Mr. J, a Former Professor Series – Entry 25: For Journalists – Legal & Ethical Clearance Summary
This survivor-led publication is grounded in primary evidence, legal documentation, and institutional correspondence.
All accusations referenced are supported by timestamped emails, police responses, and institutional correspondence.
The individual referenced (Patrick James Johnston) submitted a retaliatory counter-report to Queensland Police, which was formally rejected by QPS.
The rejection confirmed that no further legal action would proceed unless more serious offences under Queensland jurisdiction occur and are reported.
The rejection was issued in writing to the survivor and is available for fact-checking purposes upon request.
The survivor has previously contacted QPS, TEQSA, AHRC, and multiple ethics bodies, all of which have issued written responses acknowledging receipt and concern.
To ensure narrative accuracy and institutional accountability:
Any media outlet wishing to reference this case may contact the author directly for evidence-sharing and verification.
A redacted version of official correspondence is available for legitimate editorial review.
This publication does not aim to defame but to document survivor experiences, institutional responses, and power asymmetries in higher education and cross-border systems.
Documentation is used not as retaliation, but as a tool of institutional transparency and justice-oriented narrative.
This briefing invites responsible media engagement that centers survivor truth without compromising editorial ethics.
⸻
All statements are backed by primary documentation. Attempts to intimidate through legal threats will be met with full transparency and survivor-led counter-disclosure.
This statement is made in good faith and in the public interest.
While the subject has been given multiple opportunities to formally respond or contest these accounts, he has chosen instead to remain silent or engage in non-substantive deflection.
The decision to share these materials publicly is not an act of retaliation, but a necessary step toward narrative self-defense and systemic accountability.
I acknowledge the legal and ethical weight of these disclosures, and I remain open to further institutional review or independent journalistic verification.
Survivors should not be forced into silence to preserve the comfort of those who harm them.
Silence does not equal safety — for me or for others.
I ask that if you choose to cover this matter, you refrain from amplifying distress to secondary parties (such as the individual’s children). This documentation was built to hold adults accountable — not to traumatize bystanders. Ethical storytelling matters.
This line is not meant to restrict reporting. It is a request for responsible framing.
If any consequence arises from his parenting rights, it is a result of his own actions — not my writings.
My reporting responds to sustained harassment, coercion, and reputational damage I experienced firsthand.
It is not a campaign against a family, nor an attack on fatherhood.
It is a necessary act of resistance — one that holds individuals accountable when they use intimacy and power to harm.
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.
About the Author:
Linh Ng is a researcher focusing on ethics, media, policy and legal frameworks. While not formally trained in law, she brings forensic clarity to digital publishing, holding power to account through documentation and counter-narratives. Her work blends media discourse analysis with survivor-led legal reasoning to expose systemic complicity and reputational manipulation.
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 (you are here)
- 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
- 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.
Photo cover by Headway via Unsplash