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

Wednesday 14 October 2009 *** IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION

Mr Bevan Werner
Managing Director
Victoria Legal Aid
GPO Box 4380
Melbourne Victoria 3001

By Facsimile: 9269 0250 (... pages)

And by Registered Mail

Dear Mr Werner

VICTORIAN SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS 9665 OF 2007, 9263 AND 10222 OF 2008 AND 3731 AND
3766 OF 2009 : THREE SEPARATE APPLICATIONS FOR LEGAL AID FUNDING

1. I refer to my facsimile letter of 5 October 2009 and note that I am still to receive your response.

2. Please expedite all 3 of my legal aid funding grant applications.

3. I advise that the legal proceedings described in all 3 applications raise issues under the Australian
Constitution and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act that are beyond th
expertise and experience of myself and my (unfunded) brains trust at the present time. Suitably qualified
lawyers need to be retained to (re)-document the papers and draw up the applications. And then to argue
the case with an “equality of arms” against the 4 city law firms and 4 city barristers unlawfully funded out of
the “lawyers legal aid fund” [aka Legal Practitioners Liability (EVASION) Committee] to repress these
proceedings.

4. As regards the newest of my three applications, I advise that I am presently drawing up counterclaims (to be
filed as part of proceedings 9263 of 2008) against:

 Victoria Legal Aid, its board members, its Managing Director (that's you), Ms Kusznir, and your
anonomous and far from “independent” reviewer, whomever his or her former Supreme Court Honour
might be;

 Law Institute of Victoria, its board members and its 5 executive officers;
  the Human Rights Commission, its board members and its chief executive.

5. The nature of these claims is described in my previous correspondences to you (including my letter of 5
October 2009), and in the copies of my last letters to the Law Institute of Victoria and the Victorian Human
Rights Commissioner.

6. It seems to me that Victoria Legal Aid's board members and executive officers are guilty of incredible
incompetence, and incredible misconduct in public office if proceedings of these magnitude do not fall within
your Office's “public interest” guidelines.

7. I would be grateful, in addition to you revealing the identity of your erstwhile “independent” reviewer, you can
explain to me how Mr D'Orta-Edenke's case (heard by the High Court in 2005) qualified for funding on
“public interest” grounds and yet my proceedings do not?

8. These proceedings, notably the proceedings before Justice Stephen Kaye in the Supreme Court were
tainted by dozens more examples of unlawfullness and illegality than infected the prosecution (and bungling
by your office as defence lawyers) in Mr D'Orta-Edenke's prosecution. To further make my point, I attach:

(a) a copy of my submission letter to the 3 Judicial Officers hearing (at the same time) three fragments of
these proceedings in 3 different levels of the Supreme Court;

(b) Schedule 2 thereto, which in Bert Newton '20 to 1' style amplifies just the top 10 plus 10 miscarriages of
justice that have occurred here.

9. As I tire of repeating,

(a) every one of the top 7 of the top 10 is in itself a solid grounds for success on appeal, let alone the
combined weight of all of them;

(b) every one of these 20 is a demonstration of gross professional misconduct (criminal conduct as Justice
Kaye went so far as describing it in his fearfilled refusal to see it) by the barristers running amok in these
proceedings (with a little help from their instructors); and

(c) the Top 2 represent a single-judge Supreme Court precedent that downgrades a man's basic human right
(at common law and under the new Charter of Human Rights and Responsiblities Act) so that, instead of
an automatic right to defend oneself against a law suit, Victorians now have merely a privilige to defend
 themselves, a privilege that the Trial Judge may deny them on application by the plaintiff's lawyer to have
them declared mentally unfit – and even a lawyer of 18 years continuing good standing runs risk of being
denied the privilege of defending himself.

10. I look forward to a prompt and sensible response to my funding applications. Hopefully in time such that,
though drawing up the claims that I have described in paragraph 4 above, I may avoid the necessity to file
the claims described in the first dot point.

11. It's in your court Mr Werner (in more ways than one).

Kind regards

JAMES JOHNSON

Attachments:

(1) Copy my 25 September 2009 letter to Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner
(minus attachments). (3 pages)

(2) Copy my 14 October 2009 letter to Supreme Court 'Brothelgate participants' (plus attachments). (16
pages)

(3) Copy my 25 September 2009 letter to Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner
(minus attachments). (10 pages)

(4) Copy my 10 October 2009 letter to Supreme Court 'Brothelgate participants' (plus schedule 2 of the
attachments). (7 + 12 = 19 pages)

(5) Copy my 5 October 2009 letter to Law Institute of Victoria. (3 pages)

(6) Copy my 19 August 2009 letter to Law Institute of Victoria. (3 pages)