In Victorian Legal Services Board v Jensen [2022] VSC 430 the Court states
[4] When the trial commenced, I explained to Mr Jensen that when he appeared before Garde J [see below], his Honour told him that he needed advice from a legal practitioner as to the effect of the order and what he could and could not do. Garde J explained to him that the court’s order was a restraining order, breach of which would constitute contempt of court that would have serious consequences, including imprisonment. I asked Mr Jensen whether he knew of and understood the content of the injunction. He confirmed he had people explain it to him and that he believed he understood it, and that he was content to proceed with this hearing without the assistance of a legal practitioner.
Relevant facts
[5] It is common ground that Mr Jensen has never been admitted to legal practice in Victoria and does not hold, and never held, a practising certificate. His two companies, the second and third defendants, have never been registered as law practices in Victoria. Despite this, Mr Jensen and his companies were found to have engaged in legal practice and to have represented that they were entitled to engage in legal practice. Consequently, on 2 August 2018, the court restrained the defendants in the terms set out above.
[6] On 14 August 2018, the injunction orders were served on the defendants.
[7] On 18 February 2021, the VLSB received a complaint from a firm of solicitors that its client and his parents, had received incorrect legal advice from Mr Jensen in around mid-2020 and that this advice resulted in its client being charged with contravening a personal safety intervention order (‘PSI order’ or ‘IVO’). The client was facing a rape charge and the complainant was the beneficiary of the PSI order.
[8] The VLSB re-opened its investigation into Mr Jensen ’s conduct. It obtained a series of email communications, between 7 August 2020 and 29 October 2020, apparently between Mr Jensen and the parents of the accused. ...
[10] The emails set out the relevant conduct. ...
[12] On 7 August 2020 at 5:24pm, Mr Jensen sent an email to the parents. The email said:
It was lovely to connect with you today.
The attached is a heavy duty spiritual initiation to an affidavit.
It sounds like you may not have a lot of forensic evidence, so I am using Common Law (Gods Law).
To rebut the Holy scriptures is impossible in a court, and by anyone else, You need to Just fill out the story you want to get across.
You are welcome to delete or change what I have done. I just wrote it as if my son had been accused of something that he didn’t do.
I am open for you to give it your own creative structure.
Love and Blessings Den
Denn Jensen Managing Director The JTA Corporation P/L
[13] Attached to the email was:
(a) A template affidavit entitled ‘Template Certificate Identifying Exhibit to Affidavit’;
(b) A series of photographs of a volume apparently from the Supreme Court Library, entitled ‘Statutes at Large, from the Fifth Year of K. William and Q. Mary, to the Eighth Year of K. William III’ and an extract thereof;
(c) A draft affidavit, headed ‘Affidavit’ and ‘The law is spiritual’. It contained a mixture of references to scripture, archaic legal texts, current statutes and statements pertaining to legal and religious matters. The statements included, ‘The contents of this affidavit are based on FACT AND LAW and CANNOT BE STRUCK OUT in a Court of law unless the FACTS AND LAW are forensically rebutted.’ It left blank a space for the relevant facts to be inserted. ...
[15] On 11 August 2020 at 12:08pm, Mr Jensen replied and said:
I will be able to call later today or early evening.
An affidavit would be the choice over a statement.
I don’t do statements because they do not hold any authority in the law. An affidavit trumps an affidavit and will short circuit the whole process.
If either side does not have any forensic proof. The first at law stands at law. And to get an affidavit in first they have to rebut it with forensic proof.
As you see in the affidavit template I sent you I am setting a scene for an unrebuttably affidavit with Common Law which is Almighty Gods Law.
This cannot be unrebutted. I will chat later on today.
I recommend that you don’t send a statement!!!!
In Victorian Legal Services Board v Jensen [2018] VSC 740 the Court states:
[1] The Victorian Legal Services Board (‘the Board’) applies for an injunction under s 447 of the Legal Professional Uniform Law (Vic) (‘Uniform Law’) to restrain the defendants from engaging in unqualified legal practice, and from advertising or representing, or doing anything that states or implies that they are entitled to engage in legal practice.
[2] It also seeks to restrain Mr Dennis Jensen, the first defendant from: (a) providing legal advice in relation to disputes, proceedings or potential proceedings; (b) corresponding or communicating on behalf of litigants or potential litigants; (c) drawing documents on behalf of or as agents for litigants, including pleadings, affidavits and submissions; (d) appearing in court on behalf of litigants to proceedings; and (e) drawing documents of a legal character.
[3] Mr Jensen opposes the application. The second and third defendants are companies under the control of Mr Jensen.
The Board’s case
[4] The Board alleges that the defendants have engaged in unqualified legal practice, and advertised or represented that they are entitled to do so. It principally points to the facts and circumstances relating to four disputes. ...
The second dispute
[15] In 2017, the defendants purported to act for WW, the defendant in a dispute with a Council over unpaid rates.
[16] On 10 January 2017, Mr Jensen wrote to the Council and asserted that Common Law Resolutions acted on behalf of WW. It asked the Council to reply to it.
[17] On 31 January 2017, the Council received a letter from Mr Jensen enclosing a document signed by WW and entitled ‘notice of authority.’ WW purported to give Common Law Resolutions his full authority to act on his behalf in the matter between the parties, and in all other matters as his advocate and representative.
18 On 23 February 2017, Common Law Resolutions purported to render a ‘true bill of accounts’ upon the Council. The ‘tax invoice’ stated that: (a) failure to pay would ‘automatically set legal action in process’; and (b) as soon as ‘we have settled we will remove the Goods and Services PPSR on the [Council]’.
[19] In March 2017, Common Law Resolutions sent the Council a document titled ‘Common Law Default Notice’, and enclosed a PPSR search certificate. The certificate showed that Common Law Resolutions had registered a security interest over the Council in respect of ‘Debtor Accounts accumulated during the course of Business for invoices issued from time to time.’ The Council had granted no such security interest.
[20] On 23 May 2017, the Council obtained a default judgment in a proceeding commenced against WW in respect of the unpaid rates.
[21] On 2 June 2017, Common Law Resolutions provided the Council with a document titled ‘Notice of Objection to a hearing [sic] proceeding in the absence of the parties,’ which imitated a Magistrates’ Court form.
The third dispute
[22] In 2017, the defendants purported to act for JB in a building enforcement matter commenced by a different Council.
[23] On 21 April 2017, Mr Jensen as managing director of Common Law Resolutions, provided the following documents to the Council: (a) an authority for Common Law Resolutions to act as an advocate or mediator; (b) a letter from Common Law Resolutions; and (c) a document titled ‘Criminal Charge Sheet for Common Law Grand Jury’ (the purported charge sheet).
[24] The letter both asserted that Common Law Resolutions represented JB and sought the Council’s response to it. The purported authority stated: I, [JB] of [address] give authority to Common Law Resolutions Pty Ltd to advocate for me in matters relating to the proceedings brought against me and my property at the address listed above by [the Council].
[25] The purported charge sheet charged various council staff with ‘common law criminal charges’ including ‘Misprision of Treason’. ...
Defendant’s case
[31] In response to the Board’s case, Mr Jensen handed up a purported charge sheet for grand treason concerning the Court, to be issued by Mr Jensen in the Magistrates’ Court. He stated that the charges were being laid, and that the defendants had no business in the Court.
[32] The defendants made no submissions of substance to the Court. The Court was not assisted by the defendant’s submissions.
