H J AMES J OHNSON

HUMAN RIGHTS § CIVIL RIGHTS § CORRUPTION § MEDIA

D EFA M AT I O N § P R O F E S S I O N A L N E G L I G E N C E L AW
1 S T F L O O R 1 4 1 O S B O R N E S T R E E T S O U T H YA R R A V I C T O R I A 3 1 4 1
TELEPHONE: +613 9279 3932 FA C S I M I L E : + 6 1 3 9 2 7 9 3 9 5 5

Monday 31 August 2009 *** IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION

Dr Timothy Entwisle
Timothy J Entwisle Pty Ltd
32 Highett Street
Richmond Victoria 3121

By Facsimile: 9421 3855 (... pages)

Dear Dr Entwisle

VICTORIAN SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS 9665 OF 2007, 9263 AND 10222 OF 2008
AND 3731 AND 3366 OF 2009
1. I refer to your Report dated 2 September 2008 (Your reference 07F739601 ML:la).

Your Report
2. I assume you will not be surprised to learn that the Federal and State Governments (to wit, a
Federal Magistrate, Victoria Legal Aid and a Victorian Supreme Court Judge) kept your
Report secret from me. In fact, I had been led by you and by Victoria Legal Aid to believe
that you had not prepared a written report (a little 'pissed' that having had my wealth and
income destroyed by my aggressors, I lacked the monies to pay your fee – even though, if
there were any pretence of fairmess in the system, Ms Cressy and her financial backers (her
$350,000 litigation funders, her corrupt family lawyers) should have picked up your tab as I
was forced to pick up Mr David List's tab. In fact, despite being made aware of the existence
of your report at another unlawful hearing on 2 December 2008, your report was still kept
secret from me, until I was finally provided a copy via the Legal Services Commissioner and
its delegate (my own Law Instititute of Victoria) by letter dated 1 May 2009.
3. This secrecy is regrettable. I have only this weekend had an opportunty to read your report. I
had no idea how prejudicial this secret report was, when it ws secretly used against me
before a Supreme Court Judge (remember the 'extortion case', the 'property grab' I informed
you of at our one and only and briefest of interviews?) on 2 December 2008. Of course that
abuse of process against me just merged in with another dozen or so of more or less tyranny
along the way. It would also have also been proper had I had the benefit of your Report for

Page 1
 the purposes of cross-examining Ms Cressy in early December 2008 over the again number
of bizarre lies and occassional truths that she reportly revealed to you in your interview of her.

What to do with your Report?

4. By rights, I should just join you as yet another defendant to my $28 million malpractice suit.
5. On the one hand, you disgracefuly and criminally defame me:
(a) quotiing Ms Cressy's obvious lies (including second-hand via David List) and
writing them up as if they were true. For example, I'm the last person that anyone in
their right mind would accuse of being a sodomite. I'll send you copies of Ms Cressy's
own handwritten journals which evidence this. Then, I'm the last person that anyone
in their right mind would accuse of being a pedophile (to wit, Ms Cressy's claim she
was too frightened to discuss her false accusation of me with my (then 10 years
deceased) mother). Then, I'm the last person that anyone i ntheir right mind would
accuse of being narcistic or mentally ill – since when did caring too much become a
mental illness? My ex-girlfriends (all post-Ms Cressy aka 'Ms 1999' can readily vouch
for all three of these 'grandiose' claims, as can any members of my extended family,
friends and acquaintainces).
(b) You gratuitiously (why? because you can?) defame my ex-girlfriends – I've never
dated a 'pole dance' nor a 'stripper' in my life, let alone 2 of them. And it would be a
mighty crude use of language indeed to suggest that Ms Cressy fitted both those
descriptions and suggest that I dated a pole dancing, stripper during 1999 [it wasn't
me she was mostly stripping for, nor was it my pole that she was mostly sliding
down].
(c) There is an unnecessarily nasty (and/or hasty) tone in your report – the alchemical
translation of Ms Cressy's (and David List's) bizarre lies into wording of (proven?)
facts – eg (a) my 'denial' of taking illegal drugs? [Excuse me, but where's your more
accurate statement that Ms Cressy falsely accused me of taking illegal drugs?] (b) a
multitude of not quite right statements – my father was not 'cruel and evil'. Nor did my
parents separate following physical violence. It is a pity that you do not record your
sessions for accountability and quality control purposes – but that would be
dangerous wouldn't it?
1. On the other hand, there are some genuine insights in what you write:
(a) You describe me as 'a 'full time Defendant', which is more true today than ever, but
seem to persist with Ms Cressy's (forever playing the victim) nonesense that I am the

Page 2
 aggressor. Surely it is obvious even to a non-lawyer that a 'Defendant' is the one who
is under attack – who is it who was pursuing who through the Courts?;
(b) apart from me, you seem to be the only player in this nasty little game of fraud and
deceit that viewed the statement from Ms Cressy's neighbour as 'both vivid and
disturbing'.
(c) How disturbing that the Federal Magistrate refused to even hear Ms Cressy's
contraventions of court orders and violence towards her children? His reasoning – if
he heard this, given that he has powers to impose prison sentences, he might have to
send Ms Cressy to prison, so best he doesn't hear this? Is that vivid and disturbing?
(d) your reference to Ms Cressy as a 'Jezzabel' [I wish I knew my Old Testament
stories a little better, but I think I get the gist of that.] I will forward to you copies of Ms
Cressy's handwritten journals of 2000, her memoirs [written circa 2003 and covering
her brothel exploits, list of conquests etc from her mid-teens in 1996 up to 2002 when,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, with my financial support and guidance she
actually gave up the game. Why she returned to it in late 2006 (possibly) or early
2007 (definitely – it's in her diaries) I've no idea, save that I think she decided that '3
James' (scamming 3 men to fund her) were better than 1.
(e) Your comment that it seemed at that time of your interviews that Ms Cressy had
the 'whip hand' [such intemperate language dear Doctor ....]
6. And, for the record: (a) I think most people who know me [that is, people who'veve known me
longer than the 90 minutes that your interview lasted] would agree with my assessment of
myself as a [positive] 'monopole' not a 'bi-polar' disordered person; (b) Dogulas Adams' 'Last
Chance To See' is not the sort of book that you read with a smile on your face, whether you
are reading it in a Courtroom or otherwheres; and (c) it is a simple scientific fact that my
mother was a medical and spiritual marvel – look up the word 'Eisenmenger's Syndrome' in
one of your medical books, or just google the word. (d) how narcistic of me to suggest that I
feel and look 12 years younger than I really am (based on feedback from others) – when in
your expert opinion you state that I look [only] 10 years younger than I really am. Geesh, and
you accuse me of being grandiose and patronising.
7. And just who do you think it was who for 8 years was making sure that Ms Cressy's children
were housed, fed, clothed and schooled and had a bit of a hope for a bit of a future? Not pot
smoking and dealing PC Gamer brat-boy Laitey - as Ms Cressy seems to have admitted in
her session with you, whilst covering this up with all sorts of lies elsewhere. A little credit
please.

Page 3
8. And just who do you think ruined me financially, so that I could no longer financially afford
child support (or even blackmail payments) to Ms Cressy, so she is no longer able to live
under one of my roofs?
9. Does it surprise you that the current state of play is that Ms Cressy and her lawyers have
destroyed all of my wealth but her lawyers are trying to grab $150,000 in net equity from 3 of
my (former) properties before my genuine mortgagees and creditors take it). And for this Ms
Cressy will get nothing of the spoils, and will have a net debt to her lawyers of about
$200,000 – that's 20,000 hours of brothel services assuming she is non-tax law abiding.
40,000 hours otherwise. Of course her lawyers are going to chase that $200,000 first off me.
And the Governmen is seeking about $250,000 from me to reimburse the Government for
paying for more lawyers to prevent me from suing her lawyers for extorting me? C'est
incroyable ca, non? And what's the Government doing legalising prostitution in the first place,
collecting taxes (well GST at least 'from the House') and not doing anything by way of
attending to the mental illnesses of the women who trade in it? A victimless crime? Who's
kidding?
10. The irony is that I became a 'full time Defendant' [that is, 'a person under attack'] in May 2007
precisely because I refused Ms Cressy's un-tempting offer to become her de facto. Truth is,
but for her threats of violence (to her children, herself and to me), threats to destroy my
business (a threat she has now carried out) and threats to destroy my life (not quite carried
out, but, I am in hiding from firebombs and knife attacks that so far have been at my car, not
at me) I would not have been anywhere as generous with child support payments but for the
aggravated blackmail factor.
1. Sadly, what you had in your rooms was a situation where a 100% honest man, a very
vulnerable middle aged (self-made) middle class man was being extorted by a career
Jezzabel, and corrupt lawyers who know how to use their influence and affluence, and happy
to rack up $350,000 on the punt that they could extort or get false judgement from me. As Dr
Philip McGrath of Oprah Channel fame would say, saddly, your moral compass was 'way off
beam' – and I'd add that your bullshit meter was totally non-functus. What kind of idiot could
pretend, let alone suggest, that Illyana or her half-siblings, were in any kind of danger from
me based on groundless allegations by a crazy and malicious Ms Cressy, and ignore the
'vivid and disturbing' evidence of Ms Cressy's danger towards them. And as for Ms Cressy's
admissions of domestic violence and abuse towards her children in an effort to downplay the
true scenario?

Page 4
2. I can read in your report some sympathy for Ms Cressy, a recognition of her mental problems,
her plight, and by derrivative, the plight of her children. and a desire to help her. Pity, you
saw the elements, but just weren't able to weigh them up accurately.
3. Also, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that, despite your obviously being a part
of this $6 billion to $8 billion per annum family law courts industry, that you do not fully
appreciate.

A fair second chance

11. I am prepared to give you something that wasn't given me, namely a fair chance.
12. You will be a required witness in my $28M malpractice suit against David List and others aka
Supreme Court of Victoria Proceedings No. 9263 of 2008 and 3766 of 2009 (It's the Court's
idea to fragment the case this way, not mine).
13. I'm giving you until 28 September 2009 to review your Report, provide me with a written
apology and a recast Report.
14. To assist you with your review, I will provide you with:
(a) Copy of the correspondences between myself and the Law Institute of Victoria (as
delegate of the Legal Services Commissioner) from which I ultimatelly received a copy of
your Report. These include a copy of the Law Institute's letter to me of 26 May 2009 where
the Law Institute, in what must pass as one of the worst apologies ever written, 'on the basis
of the evidence presently in its [sic] possession' 'has decided to take no further action in
relation to this matter' of these vile and criminal defamations of me.
(b) Copies of my Affidavits of 16 January 2009 and 8 Febraury 2009 (including with the
former, copies of Ms Cressy's handwritten journals), copies of other documents tendered in
evidence (including Ms Cressy's diary for part of 2007), copy of Ilyana's brth certificate and
CSA correspondence (not found by me until Apri lthis year) confirming that not only did Ms
Cressy and I not live together, but her eldest son did not live with her full or even half time
either for the first 4 years or so of his life.
(c) copies of various newspaper articles, political speeches etc, which show that I am not the
only one who is aware of the corruption that drives the $6bn to $8bn family law courts
industry. It was Whether or not you are a co-defendant to that law suit, is entirely up to you.
a am writing to for a couple of reasons, firstly to thank you for the work that your organisation
does. It is nice to see that not all lawyers are driven purely by the profit motive.

Narcists under the bed

Page 5
15. As a man who seems to be pretty free and easy to throw the narcist tag around, I attach a
copy of an article from one of today's regional newspapers discussing Malcolm Turnbull's
alleged narcism? Really. Might I add that Malcolm Turnbull happens to be one of the best
lawyers (technically and ethically) that this 'ignominous mental slum' [to quote Aussie genius
Lindsay Gordon from the 60s) has ever produced? Just think, if there was any truth to your
narcistic labelling of me, I could be a future Prime Minister of this 'slum' with a $170 million
fortune. And yes, as one of my heros, I have sought to model my 'no nonsensense'
commercial approach to the law on what has worked well for Malcolm Turnbull.

Conclusions
16. I will forward the abovementioned reading materials to you by mail.
17. If you do not want to take up this opportunity to make amends for some of the harm that you
have done, please don't be so impolite as to run the calendar down. If you are going to be an
ass, then I'll just get on with serving the writ on you. And if that's the scenario, then clearly
the sooner the better.

Kind regards

JAMES JOHNSON

Page 6