AFFIDAVIT OF HAROLD JAMES JOHNSON

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION Court No. 9263/08

BETWEEN

TRUST COMPANY FIDUCIARY SERVICES Plaintiff

LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS
PERMANENT TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED)
ACN 000 000 993

and

HAROLD JAMES JOHNSON Defendant

(by original proceeding)

AND BETWEEN

HAROLD JAMES JOHNSON Plaintiff by Counterclaim

and

PIPPIN PATRICIA CRESSY and others First, Second, Third, Fourth,

according to the Schedule Fifth, Sixth Seventh, Eighth,
Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh,
Twelfth and Thirteenth
Defendants by Counterclaim

______________________________________________________________________________

Date of Document: 2 October 2009 Solicitor’s Code: 10181

Filed on behalf of:
The Defendant, Harold James Johnson
Prepared by: Telephone: 03 9279 3932
Harold James Johnson Facsimile: 03 9279 3955
1st Floor Ref: HJJ/PC/VSC2
141 Osborne Street
South Yarra Victoria 3141

I, HAROLD JAMES JOHNSON of 1st Floor 141 Osborne Street South Yarra in the State of Victoria,
make oath and say/affirm:

-1-
 Overview

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, inter
alia, 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-
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 to
ignored 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 mid—2003, 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-
 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
application.

(e) In mid-April 2007, Ms Cressy approached me at my home and propositioned that

she 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
counterclaim).

(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-
 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-
 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-
 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
deserves.

(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-
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 extort
substantial 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-
 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, ie White Industries Limited v Flower and Hart (A Firm) [No.2]) but a
hundred times worse having regard to the intimate personal nature of the abusive
proceedings, 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 my
urgings, 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-
 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 -
 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 -
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, Howell
was 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 -
 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
displeasure.

(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 v
Howell 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 -
 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 structural
impediment 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 -
 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 and
Harwood 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
Responsiblities Act 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 -
 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 ½ hours of the first (4 ½ 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 -
 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 and
prejudice 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 ½ 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 ½
hours on 2 December 2008 alone, even without regard to all of the other subsequent things
that 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 -
 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 paragraphs
25 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 -
 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 recently
published 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 -
 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 no
case 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 and
abuse 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 -
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 himself not 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 health
problems. 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 -
two plus days fabricating and leading more false evidence from the bar table, all with the
mutual appreciation and encouragement from the Trial Judge, to come back and continue
into a third day. Instead, Devries mislead the Trial Judge as to the content of my evidence
(particularly my evidence I presented to the Court, in the form of Ms Cressy's own
handwritten diaries and journals), demonstrating she worked as a prostitute prior to
Christmas 2001 and again from mid-2007, but not during the period critical to her claim,
between early 2001 and mid-2007) and mislead the Trial Judge as to the quantity and
quality of the independent evidence that I presented at Trial. The result, as is manifest from
the Trial Judges reported summary of Devries closing submissions, and the Trial Judges'
verdict, the Trial Judge based his judgement mostly on Devries false evidence he fabricated
on 16, 17 and 18 Febraury 2009, and Devfries' misleading summaries of my evidence and
the independent evidence during those three days of 'closing submissions' and partly based
on Ms Cressy's woefully perjured and uncorroborated testimony, totally elf-contradictory and
overwhelmingly contradicted by the independent evidence which is all the Trial Judge should
have relied on for the purposes of making judgement. For example, Devies falsely submitted
that I had supplied evidence to the Court of Ms Cressy's earnings as a prostitute from 2002
onwards. I did not produce any evidence of her earnings from any source post-Christmas
2001 or pre-mid-2007. Nor did Ms Cressy produce evidence of ever earning a single dollar
of income. Devries falsely asserted that I had failed to demonstrate that Ms Cressy had
flushed all her earnings down the toilet. With respect, I had no responsibility to establish
that she ever flushed anything down the toilet. Ms Cressy had a responsibility (as did her
lawyers for promoting her claims and falsely pretending they thought she had a claim with
reasonable merits) that she (a) earned some money during the relevannt period; and (b) that
she directly or indirectly diverted her earnings to benefit me or to my purchasing of my
properties. She and they failed to deliver on these proofs and these failures of delivery
should have been fatal to their claims and their defences. Thirdly, Devries misleadingly
asserted in closing that I couldn't afford to be spending $25,000 month on business and
living expenses (including my child support payments to Mrs Johnson and to Ms Cressy)
when the evidence showed (Exhibit 14 – all of my tax invoices / fee slips for the 4 financial
years ending 30 June 2007) that I could readily afford gross expenditure of $25,000 a month
out of gross monthly fees in excess of $45,000 per month. The Trial Judge's finding (based
on Devries false evidence and false submissions) that I was not financially self-sufficient to
the extent of gross monthly fees of $25,000 was fatal to my case, a fatal flaw in the Trial
Judge's findings in favour of Ms Cressy and her lawyers and her lawyers' lawyers,

- 22 -
 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 -
 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 promptly
resolve 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 protected
by 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 -
 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 -
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 -
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 -
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
responsibilities.

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

Costs for ¼ day (2 hour) appearance at first hearing of Summons $1,100.00

Costs for ¼ day appearance at second hearing of Summons $1,100.00
Costs for ½ day appearance at third hearing of Summons on 4 June 2,200.00
2009
Costs for reviewing and preparing correspondences with LSC - ½ $2,200.00
day (4 hours)
Costs of reviewing 2 July and 7 July Submissions and materials, and $15,400.00
compiling this Affidavit and accompanying Affidavit and exhibits,
including extensive review of transcript of proceedings 9655 of 2007
etc (28 hours)
Allowance for further hearing of Summons (judgment) - ¼ 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 -
 SCHEDULE

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 O’DWYER
(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)

TRUST COMPANY FIDUCIARY SERVICES LIMITED

(FORMERLY KNOWN AS PERMANENT TRUSTEE
COMPANY LIMITED) ACN 000 000 993
(Thirteenth Defendant by Counterclaim)

- 30 -