports of the afternoon of 11 February 2009 violated not only the Geneva Convention) but

    compared to two plus days of closing by Devries which were as evidenced by the transcript

    much appreciated by the Trial Judge. This was an injustice of degree probably

    unparrallelled in the history of the Victorian Supreme Court. This injustice is amply

    evidenced not just by those transcripts but by my 36 page Notice under section 35 of the

    Charter of Human Rights and Responsiblities Act 2006, and my 300 pages of

    attachments thereto, including my notices of appeal numbered as proceedings 3731 of

    2009 and 3766 of 2009.

    21. On 25 February 2009 I asked the Trial Judge if he had at least made a ruling to clarify for the

    Legal Services Commissioner her legal responsiblities under section 6.3.3 are as plainly

    spelled out in that twenty-first century law of the Victorian parliament, without any fetter or

    overriding by the 1993 decision of Justice Gray in Delahunty v Howell and Mann. Justice

    Kaye replied that he didn't mention that case in his judgement because he viewed it as self-

    evident, as he had said many times, that investigation of misconduct complaints is the

    responsiblitiy of the Legal Services Commissioner, and not the Trial Judges. I note that the

    Victorian Ombudsman, judging by his 2008-09 Annual Report to Parliament, agrees that the

    Trial Judge at least got this point of law right. For what it is worth, there was subsequent

    discussion of these provisions, bizarrely, Graeme Devries sought unsuccesfully to

    encourage Justice Kaye to make a formal misconduct complaint about me to the Legal

    Services Commissioner. Such is the lot of a man like me who dares to defend himself and

    his family against powerful injustice by powerful and corrupt, privileged people. While I left

    Court at 1pm that day, I understand from the transcript that those discussions continued

    between Graeme Devries and Justice Kaye for about an hour following the lunch break.

    Justice Kaye demonstrated no appetite to participate any further in any more of Graeme

    Devries witchhunts though the following day (as I discovered many weeks later) Federal

    Magistrate Daniel O'Dwyer was considerably more malleable to satisfying Devies 'strong

    - 23 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    urgings' as demonstrated in the materials attached to my section 35 Notice under the

    Charter of Human Rights and Responsiblities Act 2006.

    22. Having regard to the Legal Services Commissioners letter of May 2008 claiming no power to

    investigate misconduct complaints against Australian legal practitioners or to promptlyresolve disputes between Australian legal practitioners according to the plain words of

    section 6.3.3 of the Legal Practice Act 2004, I had not bothered to make a formal

    misconduct complaint regarding Graeme Devres. I had instead filed in the Supreme Court

    proceedings my 36 page Affidavit of 8 July 2008 and the 60 or so exhibited pages of

    supporting documents (some in Graeme Devries own fatuous hand).

    23. Having regard to Justice Kayes statements during December 2008 that it was the Legal

    Services Commisisoners' responsibility to investigate misconduct complaints against

    Australian legal practitioners and to promptly resolve disputes between Australian legal

    practitioners according to the plain words of section 6.3.3 of the Legal Practice Act 2004, in

    late January 2009 I wrote the the Legal Services Board and to its chief executive, the Legal

    Services Commissioner making formal complaints of misconduct against Graeme Devries

    and his instructors, and against the Legal Services Comissioner herself. These materials

    included a subpoena for Ms Marles to come and give evidence and to produce records

    before Justice Kaye (as I felt I needed to do this (a) so that Ms Marles could put her position

    directly to the Trial Judge claiming that only the Trial Judge had power to hear my

    misconduct complaint against Ms Cressy's lawyers; and (b) explaining why I had tried to put

    all the details of my complaints before the Trial Judge. I faxed these materials to Ms Marles

    and hand delivered these complaints materials to all of the board members of the Legal

    Services Board (including Ms Marles) a few days later. I also addressed these complaints to

    the Victorian Attorney-General.

    24. In early February 2009 I received from Mr Colin Miles AO, the Chairman of the Legal

    Services Board, an embarrassing letter from him claiming that his Board had no

    responsibility to investigate complaints, even whistleblower complaints of the kind protectedby the Whistleblowers Protection Act against its chief executive officer.

    25. In early February 2009 I received a letter from Ms Macnamara, the in-house lawyer for the

    Legal Services Commissioner and the Legal Services Board. That letter is grossly

    embarrassing to her and to the Legal Services Commissioner. It starts by stating that the

    - 24 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    evidence I wish Ms Marles to give is irrelevant to the issues at trial before Justice Kaye

    despite her letter of May 2008 telling me that I had to make every detail of my complaint

    against Ms Cressy's lawyers an issue at the trial or else be estopped on Delahunty v

    Howell and Mann principles from making misconduct complaints against those lawyers.

    The letter also claims that the documents I subpoenaed the Legal Services Commissioner to

    supply were privileged despite her legal obligations to discover them to me personally and

    to the Courts. More bizarrely, the Legal Services Commissioner put an argument that my

    subpoena was not relevant to the issues in dispute in those proceedings but I was abusing

    the process of the Court by using those proceedings to fish for evidence to support my

    claims in my 'new', second proceedings, when the Trial Judge should have combined and

    heard them as one and the same proceeding.

    26. On 9 February 2009, with the Legal Services Commissioner hiding in the corridoor outside

    Court Room 5, whilst her legal counsel Mr Other put these three embarrassing arguments

    (and, for the first time, the Trial Judge actually looked at parts of my counterclaims filed in

    proceedings number 9263 of 2008), the Trial Judge ruled that my subpoena was an abuse

    of process, when he should have ruled that the Legal Comissioners bunkum legal position

    was an abuse of process. The Trial Judge upheld Mr Other's application that me, a citizen

    seeking to have a government authority do its statutory duty, should be hit with paying the

    government authority's legal costs - punishment of me as a citizen for exercising my

    supposed but clearly non-existent rights to blow the whistle on a recalcitrant and

    dysfunctional government agency. It gives me some quantum of solace that the Victorian

    Ombudsman's own investigation of the Legal Services Comissioner vindicates my stance

    and illustrates the corruption, misconduct and incompetence of the Legal Servicees

    Commissioner of which I complain.

    27. On 19 March 2009 I wrote to the Attorney-General and the Chairman of the Legal Services

    Board advising that I was withdrawing my counterclaims against the Attorney-General and

    against the Legal Services Comissioner, notwithstanding the merit, because, as far as the

    Legal Services Comissioner was concerned, Justice Kaye had already clarified the Legal

    Services Comissioner's obligations to investigate misconduct complaints against Australian

    legal practitioners and to promptly resolve disputes between Australian legal practitioners

    according to the plain words of section 6.3.3 of the Legal Practice Act 2004 I was unilaterally

    withdrawing my counterclaim against the Legal Services Comissioner.

    - 25 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    28. On 17 March 2009 I issued a press release summarising the Legal Services Commissioners

    misconduct and implications of her systemic failures over several years for the quality and

    standards of justice in Victoria. I note that my conclusions are independently supported by

    the Victorian Ombudsman's own investigations of the 95 complaints his office had received

    about the Legal Services Comissioner, and his findings that the Legal Commissioner's staff

    (including it seems her in-house lawyers like Ms Maragaret Macnamara) had no

    appreciation of her legal responsiblities under the Legal Practice Act (though a reading of

    section 6.3.3 is not too taxing certainly it's written up in english, not rocket science)) and

    her staff lack basic investigation skills. Like the Victoria Ombudsman, in my ealier press

    release I roundly condemned the Legal Services Commissioner for her culpable dereliction

    of her 2 key duties under section 6.3.3 of the Legal Practice Act. I suspect that the true state

    of decay in the Legal Services Comissioner's office is substantially worse than the rather

    polite and proper language used by the Victorian Ombudsman in his Annual Report of 2008-

    09 which is never the less a model of frightening condemnation warranting a proper

    independent corruption and misconduct commission and, having regard to my own situation,

    the laying of criminal charges against Ms Marles and possibly her senior officers as well. I

    revised and re-issued that press release in April 2009.

    29. On 26 March 2009 I filed and served my Amended Defence and Counterclaim in these

    proceedings and communicate this (including the withdrawal of my counterclaims against

    the Attorney-General and the Legal Services Commissioner) to the Attorney-General and to

    the Chairman of the Legal Services Board (of which the Legal Services Commissioner is a

    board member and chief executive officer).

    30. Considerable confusion was caused by certain unlawful rulings by Associate Justice Evans

    in April 2008 (including his failure to stand down despite manifest 'apprehended bias' as

    even his dear friend Graeme Devries the seventh defendant had conceeded to his dear

    friend Associate Justice Gardiner on 17 March 2009) who ruled my Amended Defence and

    Counterclaim as wholly, or maybe just partially (as against the original plaintiff, a subsidiary

    of ANZ Bank) invalid. This led to a suggestion that I maybe because of Associate Justice

    Evan's unlawful rulings maybe I had not been effective in formally withdrawn my then

    counterclaims against the Attorney-General and the Legal Services Commissioner. This is

    attested to in Attachment B to my Section 35 Notice under the Charter of Human Rights

    and Responsiblities Act 2006

    - 26 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    31. I am aware of a letter that the Legal Services Commissioner wrote to me in late February

    2009 inviting me to withdraw my counterclaim against her, suggesting that if I accepted that

    offer she would not seek costs orders against me me. I did not see this letter until after I

    had written to the Attorney-General and the Chairman of the Legal Services Board (of which

    she is chief executive and a board member as well as Legal Services Commissioner). I

    thought that the lack of communication her apparent or pretend unawareness of my

    withdrawal of my claim was typical of the dysfunctionality of the Legal Services

    Commissioner and the Legal Services Board (just as the Victorian Ombudsman has

    commented on at length in his recent Annual Report).

    32. On 16 April 2009 the Legal Services Commissioner filed the Summons pursuant to which

    she is now seeking orders for me to pay her costs of her involvement in these proceedings.

    This is a summons that she filed, a full 4 weeks after my letter to the Attorne-General and to

    the Chairman of the Legal Services Board voluntarily withdrawing my counterclaim against

    her contained in my original Defence and Counterclaim filed in this fragment of the

    proceedings number 9263 of 2008. Marles is by express operation of the relevant

    provisions of the Legal Practice Act 2004 the chief executive officer of the Legal Services

    Board and a board member of the Legal Services Board by virtue of her statutory

    appointment as the Legal Services Commissioner. As a matter of basic corporations law

    Ms Marles cannot pretend that my letter of 17 February 2009 was not effective to inform her,

    4 weeks before she issued her summons, that I was no longer proceeding with that claim

    against her. The letter that I sent to her chairman and fellow board member of the Legal

    Services Board (of which she has day to day executive control as that Board's top executive

    officer) was equally received by her office for the purposes of her duties as Legal Services

    Commissioner. It is impossible for the chief executive of the Legal Services Board to keep

    secrets from herself as Legal Services Commissioner.

    33. On 23 September 2009 I received a further 14 letters from the Legal Services

    Commissioner, with 12 of them continuing to assert her Gray-HOwell-Kaye Conspiracy

    position notwithstanding Justice Kaye's contrary rulings and pronouncements during the

    course of those proceedings and notwithstanding all of my efforts and correspondences

    trying to educate the Legal Services Commissioner that the words in section 6.3.2(a) of the

    Legal Practice Act actually mean what they say.

    - 27 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    34. My understanding is that the Court retains a general discretion as to the costs orders it will

    make. This is an application for costs, sought by way of a summons taken out in April 2009

    a month after the plaintiff (by counterclaim) in March 2009 voluntarily withdrew a claim filed

    in November 2008 following judicial rulings and pronouncements made during December

    2008 and February 2009 vindicating the point of law that the defendant (plaintiff by

    counterclaim) was seeking judicial clarification. This is an important point of law that the

    costs applicant had a statutory duty to clarify herself, the very first time that a Delahunty v

    Howell and Mann type fact situation arose after the creation of her office in 2004. Instead,

    we have the costs applicant, that is a grossly incompetent organ of the State (according to

    the Victorian State Ombudsman's 2008-09 Annual Report) who through its stupidity and

    incompetence and as a 'wig supremecist institution' has caused considerable mischief and

    inconvenience to a citizen (including considerable wrath from Justice Kaye) who is now

    seeking to punish that citizen for having the temerity for being one of 95 citizens who

    complained to the Victorian State Ombudsman and actually sought to do something about it

    by getting judicial clarification of the law.

    35. Clearly this costs application by the Legal Services Commissioner is an obscenity in timing

    and design and its underlying intentions. It is in all the circumstances yet another unlawful

    reprisal action by the chief officer a siamese-twin public authority against a citizen of the kind

    that is a criminal offence under this State's whistleblowers protection legislation. Even if it

    weren't, since the citizen succesfully obtained clarification of the relevant point of law (the

    absolute confirmation being Justice Kaye's 'closing' remarks on 25 February 2009) the Legal

    Services Commissioner should as a matter of good government compensating me for the

    cost and inconvenience caused by her gross misunderstanding of her statutory duties and


    36. I submit that as a matter of law, policy and discretion the Legal Services Commissioner's

    application should be dimissed as being vexatious and an abuse of process.

    37. I submit that as a matter of law, policy and discretion (including having regard to the 'litigant-solicitor' rules for recover of costs I have referred to in earlier submissions in these

    proceedings (including copies of relevant paragraphs from Professor Gerald Dal Pont's

    Treatise on the Law of Costs (now in its fifth edition), the Court should order the Legal

    Services Commissioner to pay me a fixed amount of $23,100 (including $2,100 GST)

    - 28 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)


    without set-off or adjustment, representing my costs measured on these principles, which I

    calculate as follows.

    Costs for day (2 hour) appearance at first hearing of Summons $1,100.00Costs for day appearance at second hearing of Summons $1,100.00

    Costs for day appearance at third hearing of Summons on 4 June2009


    Costs for reviewing and preparing correspondences with LSC - day (4 hours)


    Costs of reviewing 2 July and 7 July Submissions and materials, andcompiling this Affidavit and accompanying Affidavit and exhibits,including extensive review of transcript of proceedings 9655 of 2007etc (28 hours)


    Allowance for further hearing of Summons (judgment) - day $1,100.00

    TOTAL (INCLUDING GST OF $2,100.00) $23,100.00

    38. In support of my application for costs, I note that the Legal Services Commissioner has had

    plenty of opportunities since 9 July 2009 to accept my offer of compromising this figure to

    $16,500 but has failed to take up those opportunities.

    39. In support of my application for costs I ask that the Court consider applying whatever

    discretions the Court may have to increase the amount of costs ordered above $23,10

    and/or expediting the date specified in the order for payment of the ordered amount to me,

    having regard to the aggravating factors behind this cost application and public policy

    reasons for making any exemplory or other awards as to costs.

    SWORN AT Geelong in Victoria on 2 October 2009

    Signature of deponent

    Before me:


    - 29 -

  • 8/14/2019 Affidavit of Harold James Johnson 20090921 (LSC Costs Narrative)



    PIPPIN PATRICIA CRESSY(First Defendant by Counterclaim)

    DAVID HANLON (Second Defendant by Counterclaim)

    HARWOOD ANDREWS PTY LTD ABN 98 076 868 034(Third Defendant by Counterclaim)

    RICHARD INGLEBY(Fourth Defendant by Counterclaim)

    JAMES TURNBULL(Fifth Defendant by Counterclaim)

    BERRY FAMILY LAW PTY (A FIRM) ABN 73 385 524 664 (Sixth Defendant by Counterclaim)

    GRAHAM A DEVRIES(Seventh Defendant by Counterclaim)

    DAVID J LIST(Eighth Defendant by Counterclaim)

    DANIEL ODWYER(Ninth Defendant by Counterclaim)

    LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER(Tenth Defendant by Counterclaim)

    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR VICTORIA(Eleventh Defendant by Counterclaim)

    MINISTER FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES(Twelfth Defendant by Counterclaim)


    (Thirteenth Defendant by Counterclaim)