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 20 August 2009 *** IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION

TO: Ms Miranda Milne (CEO Legal Practitioners TO: Ms Jennifer Sheehan

Liability AVOIDANCE Committee “LPLAC”) (Associate to Associate Justice Lansdowne)
By Facsimile: 9670 5538 By Facsimile: 9603 6050
TO: Mr Joe Saltalamacchia CC: Ms Cath Mukhtar
Prothonotary, Supreme Court of Victoria (Associate to Associate Justice Daly)
By Facsimile: 9603 9400 By Facsimile: 9603 9320
(please copy to Justice Kaye)
TO: Ms Rena Sofraniou CC: Mr Peter Rashleigh
(barrister funded by LPLAC for Harwood (solicitor funded by LPLAC for barrister Richard
Andrews Lawyers) By Facsimile: 9229 5050 Ingleby) By Facsimile: 9274 5111
TO: Ms Radhika Mendis CC: Mr Howard Obst
(solicitor funded by LPLAC for Harwood (solicitor funded by LPLAC for barrister Graeme
Andrews Lawyers) Devries) By Facsimile: 9605 3499
By Facsimile: 9670 2723
CC: Ms Allison Grice CC: Ms Margaret McNamara (solicitor to the legal
(solicitor funded by LPLAC for Berry Family practitioners non-regulator "LSC")
Law) By Facsimile: 9603 9320 By Facsimile: 9679 8101
CC: Mr Gerry Davies (solicitor not funded by LPLAC TO: Berry Family Law
representing Dr David List) By Facsimile: 9399 9006
By Facsimile: 9600 0894

Dear Brothel-gate participants

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
Message for all addressees
1. I refer to my facsimiles of 9 August 2009.
2. Here are my submissions that I gave at the third Court of Appeal Hearing on Friday 14 August 2009 (this
is an application by LPLC funded lawyers for Harwood Andrews and David Hanlon, a vexatious and
abusive application seeking to deny me the right to appeal against the errors of process, errors of law
and errors of (foundation) facts made by the Judge at first instance upholding Ms Sofraniou’s ‘no case to
answer’ application and ordering me to reimburse to the LPLC all of the (in the order of $250,000) in
legal costs the LPLC will have by this time paid to Ms Sofraniou and her instructors, Lander & Rogers to
protect Hanlon and Harwood Andrews from the madness that they instigated against me 2 years ago. I
include copies of the relevant paragraphs from Professor Gerard Dal Pont’s treatise on Costs regarding
solicitor-litigant costs – since I anticipate that these are most educational to the bevy of ignorant litigation

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 1 of Many
 lawyers heavy-handling these proceedings. I also handed up copies of the High Court judgements in
Baumgartner v Baumgartner and Johnson v Johnson (no relation) which I referred to in submissions.
3. I can report that the Chief Justice and AJA Coghlan were very receptive of my articulated grounds of
objection (which required 30 minutes of Ms Sofraniou’s time to describe to them) and my submissions
that the application should be struck out by the Court of Appeal (ditto the parallel application in the
Masters Court) and the LPLC and/or its insureds be ordered to pay my costs, on usual solicitor-litigant
principles, on a full indemnity basis.
4. I can report that the Chief Justice and AJA Coghlan were visibly concerned at the seriousness of the
situation:
a. Where Harwood Andrews and their successors have clocked up some $350,000 on their time
sheets, issued process at the Titles Office (caveats), took charges and caveats themselves,
issued Ms Cressy’s Statement of Claim against me solely on the basis of her wild and
unsubstantiated allegations:
i. Without gathering any evidence - Without ever gathering the sort of
evidence necessary to form a body of evidence on which they could have
assessed the merits of her claims or advised her properly on the prospects of
her claim, no body of evidence on which they might have based an opinion as
to whether Ms Cressy had a legitimate claim, that is, whether it was proper for
them to issue legal proceedings on a proper view that it was to vindicate any
legitimate rights that she possessed (rather than being for ulterior purposes of
seeking ‘hurt money’ from me to avoid the pain and damage and suffering of
enduring legal process to dispose of her bogus claim);
ii. Shutting their eyes to the evidence – evidence piling up on their doorsteps
that indicated that Ms Cressy was emotionally and mentally disturbed (a self-
confessed compulsive liar) and her claims were fraudulent. Listing these:
1. October 2007 - The Police and Psychiatric Hospital Reports, and the
witness statement from her neighbour, recording Ms Cressy’s abuse of
her children (including battering her 8 year old daughter (my alleged
love child)) destruction of her home I had provided to her;
2. November - December 2007 – Police reports of Ms Cressy’s breaking
into my home while I was sleeping and stealing vast quantities (5
archive boxes and several bags) of my records, my mobile phones etc
etc.
3. December 2007 – Dr List’s Report which (apart from being criminally
defamatory of me) contains Ms Cressy’s confessions to the September

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 2 of Many
 assault of her children, her November aggravated burglary of me, her
history of prostitution, and a whole series of wild allegations by Ms
Cressy against me. First interview, Ms Cressy tells Dr List that she has
‘no problem with Illyana spending equal time with James, week about,
eventually.’ After Dr List breaches the confidentiality in which I raised
Ms Cressy’s problems with him, Dr List discussed them with her. She
retaliates with wild false allegations that I am a drunken violent, drug
taking incestuous pedophile who was kicked out of home by my mother
while in my teens for raping my infant niece, that I confessed this to her
while under the influence of illegal drugs and she was too frightened for
Illyana’s safety to discuss this with my mother. Where was Dr List’s
moral compass and bullshit meter at this time? If Dr List had put these
crazy allegations to me I could have told him (a) my mother died 10
years before I met Ms Cressy [I will circulate the Death Certificate and
my Eulogy for my mother separately] (b) my niece, now in her early
20’s has never been sexually abused by anyone; (c) I left home in my
mid 20s, after securing a fully time academic position at Monash Uni,
so I had a good income to still support my mother financially, whilst
moving into my own Ashburton flat (and 10 th Floor Monash Uni Office)
and completing my law studies part time. In short, this was another
patently crazy lie by Ms Cressy who describes herself in her diaries as
“I am in truth a beautiful liar”.
iii. Shutting their eyes to credible warnings – my occasional comments that
Harwood Andrews were my ‘neighbours, friends and employees’ for 8 years,
including at the time they instigated Ms Cressy’s legal actions against me is
not some cute point that they had a technical, legalistic conflict in acting
against me. It is not some kindergarten “my friends are being mean to me”
point as Ms Sofraniou repeatedly misdescribes it to the Courts, it is that
Harwood Andrews (a) in addition to failing to gather evidence (presenting
nothing of substance at trial to support Ms Cressy’s claims – because no such
evidence could exist)B; (b) shutting their eyes to the damaging independent
evidence building up at their doorstep [noted in paragraphs (ii) above; (c)
received warnings from a credible source that their client Ms Cressy was a
fraudster with serious mental and emotional problems. These were not
anonomous warnings from a random stranger. They were warnings coming
from a solicitor of 18 years good standing. SO they were warnings that should

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 3 of Many
 have triggered Harwood Andrews to gather and receive and assess the
evidence. They were warnings coming from a solicitor they had a multi-million
dollar 8 year relationship (probably the most lucrative retainer for their firm), a
first name relationship with their Chairman (Richard Anderson) and senior
partner (Warwick Nelson). SO they were warnings that should have triggered
Harwood Andrews to gather and receive and assess the evidence. They were
warnings from someone who had known their client, and watched over and
protected and financially and emotionally supported Ms Cressy (out feelings of
compassion for her, and feelings of in locus parenti towards her children (and
even the lady herself and her extended family) for some 8 or 9 years. SO they
were warnings that should have triggered Harwood Andrews to gather and
receive and assess the evidence.
b. But what did Harwood Andrews do? They shut their eyes to their professional
responsiblities. As the judge at first instance comments in Part 2 of his trilogy of
judgement, every practitioner with more than a few days in the profession knows that it
is wrong to issue legal proceedings without first being satisfied that the client has a
legitimate claim. And that professional judgement can only come about based on a
gathering of evidence. But Harwood Andrews, they don’t gather evidence [the proof
being the ‘paucity of evidence’ presented by Mr Devries at trial]. Harwood Andrews
don’t receive the evidence piling on their doorstep. Harwood Andrews ignore the
credible warnings. Harwood Andrews even go as far as interfering in the police
investigations – certainly they abused and perverted the course of justice by (a)
coaching Ms Cressy on what to say to try to get off being charged for aggravated
burglary [the judge at first instance saw through this]; (b) by subpoenaing the stolen
goods (or at least so much as Ms Cressy had coughed up to the police at that point
[as demonstrated at trial, more documents were coughed up by her to Harwood
Andrews and given to me at Court on 12 March 2008; and yet more were found by me
abandoned by Ms Cressy in a mess of rubbish, animal faeces and food wastes in the
garage at my Point Cook home where she lived until a week or so before the trial.
None of those stolen documents had any relevance to the shared custody application
under the Family Law Act. None of those documents had any relevance. Harwood
Andrews also, and Berry Family Law and Graeme Devries with even greater
vehemence, engaged in a series of abusive and vexatious applications in the Practice
Court, cumulating in the matter being set down for hearing in December 2008 on a
fraudulent 2 day estimate, without being certified by them as ready for trial, without
any pre-trial processes – not discovery and no orders for proper discovery – and

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 4 of Many
 without settled pleadings. Berry Family Law / Devries file an Affidavit of Documents for
Ms Cressy, attaching the March 2008 instalment of additional but irrelevant, stolen
documents none of which were produced or relied on at the trial. Then they front up
with 20 or so exhibits at trial – all of the weakest circumstantial and/or grossly
defective calibre, including a couple of documents that were stolen goods. None of
these Plaintiff’s exhibits were discovered by way of supplementary affidavit of
documents. Few were put to Ms Cressy in evidence in chief so I could cross-
examiner on their (in some cases) unlawful origins. These were put to me in cross-
examination, including two which constituted Mr Devries handling stolen goods, which
I am sure remains a crime even where the criminal does this in the hallowed confines
of a Court from the privilege and protected space of the bar table. Harwood Andrews
(and on passing the baton) continue on their champeteering way to clocking up
$350,000 for which they receive only $3,000 from Ms Cressy. They are playing for
high stakes (not just to extort their fees, but to cover up their unethical and unlawful
conduct and salvage what little reputation they have as lawyers / family lawyers). It’s
November 2007 and so that her and their caveats don’t lapse when I challenge them,
Harwood Andrews and Counsel, Richard Ingleby, draw up a Statement of Claim
(proforma, paint by numbers from an off the shelf-precedent) painting Ms Cressy as a
regular 1970’s Mrs Brady. We start the trial on 2 December 2008 [When for so many
reasons as I articulated in my written submission of that morning – eg paragraph 5
thereof – the matter needed to be put off for discovery, consolidation, finalisation of
pleadings (after interrogatories etc etc)]. Devries announces that Ms Cressy will be
their only witness. Devries presents her ‘Mrs Brady’ statement of claim. I then cross-
examine her. I have evidence of Ms Cressy’s sordid past and the falsity of her claims.
Then, after she is cross-examined, Devies announces that they have a second
witness. Ms Cressy’s mother (hardly independent) is brought in, clearly heavily
sedated to tell lies hoping that they will corroborate her daughter’s lies. Sadly, Ms
Cressy’s mother admits serious alcohol and mental health problems (such problems
do run in families). She admits suffering serious mental depression and taking severe
medication. Ms Cressy’s mother’s lies contradict most of Ms Cressy’s testimony, and
where she is honest support large parts of subsequent testimony. At the conclusion of
Ms Cressy senior’s evidence, after Court closes, Mr Devries instructor remarks to
Devries ‘that didn’t go too bad did it’. Prior to Ms Cressy senior taking the stand,
Devries announces that he wants to amend Ms Cressy’s Statement of Claim. After
she has given her testimony, been exposed by cross examination, Devries wants to
change her story by substituting a new story (or maybe adding and running both

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 5 of Many
 stories). Now, instead of (or is it as well as) being a 1970’s Mrs Brady, Ms Cressy now
claims that she was a high earning six star prostitute (Australia’s Ms Heidi Fleiss) who
was financially supporting me, and giving me money to buy my properties in my name
from her [non-existent] brothel earnings. I am bemused. If Ms Cressy or her lawyers
had any credibility, surely changing their story like this was the last nail in the coffin.
And especially changing the story at this point – after she had given all of her
testimony [calling it ‘evidence’ would be a mockery]. Devries simply had not produced
any evidence to support either her Mrs Brady story or her Ms Heidi Fleiss story.
Instead, Devries misled the Judge at first instance into thinking it was my onus of proof
to establish that I was not financially supported by Ms Cressy and that I 100% funded
my property portfolio and my lifestyle generally. Okay Devries, so Australia is the land
that Magna Charta (notably clauses 29 and 30 thereof) forgot. Okay Devries, no
biggy. I more than fully discharged that burden of proof. I produce substantial
independent evidence, independent eye witnesses [we’d already established on Day 1
that my mummy couldn’t come and give evidence, being some 15 years deceased at
that point]. Defendant’s Exhibit 14, I produced my fee slips (tax invoices) for the
relevant 4 or so full financial years. These showed my gross earnings as at late 2006
were a health $45,000 plus (almost double what I needed to fund my $25,000 of gross
monthly expenditure. Devries, distracts the judge at first instance from these exhibits,
tells the judge that with my 1999 net income (from memory, a shade less than
$100,000 net) I couldn’t have afforded by 2006 gross expenditure of $25,000 per
month. So? Apples compared to oranges? Devries says (wrongly, at least so far as
the High Court – Brigginshaw v Brigginshaw, Jones v Dunkel, Johnson v
Johnson are concerned) that the case is a beauty contest. Who does he want to
believe, Ms Cressy’s testimony or Mr Johnson’s testimony? Again, all lies and
misdirections of the judge by Devries. But again, no biggy. All of my testimony is
merely corroborative of the independent evidence I provided. I explained this to the
judge before I went into the witness box to question myself in chief. The judge forgets
this. The judge forgets the independent evidence. The judge is scared of the
consequences if he makes true findings according to proper assessment of evidence
and proper application of law. The judge forgets his findings that Ms Cressy lied to
him from the box, lied to previous judges (the practice court hearings) and lied to the
police. The judge forgets his findings that Ms Cressy committed trespass to my goods
(the November 2007 aggravated burglary). The judge forgets his findings mean that
Ms Cressy has no credibility. So, no biggy. Who you gonna believe Your Honour?
The independent evidence as corroborated by Mr Johnson’s testimony (a lawyer of 18

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 6 of Many
 plus years good standing at the pinnacle of the legal profession), or the bizarre
uncorroborated and self-contradictory testimony of Ms Cressy who has been found on
good grounds to lack credibility, and even to lack basic respect for the law, and has
demonstrated all sorts of emotional and mental health problems, even from the
witness box. No biggy, strongly urged and influenced by Devries, at the end of an
erroneous and unlawful trial process, the judge decides to base his findings on Ms
Cressy’s uncorroborated and contradictory testimony.
5. These family lawyers, Harwood Andrews, David Hanlon, Berry Family Law, James Turnbull, Richard
Ingleby and Graeme Devries have much to fear from these civil proceedings, as do the Government
statutory authorities sheltering them, the Legal Practitioners Liability (EVASION) Committee, and the
Legal Services Comimssioner.
6. They have even more to fear from the criminal prosecutions that will follow.

Message for Associate Justice Daly and Ms Macnamara

7. I refer specifically to paragraph 15 of these Court of Appeal submissions of 14 August 2009.
8. I am unable to respond to the LPLEC (Harwood Andrews and David Hanlon) submissions on 9 July 2009
without receiving the transcript of that morning’s proceedings, as Ms Sofraniou undertook to provide to
me. Mr Other, for the Legal Services Commissioner gave the same undertaking and complied within a
week or so.
9. Ms Sofraniou effectively admitted to the Chief Justice and Coghlan J her breach of her undertaking. She
said nothing in opposition to my reporting this in the Court of Appeal on Friday.
10. I will be seeking at the next hearing before Associate Justice Daly, that Her Honour investigate and as
appropriate reprimand Ms Sofraniou’s breach of undertaking.
11. I also ask that Ms Macnamara include this as an additional grounds of my professional misconduct
complaint I have filed with the Legal Services Commissioner regarding Ms Sofraniou’s behaviour during
the course of these proceedings.
12. I note that I still have outstanding the task of collating correspondences and extracts from transcript
demonstrating Justice Kaye’s confirmation that the Legal Services Commissioner has the responsiblities,
resources and powers to investigate complaints against Australian legal professionals (like David Hanlon
and especially like Graeme Devries), and especially complaints by one Australian legal practitioner (like
me) against others (like them) – which the Legal Practice Act even says jolly sensibly that she has to
promptly deal with. I have almost completed this exercise and expect to circulate these materials (also
supportive of my contra-costs claim) in the next couple of days.
13. Once I’ve attended to that, I can direct my mind to:

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 7 of Many
 a. Compiling the book of evidence (all of the exhibits and corroborative evidence) referred to in my 9
August 2009 submissions (including the marked up re-orientation of those passages from part 2 of
Justice Kaye’s fictional trilogy version of Cressy v Johnson;
b. Filing and Serving my Further Amended Defence and Counterclaim, amongst other things, stating
fresh claims against the Legal Services Commissioner for failure to investigate my complaints
against Graeme Devries, and for unlawful reprisals against me this year (contrary to the
Whistleblowers Protection Act) and for various recent Charter of Human Rights and
Responsiblities Act abuses.
14. In relation to the latter (my Further Amended Defence and Counterclaim), I circulate authenticated orders
of Associate Justice Evans confirming that ANZ Bank and I have reached a satisfactory resolution of the
original plaintiff in these proceedings claim against me, and therefore ANZ Bank (and Trust Company
Fiduciary Services Limited) are no longer taking any part in these proceedings. Ironic, after decades
where bank-bashing has been elevated almost to a national sport, how I wish that the legal profession
could one day match the major banks for moral standards and intelligence levels.

Kind regards from your most vexed, oppressed and abused

JAMES JOHNSON

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT BROTHELGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 8 of Many