Anda di halaman 1dari 7




A. These submissions are additional to the written submissions that I provided dated 2 August
B. Some of these submissions – specifically, in relation to actions for misconduct in public office,
and in countering claims of 'judicial, quasi-judicial, and lawyer privileges and immunities (both by
statute and at common law) are relevant to the applications by other defendants by
counterclaim, namely David Hanlon, Harwood Andrews, Richard Ingelby, James Turnbull, Berry
Family Law and Graeme Devries.
C. As these submissions are largely to provide the attached supporting documentation, I will for
convenience of the participants adopt the same paragraph headings and numbering as my
written submissions of 2 August 2009 (which were circulated to all relevant participants) – which
I reattach, again for convenience.

1. No additional comments required.
2. No additional comments required. See paragraph 11below.
3. No additional comments required. See paragraph 11 below.
4. Mr Gleeson's submissions are a powerful admission that one of the significant questions of fact
for the jury at trial will be his weak assertions that Dr List acted properly within the scope of his
engagement and produce a proper report, a 'family report' for proper purposes of the
proceedings. This is tantamount to an admission by Mr Gleeson that there is no basis for
striking out my claims against Dr List prior to trial, or even prior to my pleadings being reviewed
and settled by competent litigation lawyers. This is tantamount to an admission by Mr Gleeson
that both applications by his client are an abuse of the Court's time and processes. This is just
one of the several independent grounds on which both applications should be dismissed with
costs ordered in my favour, on a full indemnity basis according to normal solicitor-litigant rules
as described in my previous submissions.
5. No additional comments required. See paragraph 11 below.
6. I repeat my submissions that, for the reasons I have set out in my previous submissions, as
supplemented by these responses, Her Honour should:
a. rule that Dr List should stand trial;

b. dismiss these applications by him as vexatious and oppressive and an abuse of process
of the Court;
c. order that Dr List pay my costs of these applications on a full indemnity basis according
to usual solicitor-litigant rules;
d. order that this part of the proceedings be stayed pending final determination by the Court
of Appeal of my appeal against the decisions of Justice Kaye on the earlier part of these
7. I repeat my submissions regarding the vexatious and abusive nature of these preliminary
applications and Her Honour's manifest lack of jurisdiction to grant either application as a
procedural matter, quite separate and distinct from the lack of merit in the applications. With all
possible respect it would be a further abuse of process, and arguably a contempt of the Court (of
Appeal) for an Associate Justice in the Masters Court to make any orders hindering or
compromising, or pre-judging issues in the proceedings currently pending before the Court of
Appeal, not just once (proceedings number 3731 of 2009), not just twice (proceedings number
3766 of 2009 – including appeals against Her Honour Associate Justice Daly's own earlier
preliminary procedural orders) but thrice times over, having regard to my substantial Section 35
Notice under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsiblities Act 2006. No additional
comments required. See paragraph 11 below.

Five KO's to List's Killer King Charles Immunity False Defence.

8. I repeat my five and three thirds responses (that's seven in total) to Mr Gleeson's wrong
assertions of a killer defence under section 11D of the Family Law Act. Every one of these five
and three thirds responses is a complete response sufficient to strike out Mr List's applications
as a vexatious, abusive 'try-on' and a waste of the time and resources of the Court.

A report to conceal the best interest of the child

9. I refer to and repeat my 4 brief examples at paragraph 9 of my 2 August 2009 submissions.
a. The 'brainwashing orders' and other irregularities (human rights and other substantive
and procedural abuses) are contained in Attachment D to my Section 35 Notice under the
Charter of Human Rights and Responsiblities Act 2006 as I filed and served on 28
August 2009.
b. No additional comments required.
c. No additional comments required.
d. See below:

i. List's report and the reports prepared by each of psychologists Marianne Love
and by Michael Clairbrough are contained in Attachment D to my section 35
Notice, as is the report prepared by psychiatrist Dr Tim Entwistle. Entwistle's
description of Ms Cressy's conduct as reported by her neighbour, Mrs Deak-
Fabrikant as 'vivid and disturbing' illustrates the concealment and condonation of
Ms Cressy's domestic violence against her children, by List's refusal to refer to or
mention Mrs Deak-Fabrikant's witness statement in his report. Dr Entwistle's
ease at diagnosing Ms Cressy as a woman 'practised in presenting herself in
various guises and forms to others' amongst other diagnosis demonstrates the
lengths at which Dr List was prepared to go, contrary to the basic principles of the
Family Law Act (viz 'the welfare of the child is paramount'; in the absence of
domestic violence, the child should spend equal time with each of its parents) and
act contrary to the purposes of the Act, for which purposes he was engaged by
the Court to achieve, to condone and conceal and to downplay Ms Cressy's
dysfunction, her general problems and her violence and neglect towards her
ii. No need for further comment. These allegations will be proven as facts at trial.
iii. See below:
■ These allegations will be proven as facts at trial.
■ I have chosen not to 'attach my mother's death certificate, .. attach my eulogy
speech and ... attach the guest list from the funeral I gave her. ' for reasons of
family privacy. I and my family members have suffered enough violations of
privacy already without me unnecessarily causing more lose of my/our privacy
(not that I have much privacy left in the damaging aftermath of these frauds
that have been perpetrated against me). These facts regarding my mother's
date of death and funeral arrangments can be established at trial if evidence
to this degree of detail is necessary.
■ My Affidavit of 8 July 2008 and my January 2009 professonial misconduct
complaint against barrister Graeme Devries were attached to my circular
facsimile transmission to the parties of 8 September 2009.
10. No further comments are required.

Claims against List for misconduct in office

11. I attach extracts from relevant chapters of the legal text book 'Government Law and Policy –
Commercial Aspects', with apologies to the Editor and part author, Bryan Horrigan, whose
work it is (I wrongly ascribed it with a similar work of Professor Nicholas Seddon).
 The relevant extracted chapter on the tort of misfeasance in public office was written by Tina
Cockburn 'Chapter 8 Personal Liability of Government Officers in Tort and Equity'
(pages 340 to 367 are attached).
 I am partial to the quotation from Nourse Lj in Jones v Swansea City Council (at page 342)
to the effect that ' The assumptions of honour and disinterest on which the tort of
misfeasance in a public office is founded are deeply rooted in the polity of a free society ... It
ought to be unthinkable that the holder of an office of government in this country would
exercise a power thus vested in him with the object of injuring a member of that public by
whose trust alone the office is enjoyed. It is unthinkable that our law should not require the
highest standards of a public servant in the execution of his office.'
 This quote is provided in the context of a lengthy a discussion by the author of the High
Court decision in Northern Territory of Australia v Mengel (beginning at top of page 342).
 It is my submission (and a question of fact for determination at trial by the jury) that List's
report demonstrates in the most acute fashion 'the absence of an honest attempt to perform
the functions of the office [that he alleges he was appointed to perform] – see per Brennan J,
quoted at the bottom of page 358 and footnote 151.
 At page 346 and following, the author refers to several authorities for the proposition that
even a holder of a judicial office can be sued for misfeasance in the conduct of (that) public
office. I attach a copy of the Victorian Full Supreme Court decision in Tampion v Anderson
and Just [1973] VR 715. The judgement is difficult to read and somewhat inconsistent at
times, no doubt due to the political and social setting in which the dispute arose. The
discussion by the learned author reflects these difficulties and inconsistencies. But the case
leaves open the argument that judicial officers are holders of public office and illegal acts by
judicial officers (and those, like List, claiming to stand in the shoes of a federal judge) are
actionable That case was a 1970's example of another kind of witchhunt (in that case, borne
from religious persecution of the Chirch of Scientology). By way of a disclaimer, besides
being a fan of science fiction, as a devout budhist and gnostic christian I am not familiar with
L Ron Hubbard's works, let alone the Scientology religion. In that case, the respondents
Anderson and Just were barristers (members of the Victorian bar) appointed as a board of
examiners with quasi-judicial powers to investigate the practices of the Church of
Scientology. Tampion was, I believe, a member of the Church. In that case the Full
Supreme Court assumed, without necessity of formal decision, that an action for misconduct

in public office could lay against the barristers acting in their quasi-judicial capacity, because
the Court held that in this instance Mr Tampion had not made out all of the necessary
elements to constitute the tort of misfeasance in public office.
 I am particularly taken by the observatrions of the Court at page 6 of this version of the
judgement, in the third paragraph from the bottom of the page: 'It is true that the view has
been expressed in some cases that words spoken during the course of a trial may be
so totally divorced from any connexion with the proceedings that the privilege does
not attach to them: [emphasis added] see for example Seaman v Netherclift (1876) 2
CPD 53; Primrose v Waterson (1902) 4F (Ct of Sess) 783 at p 793 ...'
 It is my submission, and relevant authorities will be produced at trial (viz after I have
engaged properly experience lawyers to conduct my case) that the privileges that List, and
indeed the 'advocates' privileges and immunities claimed by Ms Cressy's lawyers do not
avail them because their conduct was so abusive, their actions so manifestly mala fides and
outside of the spirit and purpose of these immunites. And that is only assuming, given the
extent that these ancient privileges, these fedual exceptions from the principles of Magna
Charta and 'equality under the law' are not totally repealed as a matter of proper
constitutional law and/or proper interpretation of the impact of the Victorian Charter of
Human Rights and Responsibilities Act and/or operation of international law treaties and
UN Declarations to which Australia is a signatory. These sophisticated arguments of law are
outlined in my Section 35 Notice under the Charter. These legal developments which are
overdue for recognition in Victoria and Australia are well described in terms of UK human
rights laws evolution by the Full High Court in its judgement in the D'Orta Edenke v Victoria
Legal Aid and Another (2005) and the references to the 11:0 decision of the English and
Scottish Law Lords in the 2000 House of Lords decision in the A J Mitchell case (a joint
hearing of three applications concerning allegations of negligence by barristers and
solicitors, bein a minor debt collection matter and two family law matters).
 The second extract of relevant pages from 'Government Law and Policy – Commercial
Aspects' (pages 315 to 324 - sub chapter 8.5). While all of this sub-chapter is excellent and
relevant reading, I refer in particular to the opening paragraph under heading 8.5.7 on page
319, opening with the words 'There is a developing body of authority in diverse areas on
enhanced legal obligations of government in government-citizen dealings. These include
higher standards of fair play and fair dealing imposed on government, expeectations that the
Crown will act as a “model litigant', the notion of “good administration” as ann organising idea
for a “group of principles”, concerning substantive and procedural fairness, and other
enhanced obligations of a general equitable nature. I attach a copy of the Appendix 3 as

referred to in footnote 200 at the bottom of that page. There is nothing in these materials to
suggest that the judicial arm of government warrants or holds any special privileges over the
parliamentary and executive arms, when it comes to its legal obligations in [judicial]
government-citizen dealings.
 It would be nice, not just for myself and my children and families, but for the broader public
interest of Victorian and Australian citizens, should one of the public benefits (externalities,
spillover effects etc) of these proceedings is a long overdue shift of judicial and broader
government recognition and respect for actual rather than just rhetorical 'polity of a free
society' – given the lingering, overpowering remants of 'penal colony' governmental attitudes
and practices that I have encountered during the 2 years that I have been tortured and
abused by these family lawyers in these family law and bogus Supreme Court proceedings.
12. No further submissions required.

Similar KO's to alleged killer defences of absolute and qualified privilege

13. No further submissions required. See paragraph 11 above.

If at first you don't get it right. Tell the client/patient/victim to shut up and pay up and
don't even think about trying to get it righter a second time

14. No further comments required. See paragraph 11. And the dissenting judgement of former
Justice Kirby in D'Orta-Edenke v Victoria Legal Aid is a powerful piece of logic – even without
my personal views exposing the absurdity of the 'dinna wanna re-operate' philosophy. I'm
grateful doctors and dentists, and almost all other profesionals I've met (excluding lawyers) don't
think that way.

Allegations that my pleadings are 'scandalous', 'embarrasing'

15. No further comments are required. No, Ms Cressy's lawyers and David List and the other
defendants by counterclaim have acted scandalously, embarrassingly and fraudulently, even
criminally so. This is neatly and clearly summarised in my Section 35 Notice under the Charter
of Human Rights and Responsibilites Act 2006 and the materials attached with it. Serious
questions need to be asked about how in a so-called modern democratic country, in many
respects a first world 21st century country at that, a situation like this could be even initiated, let
alone maintained in the Courts. And while Ms Cressy's lawyers are drawing on the government

purse (via 4 city law firms and 4 city barristers all funded by the Legal Practitioners Liability
(EVASION) Committee), all of them, including David List and co-defendant O'Dwyer, have put
MS Cressy's children in extremely dangerous and impoverish circumstances, as well as
engineering a situation of collective denial of Ms Cressy's true legal and pschological and
psychiatric needs, while time and again beating me up (again at the government purse) with wild
and malicious claims that I am suffering mental problems – just because they want to cover
evade their civil and criminal liabilities for their wrong-doings. I think best I leave the
Jabberwockying and the upside down holding of the telescope (with both lenses attached) to the
other lawyers and the so-called mental health professionals participating in these proceedings.
16. As for paragraph 15, no further comments required.
17. I merely repeat paragraph 17 of my previous submissions without need for extensions.

18. I again ask Her Honour to throw out these vexing, oppressing and abusive applications by List
and make the orders for costs and other orders in my favour, as articulated by me above.

Harold James Johnson

Defendant, Plaintiff by Counterclaim, Appellant and Respondent, Solicitor and Counsel
For proceedings No. 9665 of 2007, No. 9263 of 2008, No. 10222 of 2008, No. 3731 of 2009 and No.
3766 of 2009.

15 September 2009