Mr. J, a Former Professor Series – Entry 78: Behavioral Replication as Evidenced by Prior TPO
The Order That Became a Behavioral Blueprint
This document offers a comparative analysis between the behavioral restrictions outlined in a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) issued against the respondent in June 2024, and subsequent patterns observed by the complainant. The TPO is treated here not only as a legal restriction, but as a behavioral artifact — a traceable record of recurring methods of coercion and control.
Excerpt of a nationally recognised Temporary Protection Order (TPO) issued by Magistrates Court Brisbane, 25/06/2024.
This order prohibits the respondent from contact, proximity, or online communication with the aggrieved and her children, citing domestic violence protection grounds.
Legal Precedent: The June 2024 TPO
On 25 June 2024, a Temporary Protection Order was varied against the respondent, prohibiting specific actions including:
Persistent contact (direct or indirect)
Use of private or sexual information to intimidate or humiliate
Coercion involving children or dependents
Emotional manipulation and symbolic intrusion
These terms will serve as the comparative baseline in the analysis below.
I. Persistent Contact and Harassment
TPO Directive: No direct or indirect contact.
Observed Replication:
The complainant received repeated, prolonged, and emotionally volatile messages from the respondent. These included excessive praise (“love-bombing”), followed by threats, and contact with the complainant’s family members.
Such outreach appeared not to express reconciliation, but to reassert control and resist narrative disconnection.
II. Use of Sexualized and Private Information as Retaliatory Tools
TPO Directive: Prohibited use of private or sexualized content for humiliation.
Observed Replication:
The respondent published sexually suggestive content explicitly referencing the complainant’s name, physical description, ethnicity, and city of residence.
The complainant’s image was used without consent, with threats to retain the image unless financial or emotional demands were met.
This constitutes reputational coercion under the guise of “literary expression.”
III. Financial and Emotional Coercion
TPO Directive: Prohibited use of emotional leverage involving children.
Observed Replication:
The respondent demanded financial compensation ($360), using the birthday of his dependent as rhetorical justification.
The narrative framing positioned the complainant as responsible for emotional or material disruption — a classic guilt-based extraction strategy.
IV. Psychological Intrusion and Narrative Control
TPO Directive: Restriction against symbolic or emotional dominance.
Observed Replication:
The respondent issued “confessional” narratives laced with references to self-harm, religious allegories, and martyrdom.
These communications appeared designed not to resolve conflict, but to embed the respondent within the complainant’s psychological and social space — effectively resisting disengagement.
Pattern Recognition, Not Coincidence
These recurrences do not reflect isolated moments, but a sustained behavioral template.
The complainant’s documentation of such replication serves as an act of self-protection and narrative reclamation — challenging the presumption of silence that often accompanies abuse repetition.
Final Observation
The respondent appeared to treat the TPO as an inconvenient formality — something to suppress, not to learn from.
However, the same document now serves as an evidentiary scaffold.
Paragraph by paragraph, the behaviors reappear — not as random acts, but as recitations of a known pattern.
Note on Naming:
The subject of these verses is identified by name due to the severity of the public threats made during that period.
Naming is not intended to humiliate, but to preserve the integrity of the record and reflect the seriousness of the documented behavior.
While the individual has since responded publicly, the response has not addressed the core evidence. In such cases, visibility remains necessary. Selective rebuttal is not accountability.
Full evidence archive submitted to QPS, TEQSA, AHRC, and Ethics Australia: View here.
Image Credit:
Photo by Ye Jinghan via Unsplash
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 (you are here)
- Entry 79: Forensic Narrative Valuation Statement
- 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.