1.

MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

On 25 February 2009 Justice Stephen Kaye, a trial division judge in the Supreme Court of Victoria
handed down judgement in favour of a young woman in a property case awarding her 50% of the
assets of the defendant in the case.

His Honour ruled that the woman was entitled to half of the defendant's wealth because he found
that she had been his de facto wife for 9 years and had made contributions to their family, both
financially and more significantly by being a home maker and raising “their” children.

All through the legal proceedings the man denied the woman's claims that they lived together. The
man denied that they were a de facto couple and denied. And the man denied that the woman had
ever made any contributions, financial or otherwise, towards him. The man protested that the case
contained issues that were complex, emotive and readily capable of being misunderstood. Those
issues included the behaviour of the woman's lawyers and their handling of the case.

2. APPEAL PENDING

The man has lodged an appeal against the trial judge's many decisions arguing that a miscarriage
of justice has occurred. There have been three preliminary hearings in the Court of Appeal, before
Chief Justice Marilyn Warren and Justice Paul Coghlan. An appeal date is yet to be set.

The man is confident that he will win on appeal. He is confident that the Court of Appeal will rule
that there was a miscarriage of justice. Despite a bit of a hiccup in the first of the preliminary
hearings, Chief Justice Warren and Justice Coghlan are becoming increasingly aware of the
miscarriage of justice that has occurred in this case, and hopefully there will be no more hiccups in
the Court of Appeal or at the final appellate level, which is the High Court of Australia.

The defendant's Notice of Appeal contains an alarming list of substantive and procedural grounds
that add up to one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in Australian legal history and
demonstrate the judgements and orders of the trial judge Stephen Kaye were highly improper.

In the meantime the defendant has to endure ongoing financial devastation including watching
helplessly as the court goes about assisting the woman's lawyers to enforce the trial judge's orders
selling the defendant's assets to generate cash that will go into the woman's lawyers' pockets. And
this is occurring even though the court orders are far from final and the defendant's grounds of
appeal are so strong that it is unthinkable that he will not win on appeal.

2. THE TRIAL FIASCO

At the trial, the woman's lawyers case depended entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of their
star witness, the woman. They did not bring to court any evidence to support the woman's
testimony. At the last moment they called on her mother to testify in support of the woman's
claims. Her mother's testimony was far from honest, far from independent, far from credible, not
supported by any extrinsic evidence either, and in the most part contradicted the woman's own
shameful testimony.

Cases where the parties dispute the existence of a de facto relationship rarely arise because it
should be so easy to prove the nature of the relationship with extrinsic evidence. The sort of
evidence that should have been produced included family things like the testimony of family
members, the testimony of family friends, the testimony of neighbours, photos and other

Page 1
memorabilia of family events, birthday cards, Christmas cards, family videos.

The minutiae of family life should have been easily proven. If such evidence existed it should have
been discovered to the defendant prior to the case. And the formal proof should have been a
formality.

Presumably this happens sometimes, at the start of legal proceedings. The man says “prove it”.
The woman's lawyers show him the proof. And the man concedes the point. So that there is no
dispute before the court on the basic question of whether the parties were a couple. The dispute is
limited to an examination and valuation of the couple's assets. The Full High Court case of
Johnson v Johnson (no relations) is the leading example of that kind of case.

2.1 The Body of Evidence

Here the woman's lawyers had known from the outset (18 months earlier) that the man disputed
the claims of a de facto relationship and yet they never produced any extrinsic evidence to the
defendant or to the Judge to prove the woman's de facto claims were legitimate.

Conversely, the defence case included substantial independent evidence, including credible eye-
witnesses, statutory records, sworn statements from the woman, the woman's own confessions,
written in her journals and diaries, copies of police reports, copies of psychologists reports, and
volumes of the defendant's financial and legal documents that demonstrated that the woman's
claims were false.

This same body of evidence from the defence demonstrated that woman's lawyers had been
incompetent throughout. Firstly, they were incompetent and guilty of professional misconduct for
drafting caveats and supreme court documents containing allegations that under professional
conduct rules they should not have written because they did not get in any (of the above kinds of)
evidence to justify them writing up those allegations. Negligent to begin with, the conduct of the
woman's lawyers soon shifted to being fraudulent as they continued to press the woman's claims
without accumulating a body of evidence and even contrary to the accumulating evidence of police
reports and psychologists and the defendant's warnings to them.

The conduct of the woman's lawyers grew even more fraudulent as the case progressed. At some
point, with the woman's lawyers interfering in police investigations of serious crimes committed by
the woman, and with them making a series of illegal applications to the courts for interlocutory
orders (order of the “judgement first, trial second” variety), and with them producing and registering
a fresh, illegal caveat of their own on the defendant's property after incompetently discharging their
original “by accident”, the misconduct of the woman's lawyers grew from gross professional
misconduct of the negligent kind into gross criminal misconduct of the fraudulent kind.

2.2 The Relationship Evidence

The body of evidence produced by the defence, the only body of independent evidence before the
court, demonstrated that the woman's claims were totally false.

The body of evidence demonstrated that the defendant were never at any time a de facto couple,
they had never co-habitated during the period relevant to the claim and their homes were more
than 15 kilometres apart.

The body of evidence showed that the woman had never worked or earned income during the
period relevant to her claim, but had been in full time education for 5 years at the defendant's
expense. The evidence also showed that the man had totally self-funded all of his assets.

Page 2
The body of evidence showed that the woman had been blackmailing the defendant for most of the
period she had known him – receiving for herself and her three children more than $4,000 a month
from him at the time her lawyers commenced the legal proceedings against him. The man was
also paying more than $2,000 a month in child support to his (still legally married) wife for their
three children, from whom he had separated a decade earlier, and with whom he had concluded
satisfactory property arrangements and custodial arrangements without any need for lawyers or
courts to get involved.

The body of evidence showed that the defendant was a hard working, successful and unselfish
man who had assumed the role of non-live with dad for his own three children (of his marriage) and
for the woman's three children (and arguably he was almost a non-live with dad for the woman
herself, 15 years his junior).

As to the woman's children the evidence showed that by the age of 19 she had given birth to two
boys by two different men, the youngest born less than 2 months prior to when she met the
defendant. While the woman alleged that the man was the biological father of her third child, she
and her lawyers refused to substantiate that allegation. So for the purposes of the trial it must be
assumed that none of woman's children were biologically the defendants. The woman had also
repeatedly told multiple, conflicting stories about the paternity of her second child. He had grown
up believing that the defendant was his biological father until August and September 2008 when
she told him, aged 9 years, two more, totally different stories about who his father was.

The body of evidence showed that the woman was not a “home maker”, not even in her own home
for her own children. Her mother (the children's grandmother) testified under cross examination
that her daughter paid her to keep house, to cook and to clean and to look after the children
(including running them to and from school). And the grandmother also testified under cross-
examination that it was the defendant who paid her to keep her daughter's house.

The body of evidence showed that the woman had over the years had a string of married
boyfriends whose wives and children might fairly have called the woman a “home breaker.”

The body of evidence showed that the woman had serious mental health problems and was of a
seriously criminally minded and dishonest character (see below). Her handwritten journals proved
that she had been a prostitute since her mid to late teens (1997 to early 2002) and had gone back
to her old tricks in early 2007. In June 2008 the woman's lawyers had even asked judges to
schedule hearings on Mondays or Fridays so that the important business of the courts would not
interfere with her more important brothel business on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

The body of evidence supported the man's testimony that he had met the woman in a brothel in
Geelong, where she was working under the assumed name of “Claudia” [she describes the brothel
and her first day there, and the origins of her alias in her handwritten journals] at about 2.20 am on
Saturday 12 September 1998. Those journal entries contradict her ridiculous story that she met
the defendant when she was sun baking in late winter 1998 on a Torquay surf beach, some 6
weeks after giving birth to her second child. [According to her story, the defendant introduced
himself, she gave him her phone number, a week later he move into her Salvation Army crisis
accommodation home and only then, two months later, she told the defendant her name.]

The body of evidence, specifically the woman's handwritten journals and diaries, recorded that the
defendant was the second or third of a series of brothel clients whom she had built up relationships
with and extorted them for money. Evidence was given, in her journals and diaries of at least 6
such “serious” relationships. These boyfriends were brothel clients who became sugar daddy's,
longer term boyfriends and, in some instances, blackmail victims. Most of these were with married
men. The defendant was not the first, and at least the third of this list of at least 6. The defendant
had been on the list longest because he had tried to help the woman and her family the most. And
no doubt he was on the list longest because he was the easiest of her blackmail targets.

Page 3
The evidence showed that she had two such boyfriends on the go in May 2007 (the date the
woman's lawyers began legal proceedings against the defendant by drawing up and registering
caveats on his properties). Under cross-examination she admitted being with one of her May
married boyfriends still, in December 2008, despite having a different, a second, live-in boyfriend
with her since early 2008.

During 2001 to 2004 the defendant had protected the woman and her children when she was
stalked by one such boyfriend. His protection had made him a stalking target as well. The
defendant subpoenaed that ex-boyfriend. While his wife of twenty years waited outside in the
hallway, the ex-boyfriend gave false evidence to the effect that he couldn't (or wouldn't) remember
if he knew the woman. So the defendant subpoenaed a Senior Detective from Purana Taskforce
who had investigated those incidents and she confirmed the story of their relationship and the
stalking and informed the court that the ex-boyfriend had admitted everything in committal
proceedings back in 2004. The woman's hand written journals also recorded her relationship with
the stalker, her violent thoughts towards him “if she ever saw him again” and her critical thoughts of
the police officers (including the Purana Senior Detective) for being more sympathetic towards the
stalker than towards her.

Although not part of the body of evidence, the woman probably met the father of her second child
the same way, probably in the same brothel where she met the defendant. Although she had told
the defendant who the boy's father was, she never told the defendant how she had met him.

The body of evidence showed that the woman did not commence the legal hostilities, did not call in
the family lawyers as a result of the breakdown of a domestic relationship. On this point, the
defendant testified, honestly of course but with nothing that he could think of to corroborate his
testimony. The defendant explained that the woman had approached him just after Easter, mid-
April 2007 and tried to encourage him into moving in with her as a couple. The defendant resisted
and the woman tried blackmailing him into it. The defendant refused. The defendant had broken
up with his long-term girlfriend towards the end of 2006 and was in the early months of a new
relationship. And the defendant had no wish to renew any old romantic relationships with the
woman.

It is only possible to speculate that perhaps the woman panicked. Perhaps she thought her skills
as a blackmailer were wearing thin. Perhaps she thought (wrongly) that the defendant would
cease playing the part of provider and non-live with dad for her children. Perhaps she was over-
confident, after a deceiving performance to her original lawyers pretending to be his rejected de
facto wife. Perhaps her lawyers gave her false hope or the right amount of attention along with
their original sales pitch. Perhaps her overconfidence was justified because family lawyers can win
these sorts of cases with just a single star witness with zero credibility and without having to bring
a shred of evidence to substantiate her claims.

The key point is that there was a solid body of independent evidence in the defence case to show
that Justice Stephen Kaye's judgements were a miscarriage of justice brought about by a total lack
of due process, a lack of regard to the evidence and the applicable laws and engineered by the
serious professional and criminal misconduct of the woman's lawyers from their very first
involvement in the proceedings. And the trial judges rulings and orders must be immediately and
totally reversed by an appellate court that pays due regard to due process, follows applicable
binding High Court precedents and wishes to maintain the dignity of the judicial process (by
delivering justice rather than by suppressing injustice).

Page 4
3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL

3.1 Substantive Grounds of Appeal

For the woman to succeed on appeal, the Court of Appeal will need to be satisfied that Justice
Stephen Kaye was legally entitled to base his findings solely on the unsubstantiated testimony of
the woman. The Court of Appeal is bound to follow decades of High Court decisions which
consistently demonstrate that neither the Trial Judge, nor the Court of Appeal judges can do that.

Firstly, the man says that the trial judge's judgements were illegal because he was required by
binding High Court precedent to “forget about what the woman said, forget about what the man
said, and base his judgement solely on what the independent evidence said”. This basic principle
of law was most recently repeated in 2000 by the Full High Court of Australia in Johnson v
Johnson.

Secondly, the man says that the trial judge made rulings that the woman was grossly dishonest
and had committed serious crimes. Aggravated burglary carries a maximum sentence of 25 years
life imprisonment, which explains why the woman's lawyers lied to the police and generally
interfered in the police investigation of their star witness and client. Justice Stephen Kaye made
findings that she “had lied to police, had lied to previous judges during these legal proceedings and
had lied to him when giving evidence in the witness box” and that she had done the aggravated
burglary (and was caught with the stolen loot hidden under her bed) in the same month that her
lawyers drew up and filed her statement of claim. She did the break-in to steal and to conceal and
to destroy the man's evidence against her claims.

The defendant said that those findings mean that the Judge could not lawfully give any credibility
to any part of the woman's unsubstantiated testimony, could not possibly trust anything she said
that was not supported by some extraneous evidence and in any case could not accept her
testimony that she had been his de facto wife when her testimony on that issue was not only
unsubstantiated but was fully exposed as falsehood because it was contradicted by the
independent body of evidence from the defence case.

Thirdly, the man said that as a professional man of unimpeachable reputation amongst his peers
and in the general community, his testimony (even if it had not been so fully backed up by volumes
of independent evidence) should have carried equal weight as the woman's testimony to begin
with, but obviously been given much more weight than the woman's, having regard to the Judge's
adverse findings about the woman's dishonesty. The defendant is a non-litigation solicitor of
almost 2 decades good standing and prominent in the profession as a top-tier commercial and
government lawyer. Adverse findings of dishonesty [and that is what Justice Stephen Kaye's illegal
findings amount to] would reflect highly against the defendant's professional reputation, there are
binding High Court decisions that say that the woman's lawyers needed to produce substantially
more evidence rather than the usual volume of evidence, and certainly could not justify bringing no
evidence to court when making those allegations.

3.2 Additional Body of Evidence

About six weeks after Justice Stephen Kaye handed down his judgement, the defendant was
cleaning up more of the mess that the woman had left behind in the house where she had been
living up until a few weeks before the trial. When he discovered some more evidence that he
wished had been available at the trial.

In December 2008, during the Christmas recess in the trial, the defendant had found at the house
3 big bags of documents and original evidence (all of his original banking and property contracts

Page 5
for his property acquisitions) that the woman had stolen from him in mid-2007 and more of the
documents she had stolen from him in November 2007 (but had hid from the police), along with her
handwritten journals of her brothel exploits. The defendant put these into evidence when the trial
resumed in February 2009 (disclosing copies to the woman's lawyers in mid-January).

In April 2009 the defendant found copies of the woman's records including Child Support Agency
letters confirming that in June 2000, about a week after her third child was born, she had gone
straight to the Child Support Agency and registered for the defendant to pay child support
payments. Hardly consistent with the behaviour of a “devoted and committed” de facto wife.
There were also letters regarding the paternity of her second child (contradicting two of her more
favourite stories), letters confirming that she was still housed by the Salvation Army prior to and
well after the birth of her third child. The defendant had agreed to be nominated as her youngest
child's father on her birth certificate, and that birth certificate accurately recorded the woman's and
the man's different home addresses (some 15 kilometres apart). The defendant also found Child
Support Agency letters confirming that the woman was paying child support to the biological father
of her eldest child (another source of exposure of her lie that she, the defendant and her three
children had formed a happy family unit – since her eldest child was for his first 4 years of life
mostly in the custody of his biological father).

The defendant has given notice that he will be seeking to have this newly discovered evidence
taken into account by the appeal courts. However with the body of evidence produced by the
defence at the trial, additional evidence seems hardly necessary.

The defendant will also be seeking leave to have new psychiatric evidence taken into account on
the appeal. This includes not only the secret October 2008 psychiatric report, hidden from the
defendant at the trial (see below). It also includes an independent psychiatric report conducted on
the defendant in April 2009 by the legal regulator, which was maliciously and fraudulently incited by
the woman's lawyers and promptly dropped when the defendant passed that psychiatric
assessment with flying colours (see section 3.3.4 below).

3.3 Procedural Grounds for Appeal

The defendant also has dozens of serious grounds that the trial was a miscarriage of justice for
procedural reasons.

These go to the very heart of basic human rights such as an accused person's right to a fair
hearing, his or her right to equality under the law, and even his or her right to defend themselves
against allegations in a court of law rought the right to defend.

Some of these procedural grounds are quite technical and go beyond the scope of this paper. The
denial of a fair trial grounds can be grouped together as follows (note there is some overlap,
especially within 1, between 1 and 2, and between 3 and 4):

3.3.1. A miscarriage occurred because Justice Stephen Kaye should have postponed the
trial as the case was not ready to proceed

3.3.2.A miscarriage of justice occurred because Justice Stephen Kaye should have allowed
the defendant to proceed to trial with the latest version of his counterclaims (against the
woman, the woman's lawyers and other parties)

3.3.3 A miscarriage of justice occurred because Justice Stephen Kaye allowed an illegal
application by the woman's lawyers, on the first morning of the trial, seeking a ruling that
the defendant be declared mentally unfit to defend himself against the woman's allegations.

3.3.4 A miscarriage of justice occurred because the trial judge allowed the woman's lawyers

Page 6
 to use, but keep hidden from the defendant, a secret psychiatric report that would have
totally vindicated the defendant's case and would have totally destroyed the woman's case
and the woman's lawyers case if it had been properly disclosed to the defendant like as the
law required

3.3.5. A miscarriage occurred because of the gross professional misconduct of the woman's
lawyers during the trial (a continuation of their professional misconduct in preliminary
hearings)

3.3.6. A miscarriage of justice occurred because of the multiple unlawful decisions of the
trial judge, in every instance favouring the woman and the woman's lawyers and in every
instance going against the basic rights of the defendant to receive due process, a fair
hearing and equality under the law

3.3.1. Case not ready to proceed

Firstly, the trial judge should have postponed the trial because there had not been a proper pre-trial
process. In particular the important step of discovery (where the litigants exchange evidence
before the trial) had not happened. The High Court has ruled that proper discovery is critical to
cases involving claims for a division of assets on a breakdown of a marriage or a de facto
relationship: (eg Johnson v Johnson (2000)). It must be even more critical (as suggested above)
when the defendant denies the woman was his de facto, informs her lawyers that she is a fraudster
and mentally-ill and demands that they “prove it”.

Secondly, the woman's lawyers had caused the court to schedule the trial a year earlier than
should have happened, by lying to the court at an earlier hearing (which the defendant didn't attend
because he didn't get notice until a week later) that the trial would require 2 days (the court was
unable to tell the defendant this until almost 2 months after the trial date was scheduled).

The defendant had informed the woman's lawyers 4 months earlier when they took over her case
that he had over 30 witnesses to call and thought it would require 3 to 4 weeks, minimum. The first
thing the defendant did when the woman's new lawyers took over was send them a welcome letter
and a set of briefing materials welcoming them to the case and expressing hope that they would be
able to properly assess the woman's situation and would discuss and settle the case properly on
the woman's behalf. Sadly, the woman's new lawyers quickly demonstrated that they were even
more aggressive and unreasonable than the original crew.

The trial proper (with the defendant calling only a handful of his witnesses and truncating his case
just “to please the judge” and because he was taken by surprise – never believing that the Judge
would force “the show to go on” when so much pre-trial work had not even started) took up 18
days. There have been 4 other days of hearings before the trial judge since the judgement was
handed down, making it 18 – 22 days, pretty close to the defendant's original estimate.

During the trial Justice Kaye even excused the woman's lawyers from any wrongdoing here and
blamed the defendant over this – saying it was okay for the woman's lawyers to believe at the time
that the defendant wouldn't show up to defend himself, and to give the court a 2 day estimate on
that basis. Presumably it was okay for them to skip the important pre-trial steps, including the
critical step of discovery, too.

Thirdly, the pleadings were not settled. The defendant had redrawn his counterclaims against the
woman and the woman's lawyers, but these had been filed by the court as part of related
proceedings – the man's bank was seeking to have the woman evicted from the man's home
where the court had ensconced her, under court orders that firstly had evicted the man from the
house, secondly had given the woman the right to take possession of the house (and even

Page 7
purported to give her power to sell it and an adjoining property – all before any trial) and thirdly
included orders prohibiting the defendant from communicating with his bank about anything that
was going on. (On that occasion the court refrained from granting the woman's lawyers request for
a court order, ordering the man to pay the mortgage on the house. The man was financially ruined
and had no income at all at that point. And every university law student (but, seems, not the
woman's lawyers) that no Australian court could contemplate granting that kind of illegal order –
which would have had the man thrown into jail given compliance was impossible). The defendant
informed the court that, as is often the case, he needed answers to discovery from the woman and
the woman's lawyers before he could finalise his pleadings. He also needed to find independent
lawyers to represent him, which was proving impossible given that he had no money any more and
no lawyers would take his case without substantial monies up front.

The defendant said that at the very least he was entitled to proceed with his claims against the
woman and the woman's lawyers as re-drawn up by him and filed in the proceedings involving the
bank, which would necessitate this trial being postponed.

3.3.2. Pleadings not Finalised / Need to Consolidate Two Sets of Related Proceedings

The defendant had sought a hearing to have the proceedings involving the woman and the
proceedings involving the bank heard together. An “innocent” delay of a week by the court registry
was enough to mean that the consolidation hearing was listed for the Master's Court the day
before the trial was listed to occur in the Trial Division. This gave the defendant not enough time to
serve the documents for the Master's Court hearing on the Monday. The defendant was also
worried that serving documents on his bank would be a communication with his bank, and there
were court orders [unlawfully applied for and unlawfully given to the woman's lawyers] that were on
foot prohibiting the defendant from any communications with his bank. The Defendant thought it
best in lack of time to raise the consolidation application with the trial judge on the Tuesday.

Only a fool could look at the defendant's original counterclaim document (drawn up in haste in
February 2008 to met a preliminary court hearing date a few days later) and then look at the
defendant's revised counterclaim document (drawn up in haste in November 2008 to meet court
deadlines a dozen days later) without seeing that the November 2008 was clearly a revised version
of the February 2008 document, with added parties and articulated claims. The February 2008
document spelled out, crudely, just two preliminary claims over misconduct by the woman's
lawyers prior to Christmas 2007 (filing false caveats and interfering in police investigations). It did
not even mention the fraudulent statement of claim.

The November 2008 document expressed those claims a little better and included more claims of
misconduct up to November 2008. After knocking on dozens of doors, being unable to find a
lawyer prepared to represent him on a “no win no fee” basis, the defendant had borrowed a few
text books from a law library and in the space of a week and a half, and in very distressed living
standards had produced a 154 page counterclaim (averaging less than 13 pages per each of the
13 accused and in effect shorter than the woman's original statement of claim against him) with
another 150 pages of attachments (like the text books suggested that he should do).

Refusing to look at a copy of the November 2008 version, Justice Stephen Kaye illegally ruled
against postponing the trial to allow the two cases to be heard together. He also refused to
postpone the trial to at least allow the defendant to use the November 2008 versions of his claims
in the trial before him, though it was well within his powers under the rules of the court to do so.

But Justice Stephen Kaye was not finished here. He later added insult to his injury of the
defendant by restricting the defendant's case by forcing him to use a crude and grossly out of date
set of written claims. Demonstrating more of Justice Stephen Kaye's poor judgement (and
prejudice and bias), on the third day of this 4 week trial he allowed the woman's lawyers to amend
her written statement of claim. He allowed the woman's lawyers to substitute a new set of lies and

Page 8
still not bringing any evidence into court to substantiate either set of lies. he allowed this even
though the woman had completed giving her evidence and her lawyers had all but technically
closed their case.

At the time, the defendant said that he thought that this was a denial of his rights to a fair trial, and
demonstrated lack of credibility of the case against him – the woman was changing her story only
after she failed to substantiate the claims in her original statement of claim to misuse evidence he
had raised disproving her original written claims. The trial judge locked the defendant into a
February 2008 version of his claims, while allowing the woman to upgrade from a November 2007
version after her lawyers had all but closed her case. In August 2009 the High Court delivered a
judgement in a less controversial case involving a university and its insurer after a building was
damaged by fire. The trial judge had allowed the university to amend its written claims against the
insurer on the third day of a four week trial (and in that case, probably, before the plaintiff university
had closed its case). The High Court ruled that if the defendant has come to court to answer one
set of claims, it is a denial of the defendant's right to a fair hearing if the trial judge allows the
plaintiff to change its claims mid-way through the trial and ruled that the trial judge had caused a
miscarriage of justice in that case: Aon v ANU (2009).

Justice Kaye had, from the second day of the trial, quickly changed his mini-trial “better judgement”
[also fitting the description of a “pre-judge-ice”] that the defendant was not mentally well enough to
represent himself (see section 3.3.3 below). From the second day of the trial onwards, Justice
Kaye repeatedly commented and even wrote in an early paragraph of his judgement, that the
defendant “is a very intelligent man” with “impressive natural abilities as an advocate for someone
who had never performed the role of a litigator before.” Through Aon v ANU the High Court
confirmed that the defendant's natural abilities, on what should have been a point of law, a basic
question of justice and very obvious to the trial judge, were considerably better tuned than the trial
judge's judgement, his 30 plus years of “learned” abilities – abilities Justice Stephen Kaye should
have learned at the bar as an advocate and even more so after years as a judge, judging
advocates from the bench.

3.3.3. The unlawful insanity inquisition to determine whether the defendant should be
allowed a defence

A miscarriage occurred because Justice Stephen Kaye allowed an illegal application by the
woman's lawyers, on the first morning of the trial, seeking a ruling that the defendant be declared
mentally unfit to defend himself against the woman's allegations.

Justice Stephen Kaye admonished the woman's lawyer saying that he had no legal right to make
this application. If the defendant thought himself mentally disabled then the defendant could raise
this. But a plaintiff can never try to gag a defendant at the outset of a trial by seeking to have the
defendant declared mentally ill and take away his right to a defence. This is a hundred times
worse than the miscarriage that the High Court ruled occurred in Aon v ANU (see above).

Nevertheless (again demonstrating poor judgement and cultivating an atmosphere of incredible

bias and prejudice which should have disqualified Justice Stephen Kaye at that point onwards from
taking any further part in the proceedings), he proceeded to hear that insanity application by the
woman's lawyers to cancel the right of the defendant (a solicitor of 18 years good standing) to
defend himself.

At the end of that mini-trial before the trial, Justice Stephen Kaye ruled “against [his] better
judgement” not to rule the defendant (a barrister and solicitor of 18 years continuous good
standing) as mentally unfit to represent himself because the defendant didn't want him to make
that ruling.

Page 9
As noted above, from the second day of the trial onwards, Justice Kaye repeatedly commented
and even wrote in an early paragraph of his judgement, that the defendant “is a very intelligent
man” with “impressive natural abilities as an advocate for someone who had never performed the
role of a litigator before.” So much for his “better” judgement in the unlawful mini-trial insanity
inquisition.

So we have a legal precedent in Victoria that defendants do not have an automatic right to defend
themselves in a court of law. The question is whether this precedent applies to all Victorians, or
just men, or just legally qualified barristers and solicitors, or just legally qualified barristers and
solicitors of 18 plus years good standing? It is a very frightening precedent and raises serious
questions about the degree of corruption and misconduct in the Victorian Supreme Court.

3.3.4 A miscarriage of justice occurred because the trial judge allowed the woman's lawyers
to use, but keep hidden from the defendant, a secret psychiatric report critical to the case

A miscarriage of justice occurred because the trial judge allowed the woman's lawyers to use, but
keep hidden from the defendant, a secret psychiatric report that would have totally vindicated the
defendant's case and would have totally destroyed the woman's case and the woman's lawyers
case if it had been properly disclosed to the defendant like as the law required

Amongst the documents that the woman's lawyers used in making that application were reports
produced by a court appointed psychologist and a court appointed psychiatrist in federal
magistrates court proceedings. The woman's lawyers had obtained one-sided, and therefore
biased suppression orders banning the defendant [but not them] from referring to those reports in
the Supreme Court proceedings. Other than ruling that those federal magistrates court orders
were illegal (as they clearly were) and that the defendant [a strenuously law abiding barrister and
solicitor] was “mad” [nb] for worrying about being sent to jail if he broke them, Justice Stephen
Kaye refused to do anything about the professional misconduct [contempt of Kaye's court and
attempt to pervert the course of justice inherent in the woman's lawyers seeking those orders and
the federal magistrate in granting them]. The woman's lawyers promised Justice Stephen Kaye
that they would not dob the defendant in to the federal magistrates court for breaking those orders
by discussing them in the mini-trial. And that was good enough for Justice Stephen Kaye to let this
show go on.

The first of these reports was by a psychologist whom the defendant was suing as the ninth
defendant by counterclaim under his November 2008 documents filed a month earlier. The
defendant was suing him for his negligence, recklessness and fraud and (criminal) defamations in
compiling the report. That report was published and circulated to the parties in December 2007.
The psychologist had made a preliminary diagnosis of the defendant based entirely on blatantly
malicious and false allegations made by the woman – allegations which he had never put to the
defendant to hear the defendant's response, even though the psychologist had three opportunities
at least to do so. And the psychologist wrote these false diagnosis even after recording several
damaging admissions from the woman – pointing to her sever mental health problems – and after
recording that she had lied (and admitted lying) to him during the course of his interviews.

The second of these reports was by a court appointed psychiatrist out of those proceedings. His
report was published in September 2008 but had never been given to the defendant. The
psychiatrist and the federal magistrates court had told the defendant he was not going to write a
report (since neither the man nor the woman had money to pay him for it). The woman's lawyers
and Justice Stephen Kaye failed to give the defendant a copy of that psychiatrists report, though
they were using it that morning of the mini-trial. They refused to give him a copy of the report when
he again requested it later in the trial. The mini-trial concluded that

The defendant finally obtained a copy of the psychiatrist's report in May 2009, three months after
the trial, following the sudden withdrawal of a malicious investigation of the defendant's mental

Page 10
health by the legal professional regulatory bodies. That investigation had been sparked by the
federal magistrate “on the strong urgings” of the woman's lawyers. As ordered by the legal
regulators, the defendant had attended for a psychiatric examination with a credible and well
regarded psychiatrist. Despite the legal regulators giving the psychiatrist a grossly biased set of
briefing materials, the defendant passed that psychiatric examination with flying colours. The
regulatory investigation was hastily terminated. But no apologies were given. 6 months later, the
legal professional regulators after 7 or 8 requests (pointing out that they were violating 4 or 5 sets
of laws requiring disclosure) reluctantly gave the defendant a copy of the positive May 2009
psychiatrist report.

Fortunately, the defendant, a barrister and solicitor of 18 years good standing, was planning to call
two psychologists (to give evidence of the mental trauma he had suffered during the fraudulent
proceedings, relevant to his entitlements for compensation from the woman's lawyers). The
defendant had brought two psychologists reports to Court, dated December 2007 and May 2008,
and both of which had been given to the woman's lawyers shortly after they were published. He
also had brought one of the psychologists to court as a subpoenaed witness (the other
psychologist was standing by the phone).

The secret October 2008 psychiatric report should have been disclosed to the defendant by the
plaintiff's lawyers, and by the federal magistrates court prior to the December 2008 trial. The
woman's lawyers should not have been allowed to use it at the mini-trial without handing a copy
over. The psychiatrist had separately interviewed the man and the woman (once each) and
prepared a joint report of those interviews. The psychiatrist should have prepared separate reports
for each of them, as he had promised the defendant in writing that he would do. The defendant
had asked for this because he didn't want a joint report (as the federal magistrates court appointed
psychiatrists usually do) which could be misunderstood as suggesting that the woman and the man
were a couple (the psychiatrist had not even met them prior to January 2008).

The October 2008 psychiatrist's report was corrupted by the same sorts of false allegations the
woman had made to the psychologist. It was also corrupted by the psychiatrist's reading of the
psychologist's corrupted assessment of the defendant (based on the woman's uncorroborated
malicious falsehoods that were not even put to the defendant prior to publication by the
psychologist).

However, the October 2008 psychiatrist's report contained crucial recordings of the woman's
confessions of serious and criminal misconduct and other disturbing behaviour. The psychiatrist
describes those episodes (which the court appointed psychologist had chosen to ignore or at least
down play) as “vivid and disturbing”. Based on that single interview, the psychiatrist had diagnosed
the woman as suffering serious borderline personality disorders. He had also diagnosed her as
someone “well practised at deceiving people”.

3.3.5. A miscarriage occurred because of the gross professional misconduct of the woman's
lawyers during the trial (a continuation of their professional misconduct in preliminary
hearings)

Some of this gross professional misconduct by the woman's lawyers is described above and some
more is described below. For example, the unlawful insanity inquisition (of the wrong litigant) and
the misuse of the secret psychiatric report. For present purposes, it is not possible to go into the
details of all of their misconduct. But these examples alone should be frightening enough to show
that much evil was afoot.

In July 2008 the defendant filed a 36 page Affidavit describing some of the outrageous misconduct
by the woman's new barrister, who had taken over the brief only after April 2008 (the defendant
attached to the Affidavit another 40 or so pages of attachments, including many letters and
documents drafted by the barrister himself).

Page 11
In January 2009, during the Christmas break in the trial, the defendant filed a substantial, 100 plus
page professional complaint about the woman's lawyers with the legal regulator. The legal
regulator has at all times (including as late as October 2009) either pretended that she had no
powers to investigate these complaints, or pretended that she did not understand the nature of
these complaints.

A damning report from the Victorian State Ombudsman published in September 2009 shows that
the Legal Services Commissioner (who has since resigned in disgrace) was the subject of 95
complaints to (half of) her office during the last financial year. As a regulator of less than 20,000
people (all of them highly educated lawyers with several layers of ethical and professional codes)
that figure must make her per capita one of the worst performing regulators ever recorded
anywhere in Australia.

3.3.6. A miscarriage of justice occurred because of the conduct of the trial judge.

Miscarriages of justice occurred because of multiple unlawful decisions of the trial judge, in every
instance favouring the woman and the woman's lawyers and in every instance going against the
basic rights of the defendant to receive due process, a fair hearing and equality under the law .

Many of these (but by no means all of them) are already on the court record.

Many have been summarised by the defendant in his Notice of Appeal of that decision
(renumbered and recorded by the Court as proceedings 3731 of 2009). More unlawful decisions
have been recorded in the Defendant's second Notice of Appeal (recorded by the Court as
proceedings 3766 of 2009).

Some more unlawful decisions have been recorded in the defendant's Section 35 Notice (of human
rights violations) under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

The defendant has also prepared dozens of written submissions for various court hearings where it
has been necessary to raise objections to procedural rulings and decisions made during the course
of these proceedings.

Obviously, describing poor conduct by any judge in the course of carrying out his public office and
functions requires a great deal of discretion and decorum. And in any case, this sort of detailed
discussion is of course beyond the scope of this paper.

4. IMPLICATIONS FROM THE SECRET PSYCHIATRIC REPORT ON THE PLAINTIFF

It is extraordinary that Justice Stephen Kaye, who received and presumably read the report as
part of the first morning's mini-trial, allowed the woman's lawyers to keep this report from the
defendant for the whole course of the trial. The report confirmed (what Justice Stephen Kaye
should have confirmed from the outset, that the woman was mentally unstable and just as the
defendant needed the court's protection from her false claims, the woman needed the court's
protection from her lawyers extraordinary manipulation and abuse.

The secret psychiatric report confirm the man's representations that the woman was mentally ill
and deceptive, and should have led the judge to quickly realise that the woman's claims were
fraudulent. The report should have led the judge to quickly realise that the woman's lawyers knew
or had no excuse for knowing that they were aiding and abetting a fraudulent blackmailer.

By the close of the trial before Justice Kaye the woman's lawyers had racked up $400,000 in legal
fees “working” for the woman. And they had done all this work on credit, hoping somehow (query
by influence and affluence rather than by evidence and law) to obtain a judgement in her favour,

Page 12
against the defendant's assets – a judgement that because of the economic damage they had
caused to the defendant, the woman, their “client” never had any prospect of sharing in.

And the judge should have held them to task ordering them to pay compensation to the defendant
for engaging in incompetence that grew into negligence that grew into fraud, including very ancient
kinds of frauds that only lawyers can commit. These are frauds so old that they have olden,
Norman English/French names like maintenance, champetry and barratry.

Justice Stephen Kaye should have realised (as the defendant had tried to explain to an earlier
Judge, Justice Smith on 7 May 2008) that the woman was mentally ill and being taken advantage
of by her lawyers. She was too crazy to know what they were doing. She didn't believe the
defendant when he tried to tell her what her lawyers would do to her and to him and what that
would mean for her. And “her” lawyers were not really “her lawyers” because she was crazy and
never had money to pay them. They had to win the case, and win big against the defendant, they
had to win at all costs, otherwise they would get nothing out of it. And they were too incompetent
to realise that their heavy handed tactics, their legal gamesmanship not justified by any evidence
before them, had already ruined the defendant's estates. So the only “winners” would be the
defendant's banks, the bank's lawyers who sit highest up the legal food chain and charge whatever
they please.

These family lawyers were bringing these legal proceedings nominally in the name of a woman
who lacked the mental capacity to properly engage with them, could not give instructions or receive
proper legal advice (if they had bothered to give her any), and could not understand their detailed
costs disclosures (if they had bothered to give her any, and if they had been practised enough to
do it properly). So the entire basis of their retainer agreement, their right to receive payment for
their “work” is based on a contract that is unenforceable to the mental illness of the woman (lack of
contractual capacity). And mental illnesses aside, as a contract relating to their performance of
champetery and barratry it is an illegal contract (a contract for the payment of money to commit
crimes) which the courts will not enforce on public policy grounds. So the woman's lawyers have
no right to receive a cent in payment anyway, so long as the courts uphold centuries of common
law tradition that contracts to do illegal things are unenforceable by the courts for reasons of public
policy. That policy being that the law courts are not in the business of supporting or encouraging
the performance of crimes. Quite ironic having regard to the misbehaviour of the woman's family
lawyers.

By early 2008 these proceedings had digressed to a primitive tug of war between the woman's
lawyers and the defendant over the remnants of the defendant's estates out of which, if the
woman's lawyers won, the defendant would be left with less than nothing, and the woman would
be left with less than nothing. Specifically, the woman would get nothing but an unpaid legal debt
of at least $250,000 and up to $400,000 with the lawyers keeping whatever could be got from the
defendant.

This was confirmed a year later, in early 2009, when, a week or so after Justice Stephen Kaye
ordered the defendant to pay the woman $105,000 and ordered that the Court sell the defendant's
properties to gather this sum, the woman's lawyers wrote to her telling her they would be keeping
the proceeds and asking her how she was going to pay the balance [$250,000 - $400,000 at a best
case, worst case estimate].

The woman's lawyers were so incompetent, negligent etc that they posted those letters to the
defendant rather than to the woman either by mistake or due to some subconscious Dostoevsky-
effect of their guilty minds (a reference to “Crime and Punishment”).

The defendant duly brought those letters to the attention of the Chief Justice Marilyn Warren and
Justice Paul Coghlan on 15 May 2009 as part of his application to have the court halt enforcing
Justice Stephen Kaye's orders for the sale of his properties.

Page 13
The defendant explained that he wanted to retain the house. The defendant proved, in the space
of 40 minutes, that a miscarriage of justice had occurred and must be fixed when the same Judges
hear the appeal. He explained that the rent from the house covered the mortgage and he wanted
to keep it so that, once all the hostilities were over, he had a house left that he could make
available to the woman and her children so that they would again have a safe roof over their
heads. The defendant was still trying to protect the woman and her children from the predations of
the woman's lawyers.

The woman's lawyer [in spite of the letters penned by his instructor] asserted that “the woman” [nb]
should be entitled to “the fruits of the judgement in her favour”. He made these assertions even
though the judgement was far from final and totally unsubstantiable on appeal. And once the
orders had been executed the status quo could never be restored if, and when, the orders were
reversed on appeal on grounds of miscarriage of justice. He made those assertions even though
his instructors intended to steal the fruits of that judgement and the defendant had made sure that
the Court of Appeal had been informed of his instructors' intentions.

Somehow, and it can only be because the preparations for the hearing were all a bit rushed, and it
was late on a Friday afternoon, and the judges were not yet well-enough acquainted with the
circumstances of what had gone on at the trial before Justice Kaye, the Court of Appeal ruled that
the orders must be executed even though they were far from final.

Somehow, and it could only be explained the same way, the Court of Appeal suggested (and
unfortunately creating a road block against fairer hearings for the defendant in the future) that the
defendant was unlikely [query: “unlikely to be allowed”?] to win his appeal. The Court of Appeal
ignored the evidence that the fruits of the judgement would in the meantime, regardless of the
appeal outcome, be pocketed by the woman's lawyers.

The woman's lawyers had previously blocked the defendant's attempts to put an end to the
blackmail by giving them “everything” and finally, “more than everything” he owned.

In his final “more than everything” offer of early April 2008 the defendant offered to put that house,
worth about $250,000, mortgage free, in a trust for the woman's youngest child. The defendant
saw that as the best way possible to protect them all from the woman with her mental illnesses and
addictions and the risks of her selling the house and drinking, sniffing and injecting the proceeds,
and making herself and her children homeless again. At the time, the defendant also offered her
$50,000 to pay her new lawyers (the ones who continued on for the trial). $50,000 should have
more than covered their fees as they had taken on her case less than two weeks earlier. But the
woman's lawyers blocked their mentally ill woman from taking that last gasp, “more than
everything” offer.

5. A PRE-APPEAL POST-MORTEM OF “AN ATTACK OF THE FAMILY LAWYERS”

It is worth noting that the defendant had always been incredibly kind and generous (perhaps too
generous) with his money.

During the three years 2004 to 2006 he was helping his genuine girlfriend (a photography and
cinematography graduate) with money, including funding computer and photographic equipment to
help her start her own business. At the same time he was paying more than $500 a week in child
support for his wife and three children. And he was giving the plaintiff $1,000 plus a week in rent-
free accommodation, cash and other financial support.

In 1998, when the defendant and his wife finally separated (after living in separate bedrooms at
opposite ends of the house for two years) the defendant gave his wife a 100% settlement (the

Page 14
house, the furniture, the kids) taking only his clothes and the 'second' car. And at all times
thereafter he made sure he gave her at least as much money each month as he would have if he
had stayed in the marriage.

As one of the psychologist reports produced as part of the defence case demonstrated in glowing
terms, the defendant and his wife sorted out their affairs, and had a model post-separation
parenting arrangement, without any paperwork and no lawyers or courtrooms required. The
defendant and his wife have never even filed for a legal annulment of their marriage. The
defendant kept his child support and parenting commitments to his wife and children right up until
mid 2008 when the financial strain of the woman's lawyers heavy-handed tactics in these
proceedings totally destroyed his legal practice and his income.

And what have the woman's lawyers done for her while racking up more than $400,000 in legal
fees that she owes them?

The woman now is back to working as a prostitute. Out of every 1 hour booking (that's massage,
oral sex and intercourse) each client pays her $220. From the $220, $20 goes to the government
as GST. $100 goes to the brothel for the room (and half of that, another $50 goes to the
government as tax). The woman gets $100 but (assuming she is a good corporate citizen) she
gives $50 to the government as tax. That leaves her with $50 for an hour of “massage, oral sex
and intercourse”.

So how much “massage, oral sex and intercourse” must the woman give out in order to earn the
$1,000 tax free benefits she used to get from the defendant? (answer 20 clients of one hour each,
every week).

And on top of 20 hours of “massage, oral sex and intercourse” each week, how much extra
“massage, oral sex and intercourse” must the woman give out to make $250,000 “legitimate” after-
sex dollars to pay her lawyers for the work they did for her in these proceedings (answer 5,000
hours, or an extra 10 hours a week, every week for ten years)?

Prior to involving lawyers, the woman was receiving $1,000 a week in money and benefits from the
defendant. By substantiating her claim that he was the biological father of her youngest child, she
could have been collecting, maximum, $400 a month from the defendant (about the equivalent of a
month's free rent) if the defendant's legal practice and wealth had not been entirely destroyed.
She could on top of this have had the benefit of no outstanding legal fees and a home to live in
rent free for the next decade, with the freehold to pass on to her daughter at some date 10 or 20
years from now. The woman could be getting the financial and mental health assistance that she
and her children need.

Instead, the woman is now at an age when most prostitutes are either giving up the game because
they can't compete with the 'younger meat' on the market – or are beginning the treacherous slide
down the quality scale of Melbourne's legalised brothels to the lower quality ones and then the
shadier illegal ones and then, finally, the notorious streets and alleys of illegal red light districts.
And she has three young children to support, the eldest barely out of primary school. So she is
now working how many hours a week to provide for her children, that is, to make rent, provide food
(when she thinks of it which according to the body of evidence before Justice Stephen Kaye is not
nearly as often as she should from a child welfare perspective). She will have to work a minimum
of 30 hours a week for the next 10 years to pay off her legal bills and to replace the voluntary child
support moneys that the defendant was giving her.

And what of the defendant and his other dependants (his “genuine” ex-wife and his “genuine” three
children from his marriage)? The defendant, his financial survival, and his ability to provide for his
wife and children to the standards that he wants, and his ability to 'rescue' the plaintiff's children
(and of necessity the plaintiff too) from these predations of “her” lawyers, turns on the defendant

Page 15
winning his legal claims against the woman's lawyers. And despite the applicable laws and the
body of evidence that show that these are claims that the defendant can't lose, he is stuck in a
judicial and legal system that shows enormous prejudice and bias against him.

The bias and prejudice in the system is so bad that it is even at the point of accusing the defendant
of being the one who is making scandalous legal claims against the woman's lawyers without any
substantiation. Never mind that, of course the truth of the situation is the other way around.

6. AUSTRALIAN LAWS, COURTS AND REGULATORS PROTECT ROGUE LAWYERS

Justice Stephen Kaye somehow felt it was legally possible to dismiss the defendant's claims
against the woman's lawyers (not the better drawn up November 2008 version, the congenital
February 2008 ones) on the basis that they had no claim to have to answer to, two weeks before
Justice Stephen Kaye gave his (flawed) answer to the question whether the woman's claims were
fraudulent or legitimate.

There couldn't be a clearer example of pre-judge-ice and bias, except perhaps the precedent set
by his unlawful insanity inquisition, the mini-trial using flawed and secret psychiatric reports on the
first day of the trial.

The simple fact is that the Judges and courts just don't want to admit, don't want to expose and
don't want to investigate and address the scandalous professional and criminal misconduct of the
woman's lawyers and the implications of their misconduct (and how it has been able to get this far)
for the broader legal profession (its solicitors, its barristers and its judges). And this attitude of
prejudice and bias, denial of fair hearings and denial of equality under the law, even the denial of
equal resources has pervaded more than a dozen court hearings since Justice Kaye's “judgement
day” in February 2009, with alarming Kafka-esque performances and results.

The same collective denial, prejudice, bias and inequalities have also been demonstrated within
other halls of government, including “responsible” Ministers, regulatory agencies, legal aid
agencies and legal professional bodies. Everyone wants the defendant to just go away and stop
reporting trouble. Seems they don't care about the trouble caused by the woman's lawyers, don't
care if they are left at large to do more trouble. They just don't want the defendant talking about it
or trying to do anything about it.

The defendant has approached his professional body, the Law Institute of Victoria, 4 times for help,
beginning as early as March 2008. Each time the Law Institute has refused to get involved in the
case. The defendant first asked the Law Institute to intervene to mediate or open communications
between the defendant and the woman's lawyers. The Law Institute is a professional association
and the defendant and the woman's lawyers were members of the association. What better than
to fix the problem of this mentally ill woman's fraudulent claims and blackmail by private
discussions – especially as the defendant wanted and still wants to help her children (and therefore
must help her too). And the woman's lawyers 'tactics' throughout had been not to communicate
with the defendant at all, to 'soften him up'. When the defendant, asked the woman's lawyers at
the door of the court on the morning of the first hearing (before Justice Mandie February 2008) if
they wanted to talk, their response was “There's nothing to talk about. You have to make us an
offer.” Never mind the truth of the case, never mind the evidence of two police reports and two
psychological assessments, never mind the interference in the aggravated burglary, the only way
the woman's lawyers would go away was if they first filled their pockets with the defendant's hard
and honestly earned money. A charming state of affairs. And a charming abuse of the legal
system and the courts.

Ironically the Law Institute orchestrated the regulator mental health investigation of the defendant
in April 2009. After hastily cancelling that malicious investigation, the defendant again sought

Page 16
assistance from the Law Institute. The defendant even pointed out to the Law Institute's
“Professional Standards” staff how to find and how to read the Law Institute's constitution, and “the
oldest rule in the book”, which for this Corporations Act entity is clause 2. The defendant pointed to
half a dozen paragraphs of clause 2 of the Constitution, and referred to his 20 years of
membership and to the Law Institute's bold website announcing it mission to promote equality and
fairness under the law (the 'rule of law') and explained that the Law Institute had contractual and
other legal obligations to render assistance to him (as a member of the association and as a
member of the public). After a 2 month delay the Law Institute declined to help him for the third
time (or fourth time). When the defendant threatened to sue the Law Institute, this alarmed the
Law Institute and it pretended it would help him with submissions to Victoria Legal Aid and other
parts of Government (consistent with clause 2 of the Constitution). After 2 months of pretending
and doing nothing, the defendant complained to the Law Institute for pretending. After another 2
months delay, actually the day after its 2009 Annual General Meeting, the Law Institute wrote 2
letters (not one) to the defendant denying that they had said they would help him, denying that they
had any legal obligation to help him, and posturing that they would vigorously defend and legal
proceedings that the defendant might commence against them.

Ironically, the legal aid picture is quite the opposite for the woman's lawyers, who have no financial
need for legal aid, and no moral or legal right to receive it. So far the Government has spent some
$4,000,000 to support the woman's lawyers, and to suppress the defendant's efforts to obtain
justice. So far, the woman's lawyers have benefited from some $2 million in unlimited lawyers-only,
blue ribbon legal aid funds. Imagine a legal battle where on one side there are no less than 4 city
solicitors firms and 4 city barristers, with collectively MORE THAN 160 YEARS EXPERIENCE in
the courtroom, all funded by the lawyers' statutory oligarchy – the Legal Practitioners Liability
(EVASION) Committee. And on the other side, is a defendant who has had all of his wealth and his
income stripped by the very people he is arguing against, and he has to represent himself in court,
has to draw up court documents himself etc etc despite his lack of training and experience in these
areas of the law, because no other lawyers will do it for him. And prior to becoming the defendant
in these proceedings he had ZERO EXPERIENCE.

Arguably the Legal Practitioners Liability (EVASION) Committee is acting illegally, misusing
statutory funds by spending them to protect the woman's lawyers, having regard to the criminal
nature of the woman's misconduct.

Ironically, the Legal Practitioners Liability (EVASION) Committee was the defendant's most
valuable founding client when he set up his own legal practice in 1999 (after 12 years serving in
two of Australia's top international commercial solicitors firms).

Well its no, more ironic than the fact that when the woman's lawyers first began their heavy-
handed actions against him the defendant was one of the most valuable client contacts for the
woman's lawyers firm and had been for some 7 or 8 years running.

For 7 years prior and for a further year after the woman's lawyers commenced these proceedings,
the defendant was the in-house lawyer for a billion dollar government authority that, under local
content rules, required him to give millions of dollars a year in legal fees to the woman's lawyers
and had put him in an 8 year, first name relationship with the chairman (a practising litigation
lawyer) and the senior partner of the firm (also a litigation lawyer). Typically, the defendant gave all
of the authority's litigation work to those too gentlemen because he had no litigation training or
experience. On the afternoon of 15 May 2009 in the Court of Appeal the Chief Justice Marilyn
Warren heard two cases. The second of these was the defendant's application that the court not
sell the defendant's home [which he had earmarked for the plaintiff and her children] because the
orders of the trial judge were faulty and will be cancelled once the appeal is heard and the
miscarriage of justice addressed. But prior to that was the final hearing in a case that had been
running for a decade, which was the first case that the defendant had sent to the woman's lawyers
(handled by their chairman) under their 8 year and million dollar plus a year arrangement the

Page 17
woman's lawyers had as the defendant's external legal counsel for the government authority.

And its nowhere near as ironic as the fact that, despite the woman's lawyers automatically
qualifying for millions of dollars of legal aid from a special lawyers only legal aid fund, and despite
the defendant receiving bi-partisan letters from the then leader of the Opposition, Mr Malcolm
Turnbull, and from the Federal Attorney-General Mr Robert McClelland expressing their views that
that Victoria Legal Aid should be giving the defendant legal aid funding to hire independent lawyers
to draw up and argue his case, Victoria Legal Aid, another lawyers statutory oligarchy, maintains
that there is “no public interest” to justify legal aid funding for this case.

So bad is the legal aid situation that after a year of legal aid applications and rejections and
reviews and more rejections and more reviews, the defendant is waiting on an answer from
Victoria Legal Aid whether they will grant legal aid to sue legal aid for failing to grant him the legal
aid that Malcolm Turnbull and Robert McLelland believed that he should have been granted so that
there would be at least a bit of a semblance of an “equality of arms” in this adversarial battle
between the defendant and the woman's lawyers.

7. IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM – FINDING THE RIGHT SOLUTION

The woman's lawyers continue to thrive off the spin that this is a battle between the woman and
the defendant. And, of course, as they spin it, the woman and the defendant were a de facto
couple. And of course there was no need for them to bother to gather evidence, to investigate her
claims before writing them up as legal documents with immediate legal consequences (as with the
caveats) even before the defendant found out what they had done.

And of course there was no need for them to bring any evidence to court, or to have to prove
anything to the court. Everyone should just accept what the woman's lawyers say on the subject.
No one should investigate the facts. No one should see that their case was empty of evidence and
their star witness empty of credibility and even in need of serious social, emotional and mental
health counselling.

According to the spin from the woman's lawyers, and the woman's lawyers' lawyers, no one should
believe what the defendant says. So what if he is a top-tier commercial and government lawyers, a
barrister and solicitor of 20 years good standing. So what if he brought to court a huge body of
independent evidence to substantiate his case. So what if he confined his testimony, as he told the
trial judge he would, to merely summarising the evidence from his other defence witnesses or
testimony that was otherwise corroborated by independent sources (statutory records, financial
contracts, taxation and bank records and the like).

There is nothing funny about the Government giving $2 million in legal aid to 2 very wealthy family
law solicitors and 2 very wealthy family law barristers (hiring 4 city firms of solicitors and 4 more
barristers) to defend them against claims by one solicitor that they fraudulently destroyed his
wealth and his income, to the point where in the space of 18 months they had turned him from “rich
man” to “poor man” and by the time of the trial (borrowing money to get to court each day) they
had turned him from a “poor man” to a “beggar man”.

There is nothing funny about the Government paying $2 million for lawyers for these 4 rouge family
lawyers, buying 160 YEARS of courtroom experience, to criticise the defendant's drafting of
courtroom documents when the defendant has ZERO YEARS of experience, is relying on text
books and teaching himself and the same Government refuses to give HIM any legal aid.

There is nothing funny in the fact that the best legal aid he has ever been offered was offered was
the advice that he could make a 30 minute free phone call to the Law Institute's free legal help line
service. The defendant is saving that call for a really rainy day that he hopes never comes.

Page 18
There is nothing funny about the trial judge ruling that the defendant's legal claims against the
woman's lawyers were scandalous because the defendant didn't show the trial judge any evidence
to prove that the woman's lawyers didn't show the trial judge any independent or credible evidence
to support her wild and unsubstantiated claims.

Or is there?

In the name of the woman, these family lawyers hid the fact that this was always a predatory attack
by them, pretending to represent the interests of a woman who is a “mental case” not a “legal
case.” It is a battle by the woman's lawyers, now not only to take whatever they can from the
remains of the defendant's wealth (presently $150,000 sitting in a Supreme Court trust account)
but a more savage attack motivated by the desire to deny the man justice and to cover up their
professional and criminal wrong-doings.

It is a very successful piece of spin, by very wealthy and well-educated and well-experienced men
and women who not only have all of their wealth intact, they have continuing peace of mind of zero
interruption in their very privileged and comfortable lives. And they have access to millions in
government money to fund their defence.

During 2004 the defendant was able, with police support, to protect the woman and her three
children from the stalking and harassment of one of her brothel-client-boyfriends turned predator.

What chance that the courts will protect the defendant and the woman from this latest and more
frightening set of predations by these family lawyers masquerading as “lawyers”, and
masquerading as “her” lawyers?

What chance that the courts the Government and the legal profession will ever give back to the
defendant what these predatory family lawyers have criminally taken and destroyed so that he can
resume his life.

What chance that the defendant will ever be allowed to resume his professional life as a top-tier
commercial and government lawyer (maybe a new life as a top-profile international human rights
lawyer and advocate) and to resume his personal life as non-live with dad and provider for his
three children and, in some capacity, non-live with dad and provider for the poor mentally-ill and
lawyer-abused plaintiff and her three troubled children?
s

- o0o -

Page 19