H J AMES J OHNSON

B A R R I S T E R A N D S O L I C I TO R
O F T H E F E D E R A L C O U RT S A N D T H E H I G H C O U RT O F A U S T R A L I A
w w w. j a m e s j o h n s o n 2 0 2 0 . c o m

Wednesday 27 July 2010 *** IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION

Ms ### ###
Family Law Firm
666 Front Street
Capital City GOTHAM 911

By Facsimile: #### #### (.... pages)

Dear Ms ##

FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS – THURSDAY ADAMS (AN INFANT), ADAM ADAMS AND HAI KON YU
1. I refer to my facsimile of 21 July 2010.

Letter to the Court

2. I enclose for your attention a copy of my letter being delivered this morning to the Court (5 pages plus 2
attachments totalling 8 pages all up).
3. I refer in particular to paragraph 3 thereof. I would be grateful if your firm would endeavour to communicate
with me/Mr Adams by email at my above given email address. I would be grateful to receive any and all
documents from your firm via email, with delivery of hard copies of documents to me by being marked to my
attention and delivered to me at Mr Adams's address previously on the record (namely 123 Sesame Street
Capital City 911) and not my S### address. I have made the same request of the Court and the mother's
lawyer.

Request for Conference

4. I shall endeavour to be at or in close proximity to the Court by 8.30 am this morning.
5. I ask that you please telephone me on my above number once you have had an opportunity to peruse these
materials. I am especially keen to discuss with the mother's lawyyer:
 the 'equal parenting' proposals that Mr Adams wishes to pursue, and
 the extent to which the parties might agree (presumably to the considerable delight of Her Honour)
that there are certain 'no go zones' on issues such as freedoms of speech and (if I may be so blunt
given the timing) the airing of wild, unsubstantiated and inappropriate (on materiality, relevance and
probity grounds) allegations the airing of which could be seen to raise real concerns of 'perjury',

Page 1 of 5
 'contempt', and even criminal misconduct (including, malicious defamation allegations) by those
airing them.
6. Obviously Mr Adams, and indeed all relevant persons (including Thursday and her mother and all of the
extended Adams family) will benefit from Mr Adams and Ms Yu reaching consent orders.
7. I believe that I need not say any more about the extra-curial investigations of Ms Yu's conduct during both
during and subsequent to her relationship with Mr Adams. Indeed, to the extent I have been briefed on
those investigations, I am conscious that there are constraints on my ability to air them in the forum of these
proceedings.

Concerns with previous conduct by the ICL (and the ICL's experts)
8. Having regard to the previous history of this matter, I believe that if this Hearing proceedings along the lines
of previous hearings (refer my facsimile letters of 21 July 2010) I believe that this will be detrimental to the
parties, deterimental to the image of the Court and, quite possibly, deterimental to the lawyers and other
professionals (notably the childrens representative and Dr Smith).
9. Clearly I am keen to put the proceedings on a proper professional footing. I merely note that the Case
Outline prepared by your the mother's lawyers and even more so the Case Outline prepared by your firm as
ICL do not engender confidence as to how the matter might be conducted before Her Honour, without
substantial agreement on major issues by all 3 sets of lawyers beforehand.
10. Perhaps if your firm had had the benefit of my facsimile letter of 21 July 2010 before preparing its Case
Outline.

Additional Attachments
11. I also attach as a courtesy some additional attachments which will be included amongst the exhibits to
affidavits that Mr Adams will be swearing and filing at Court this morning.

Concerns with ICL's Case Outline

12. I have made a preliminary perusal of the Case Outline prepared by your firm. It is a vivid and disturbing
document (refer to my facsimile letter of 21 July 2010). It reads as a 'pre-judgement', despite the wishy
washiness of the final paragraph, headed 'submissions'. It is a perplexing document prepared by a self-
confessed 'preplexed' author(s).
13. Perhaps if the author(s) had focused their energies on issues relevant to the best parenting arrangements
for the infant Thursday for 2010 to 2020 and beyond, rather than demonstrating an obsessive hatred of Mr
Adams for exercising his freedoms of speech (on behalf of himself and his daughter) whilst performing
superhuman efforts to maintain his strong bond with his daughter) the ICL's 'Case Outline' and the ICL
commissioned 'experts' reports might have looked quite differently. Indeed, I note that it is the ICL which has

Page 2 of 5
 sought to put these 'freedom of speech' issues into Her Honour's forum, a forum where they don't belong,
and an action that is detrimental to the.
14. In short it is my assessment, that the ICL's Case Outline is not drawn up from an independent perspective.
Nor is it drawn up from a childrens perspective. Nor, having regard to:
a. the legal (and supra-legal, ie constitutional) concerns I express below; and
b. the poor quality (statements of fact that are nothing more than unsubtantiated hearsay and/or, along
with other statements of fact entirely contradicted by the substantive independent evidence,
is it possible to say that it is drawn up from a lawyers perspective.

Legal (and supra-legal, ie constitutional) concerns

15. I mentioned in my previous facsimile letter of 21 July 2010 that I have counselled Mr Adams not to bring up
freedom of speech or 'good government' issues or other constitutional human rights concerns in Her
Honour's Court as these public and national interest issues are nonetheless remote from the concerns of his
daughter - putting in place the best parenting arrangements for 2010 to 2020 and beyond, and in particular,
arrangements that empower Mr Adams and Ms Yu to make parenting arrangements in the familyroom(s) of
Thursday's homes and not via constant recourse to the courtroooms.
16. I have also counselled Mr Adams that your firm's energies to turn these proceedings into a public and
national interest case, a full legal battle on constitutional grounds (in respect of which Her Honour has no
judicial responsiblities or powers at any rate) should in the best interests of his child and both her parents be
strenuously resisted. I am pleased to say that Mr Adams has concurred with my counsel and instructed me
accordingly.
17. As it is, I am instructed (and I accept these instructions as having merit) to mention to Her Honour Mr
Adams's concerns about your office's involvement in these proceedings on the basis that having regard to
the relevant case law on constitutional human rights, including the written federal Constitution and in
particular Chapter III thereof, the engagement of an ICL function (and all of the purported immunities and
powers and other incidents associated therewith under the written terms of the Family Law Act) are
unconstitutional. The relevant case law on this point includes over a 100 years of High Court decisions on
'separation of powers' and Chapter III of the federal Constitution. I refer you in particular to the 4:3 majority
judgement in the 1956 Boilermakers' Case (Ex parte Kirby), the Full High Court decision in Kable's case
and, most recently the 4:3 majority judgements of the current Fully High Court on 12 November 2009 in the
International Finance Trust Co v New South Wales Crime Commission Case.
18. To the extent that I am instructed to only mention without fully pressing the above constitutional concerns to
your firm having any involvement in this hearing today, I am instructed to press the following legal concerns
if appropriate in these proceedings (these being issues within the jurisdiction of Her Honour's Court as

Page 3 of 5
 involving application of the laws of Australia as set by High Court precedents, and not issues of
constitutional law the exclusive preserve of the original jurisdiction of the High Court):
 concerns of bias (including apprehended bias) - this arises from, inter alia, the tone of the ICL's
'Case Outline', the tone and direction of the Affidavits and Reports furnished as part of the ICL's case:
The most relevant High Court precedent is of course the 2000 Full High Court decision in Johnson v
Johnson (no relations). That case is also relevant as to the probative value and laws for Her Honour to
apply when weighing up the probative value of the dad's testimony (to the extent it is not co-roborated by
independent, 'hard' evidence), ditto regarding any uncorroborated testimony by the mother, as opposed
to the independent evidence (especially the 'hard' evidence, but also, to a lesser extent oral testimony by
persons who are truly independent of either of the dad or the mum in these proceedings.
 concerns of misconduct in public office – Constiutional concerns associate with the ICL function
aside, the Family Law Act purports to legislate for the creation of the ICL as a public office. I refer you to
the case of Tampion v Anderson (Victorian Supreme Court decision of circa 1973) and cases referred
to therein which discuss the responsiblities for proper conduct by persons holding a public office.
 concerns as to competency of performance of the ICL function – I mention a number of concerns,
including the apparent blithe assumption (Which according to Gotham state statutory records) is not
sustainable that Mr Adams and Ms Yu were married to eachother under applicable Australian matrimonal
laws. Present indications are that the two have never been married under Australian federal law (nor, it
seems, if it were in any way relevant, were they ever married under Korean law). This suggest that
much party time and much court time (and much lawyers energies have been expended) on property
division issues that belong in the Gotham state courts, for determination according to Gotham state
property laws and Her Honour's court is not the appropriate forum.
 concerns as to the direction, content and purposes (query, possibly “ulterior” and or vexatious
and oppresive and abusive purposes) of the childrens report and the psychiatric 'reports'
obtained by the ICL - Ample evidence will be produced as part of Mr Adams's case at the hearing, to
substantiate Mr Adams's claims that the ICL and indeed Dr Smith and Mr Jones have pursued
something of an ulterior agenda in their set up and conduct during these proceedings.

Batting order
19. I note that the ICL, or rather Mr Family Lawer, is a party to these proceedings. I presume (and shall seek
clarification from Her Honour) that Mr Family Lawyer will be the first to present 'his' case and he will do so by
going into the witness box. I look forward to questioning Mr Family Lawyer as to the issues I have
highlighted above, including with regard to materials presented as part of his case (such as the 'Case
Outline') and having regard to materials such as those attached to this letter. I also look forward to
questioning the childrens reporter and Dr Smith.

Page 4 of 5
20. I presume (and will also be seeking clarification from Her Honour) that I will then present Mr Adams's case.
Then Ms Mums Lawyer will present Ms Yu's response to Mr Adams's claims and present Ms Yu's allegations
against Mr Adams. I presume that I will then present Mr Adams's response to Ms Yu's allegations. While
this may require a number of Mr Adams's witnesses (including perhaps himself) to make 2 visits into the
witness box, this is of course unavoidable. Obviously it is inconceivable (and unlawful and even
unconstitutional, having regard, for example to the Boilermaker's case, Kable's case and the NSW Crime
Commission Case mentioned above) that a 'true court' might expect Mr Adams to respond to allegations
ahead of Ms Yu making them – especially having regard to the wide universe of possible wild unsubtantiated
and readily refutable (according to Johnson v Johnson and Brigginshaw v Brigginshaw standards)
allegations that Mr Adams has endured to date. There is no way that I will allow Mr Adams's case to
respond first to Ms Yu's allegations, for such allegations to be made after. I'll leave such stuff and
nonesense to the likes of parodiers of the calibre of Lewis Carroll (compare chapters 11 and 12 of The
Adventures of Alice in Wonderland).

Conclusion
21. I am very troubled by the way that this matter has proceeded to date and remain hopeful that we might by
way of lawyers conference be able to put the proceedings on a proper footing, even at this late stage, so
that the matter may proceed in a dignified way to the extent that determinations are required by Her Honour
due to the inability of the parents to reach agreement on key issues beforehand.

Best wishes

JAMES JOHNSON

Page 5 of 5