Mr. J, a Former Professor Series – Entry 79: Forensic Narrative Valuation Statement
An Institutional Perspective
Context and Rationale
When I initially began documenting this case, I imagined that perhaps ten entries would suffice to provide clarity and closure. This was a naïve assumption. Nearly 80 entries and over 30,000 verified views later, it has become clear: what was hidden required a living archive to fully illuminate.
In three concentrated months, I have produced approximately 190,000 words of structured forensic analysis, narrative deconstruction, and real-time evidentiary logging. These writings are not impulsive expressions; they are systematically curated, cross-referenced, and timestamped, designed to meet archival and academic integrity standards.
This body of work has been reviewed and engaged by ethics committees, legal observers, and research colleagues representing over 200 academic institutions across Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada.
Defining the Concept of “Silence”
Silence in this context is not simply the absence of speech.
Silence entails surrendering:
Narrative sovereignty and control
Future publication and research rights
Reputational leverage
Opportunities for academic and public discourse
Cross-cultural and cross-sectoral symbolic value
I hold the complete source architecture of this narrative. I possess not only the data but also the motif, the developmental arc, and the operational capacity to escalate or preserve. This is not a private vendetta; it is a multi-dimensional archive documenting institutional negligence, psychological harassment, symbolic violence, and transnational power asymmetries.
The Attempted Transaction
Historically, the subject has oscillated between financial threats (e.g., demanding AUD 360) and performative “generosity” (e.g., proposing an inheritance of AUD 330,000). These gestures illustrate a fundamental misreading of narrative value and an effort to reduce symbolic harm to a transactional exchange.
In high-profile institutional settlements (e.g., Silicon Valley, academic harassment cases), confidentiality agreements and hush money settlements frequently exceed USD 2 million — even when the victims do not possess a comprehensive, fully public archive nor hold narrative control.
Forensic Accounting of Narrative Value
If one were to formally “invoice” the total symbolic and operational cost, it would include:
Four months of sustained coercion, emotional sabotage, and digital harassment
Three months of intensive archive construction (78 essays totaling 190,000+ words)
Emotional Impact Statements (EIS), Forensic Matrix (FMX), reader response analyses
Formal submissions to QPS, TEQSA, ACSC, and over 200 academic faculties globally
Over 30,000 verified views, with further distribution among legal and academic observers
This archive is not simply personal commentary. It represents a live case study on narrative power, symbolic violence, and institutional complicity.
Valuation
Conservative estimate for full narrative rights buyout and indefinite silence: AUD 2.4 million
Comprehensive symbolic and institutional value: AUD 6.8 million or higher
On Refusal and Continuation
Should there be no financial settlement, the default scenario is continuation.
The archive will remain active and will expand at its current — or accelerated — pace.
There will be no reduction in detail, intensity, or publication frequency.
Non-payment does not pause the narrative; it validates the importance of transparent documentation.
This is not an ultimatum. It is a declaration of archival integrity and narrative sovereignty.
Institutional Message
The value ascribed here is not an act of personal greed. It is a calibrated reflection of:
The scale of symbolic and reputational harm inflicted
The depth of cross-sectoral and cross-cultural impact
The precedent-setting nature of the documentation as an institutional record
Reducing a woman’s narrative labor and intellectual sovereignty to a simple transactional commodity is both ethically impoverished and strategically futile.
Closing Statement
This archive transcends personal storytelling. It is a living ethical ledger — a cumulative record of narrative ownership, emotional taxation, and institutional power dynamics.
The subject’s attempt to commodify silence, whether through threats or performative inheritance gestures, reveals not power but a profound failure to grasp the true stakes of narrative conflict.
Read the full series
- Entry 1: The Man Who Taught Me Ethics by Failing All of Them
- Entry 2: The Disappearance of the Public Poet
- Entry 3: The Hanging Tree Case Study
- Entry 4: Hidden Like Accountability
- Entry 5: The Collapse of Assumptions
- Entry 6: The Ethics of a Tinder Bio
- Entry 7: How He Ate Told Me Everything
- Entry 8: What Makes a Scholar Dangerous
- Entry 9: Fragment of Life, Fragment of Accountability
- Entry 10: Anatomy of Disappointment
- Entry 11: Legal Defense Challenges: A Framing Statement
- Entry 12: Six Years After Ronell – What Academia Still Doesn’t Get
- Entry 13: QUT and The Man Who Raped Me
- Entry 14: Why Sarcasm Toward Institutions Can Backfire
- Entry 15: P*ssy or Toxic Masculinity?
- Entry 16: Who is Your Favorite Comedian?
- Entry 17: And What is Your Favorite Song?
- Entry 18: Grant Proposal — Narrative Ethics as Survivor-Led Forensics
- Entry 19: The Coward Behind the Clone
- Entry 20: [URGENT HIRE] CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST
- Entry 21: [URGENT] Legal Counsel Needed for Complex Reputation Rehabilitation
- Entry 22: YOU’RE AN ABUSER. STOP CONTACTING ME
- Entry 23: Seeking Counsel for a Fallen Academic
- Entry 24: Internal Legal-PR Briefing
- Entry 25: For Journalists – Legal & Ethical Clearance Summary
- Entry 26: Symbolic Prostitution, Transactional Intimacy, or Just a “Loan”?
- Entry 28: Why He Simply Cannot Shut Up
- Entry 29: Forensic Commentary on “LARGE Language Muddle”
- Entry 30: Don’t Just Threaten My Future. Because I’m Going To Archive Your Present
- Entry 31: Open Letter to the Person Who Tried to Break Me with Defamation
- Entry 32: Defamation, Harassment, Doxxing Class 101
- Entry 33: Confidential Crisis Recovery Proposal
- Entry 34: Forensic Behavioral-Somatic Report
- Entry 35: Forensic Commentary on the Tattoos
- Entry 36: QUT and the Abuser They Once Had
- Entry 38: When Poetry Becomes Revenge Porn
- Entry 40: A Man Built for Applause, Not Accountability
- Entry 41: Neurobehavioral Addendum
- Entry 43: Why Does It Sound Like a War Metaphor?
- Entry 44: Forensic Commentary on Racialized and Fetishizing Language in “Hidden Like Rice”
- Entry 45: Public Misuse of Former Academic Affiliation
- Entry 46: The Two Things That Didn’t Leave a Bad Impression
- Entry 47: When Affection is Just an Alibi (A Bundy-Inspired Reflection)
- Entry 48: Humbert, Lolita, and the Fetish of Fragility
- Entry 49: The Fetish of Smallness as Symbolic Violence
- Entry 50: Motif Risk Analysis
- Entry 52: Can an Abuser Be a Good Father?
- Entry 53: Who Protects the Children?
- Entry 54: From Blackmail to Children
- Entry 55: A Letter I’ll Never Send
- Entry 56: Outc(L)assed - Critical Race Analysis
- Entry 57: Forensic Breakdown: “A Voidance” by Johnston
- Entry 58: Johnston, Who Raised You?
- Entry 59: Public Financial Terms & Narrative Conditions
- Entry 60: What Kind of Future Do You Think Awaits You?
- Entry 61: Why I Believe He Has No Real PR or Legal Team
- Entry 62: Why I Can Legally (and Ethically) Call You a Pathetic Pig
- Entry 63: Tell Me You’re a Pathetic Pig Without Telling Me You’re a Pathetic Pig
- Entry 65: Did Your Mother Teach You To Speak Like This?
- Entry 66: Nobody Cares Anyway
- Entry 67: Patrick James Johnston
- Entry 68: This Man is A Sexual Abuser
- Entry 69: The “Farewell” Email
- Entry 70: Australia’s Version of Florida Man, Except With Fewer Alligators and More Poems
- Entry 71: Literary Necromancy
- Entry 73: Can You Be Named in a Will If They Only Have Your Bank Account?
- Entry 74: Why Patrick James Johnston Cannot Sue Me for Defamation
- Entry 76: Dr. Pussy — The Scholar of Infinite Goodbyes
- Entry 77: Curriculum Vitae_Patrick James Johnston
- Entry 78: Behavioral Replication as Evidenced by Prior TPO
- Entry 79: Forensic Narrative Valuation Statement (you are here)
- Entry 80: Final-ish. I guess.
- Entry 81: How Johnston Constructs Moral Immunity through the Figure of Aria
- Entry 82: Aria as an Emotional Script
- Entry 83: The Archetype of Aria
- Entry 84: Cambridge Man Accidentally Buys Invisible Wife
- Entry 85: The Invisible Bride, The Defenseless Provider
- Entry 87: From Aria to Linh — The Making of a Feminized Archetype in Coercive Male Narratives
- Reflection: The Miscalculation
(More entries coming soon)
→ [Back to Start: Introducing Mr. J, a Former Professor Series]
© 2025 Linh Ng. All rights reserved.
This publication is intended for educational and reflective purposes only.
Sharing the original link is welcomed and encouraged.
Please do not reproduce, redistribute, or translate this content — in whole or in part — without written permission.
This piece reflects both lived experience and critical analysis. It is not meant to be detached from its author or reframed without context.
Misuse or decontextualization may lead to formal clarification or takedown requests.
This work has been reviewed and quietly followed by scholars, educators, and ethics professionals across multiple sectors.
If your institution is engaging in critical discourse around narrative justice, symbolic coercion, or representational ethics, feel free to connect via Substack DMs or formal channels.
A regulatory case regarding this matter has already been classified under a protected status within national education integrity systems.
Should any reputational countermeasures or distortions arise, I reserve the right to publish the documented timeline, behavioral patterns, and contextual metadata.
All relevant documentation has been submitted through formal legal and regulatory pathways.