It would be so much better if Mr Michael Keith McGarvie complied with the 2008 and 2009 Supreme Court rulings I obtained from separate Supreme Court judges telling him he has the powers and duties to police 100% of the legal profession (and I would add, 0% of litigants such as myself and Mr Schorel-Hlavka). The latter of those rulings issued from the Supreme Court included the reprimand, “I can understand why Mr Johnson sued you [Legal Services Commissioner] and “No.
You are not entitled to costs.” That second judicial ruling came after I had exercised Occams’s Razor and sought to withdraw the Legal Services Commissioner from my multi-million dollars Supreme Court fraud and misconduct damages counterclaim naming the Legal Services Commissioner in early 2009, naively thinking that a government agency chief with a legal regulators responsibilities of public and professional office would abide by the 2008 rulings just issued from the Court?
How was I to know back then that even two sets of such Supreme Court rulings, coupled with a damning State Government Ombudsman 2009 Annual Report to Parliament would not be enough for the Legal Services Commissioner to get the message as to what his job is really about. Why would Michael Keith McGarvie the former CEO of the Supreme Court think that on appointment as Legal Services Commissioner he had to obey Supreme Court rulings? He could pay a visit to State Ombudsman Victoria George Brouwer and shut him up (successfully for 3 years now) from whistleblowing to Minister, to Parliament and Public about the corrupt Legal Services Commissioner. Comply with two sets of Supreme Court rulings? That would be good and proper government and clearly neither the bureaucrats at the Legal Services Commissioner’s entourage nor their fraternal buddies and workmates at the VCAT are having a bar of that.”
