Mr. J, a Former Professor Series – Entry 13: QUT and The Man Who Raped Me
Content Warning:
This post contains literary analysis and survivor commentary on non-consensual sexualized depiction and symbolic coercion. It includes quoted texts from a public figure’s writings, presented solely for documentation and ethical critique. All materials have been formally reported to QPS and TEQSA.
(Full disclaimer below)
Let Them
Let whoever is around you do whatever they want
I let you
treat me like sh*t
I let myself see who you are
I let you harass me and my family for 77 days.
I let you disrespect me — by withdrawing the tuition you once promised, simply because we were no longer together.
Received: December 31, 2024
I let you disrespect my parents — even after you once told me that not providing for a woman made you feel ashamed, that you had to honour your promise to another woman you’d pursued but never dated.
I let you — the man who once returned to Australia with $15 and waited for the insurance payout to survive — stand in front of my mother and say I only loved you for your money.
He once said that not providing for a woman who didn’t love him made him feel ashamed. But when it came to me — the woman he claimed to love — he mocked my tuition needs, dragged my parents into the exchange, and pretended those promises never existed.
Invoking my parents to deflect from tuition support wasn’t just cruel — it was a rhetorical low designed to humiliate and deflect.
Received: April 30, 2025 - Day 55 of documented harassment
And then I let you harass us again, for 77 days.
I let you extort the money you once called a gift
I let you use your daughter —
to make someone your daughter’s age pay for what was never a loan
—
Then I let you
publish that literary revenge porn
on Substack
on that magazine
without my consent
—
And you still do it
Because you don’t accept
that I’ve moved on
and found joy without you
—
I let you rape me
online
through your poem
after we broke up
—
And I told you: No.
Don’t publish the poems anymore
But you still do
“The Word was Yes” — repeated like a mantra to overwrite reality.
The piece was highly sexualised and layered with religious and sacred imagery — a literary attempt to elevate or sanctify acts that, in context, were emotionally coercive and ethically blurred.
I did not consent to being represented in this way — especially not after enduring repeated manipulation, unsolicited contact, and public poetic exposure.
The invocation of “Yes” does not retroactively grant consent.
Whatever “Yes” he imagined — my answer is No.
Written without consent. Screenshot retained for documentation purposes. Originally authored by Pat Johnston.
See the full poems here.
See the full public evidence available here.
You raped me
—
Through your words
After the breakup
—
Publishing the poems
Describing my body
my naked body
for the world to see
then say “no one would know”
That’s you, Linh
—
Then Johnston
You don’t be upset when your name is brought here
—
You raped me through the word.
I let you — a man who has a 15-year-old daughter
rape me through poetry
When a 56-year-old man writes about a “small body” and compares it to fire, one wonders: is it desire he’s describing — or a fantasy that thrives on disproportion?
A man describes a body too small for his age, perhaps he didn’t realize the very imagery he used says more about him than me.
Written without consent. Screenshot retained for documentation purposes. Originally authored by Pat Johnston.
See the full poems here.
See the full public evidence available here.
And now let me
—
Let me tell the whole world who you are
Let me tell the world what kind of poems you write
Let me tell the world what kind of writer you are
—
Let me
tell the university you taught*
what poems you wrote about me
—
Let me
tell the university you studied*
what kind of alumni they helped produce
—
Let me help you
Let me tell all the other universities*
So they will read you
And you will become
a famous writer
and the one academic
who couldn’t handle being left —
so he wrote his ex
into literary revenge porn
and called it poetry.
—
Let me tell them
—
If you are that proud of your poems
If you are that proud
of the poems
describing how
you raped me.
He once took a photo of me asleep — naked, but under a blanket. I never gave consent for that photo to be taken. I was unconscious, unaware, and completely exposed in vulnerability.
That image, no matter how ‘covered’, was never his to take. It was a quiet violation — intimate in framing, invasive in intent.
When a woman writes about coercion, violation, and being sexualised in poetry she never agreed to — and the man stays silent — sometimes, you don’t need a label. You just need to read.
Consent that was shaped by manipulation, fear, or imbalance is not real consent. That’s not love. That’s coercion.
In June 2024, a Queensland court issued a Temporary Protection Order against Patrick James Johnston, valid until June 2025.
There was another woman once had to seek a Protection Order to feel safe from him.
He was previously the subject of a domestic violence protection order, filed by a former partner.
This is not the first time.
Update: Jun 3, 2025 - Police reviewed the report and determined that no further action is required.
This excerpt is quoted from official correspondence received from Queensland Police Service. Officer name and personal identifiers have been redacted to protect privacy. The quote is presented as-is, without modification, for the purpose of public interest commentary and survivor documentation.
Archived public profile from QUT.edu.au:
“Adjunct Professor Pat Johnston” – This person does not currently hold a position at QUT.
This screenshot is included solely to provide factual context about the individual’s past affiliations and publication history, for contextual and ethical reflection, not to imply shared responsibility or misconduct.
No inference is made regarding the knowledge or involvement of the listed co-authors.
For someone with a record in the Journal of Loss and Trauma, he never learned to respect consent after loss.
(Source: Official QUT profile page, accessed June 2025)
Screenshot captured on Jun 4, 2025, showing the subject’s LinkedIn profile still listing ‘Adjunct Professor’ at Queensland University of Technology (QUT).
Image included for documentation and contextual accuracy. QUT has since removed references to this individual from public staff directories. No current employment is implied.
Excerpt from a formal documentation email shared with QUT’s ethics and communication faculties, outlining the cross-sector implications of sustained narrative coercion and academic misuse.
Excerpt from formal outreach to Northumbria University’s governance and ethics faculty, regarding the ongoing ethical implications of a former PhD graduate’s conduct.
This open letter was initially sent to relevant Australian institutions for the purpose of clinical risk awareness, research oversight, and ethics evaluation. Medical references are included solely to contextualize behavioral escalation patterns.
Mentions of mental health diagnoses are based on firsthand disclosures by the subject and included for the sole purpose of documenting behavioral escalation and seeking oversight from ethics bodies.
This is not a commentary on mental illness but on individual responsibility and institutional risk.
Selected outreach log showing documented engagement with academic and regulatory bodies.
This outreach reflects the ongoing effort to escalate the matter ethically across interdisciplinary sectors, including institutions where the subject was affiliated or whose domains align with narrative ethics, academic integrity, and post-breakup symbolic coercion.
All recipient identities have been redacted for privacy.
Update June 5, 2025: Public Note published by Pat Johnston (captured June 5, 2025; archived prior to deletion)
The original post is publicly available here at the time of writing. A full archive with timestamps has been retained for evidentiary purposes.
This reference is provided for institutional verification. In case of removal, metadata and screenshot archives are available upon request.
—
He wants to call me a stalker — but he hasn’t stopped publishing about me since I left.
When someone labels you a stalker, while monitoring your Substack and responding with cryptic poems, the irony writes itself.
—
Full 77-harassment-day evidence archive submitted to QPS, TEQSA, AHRC and Ethics Australia: View here.
Update June 5, 2025: Public Note published by Pat Johnston (captured June 5, 2025; archived prior to deletion)
The original post is publicly available here at the time of writing. A full archive with timestamps has been retained for evidentiary purposes.
This reference is provided for institutional verification. In case of removal, metadata and screenshot archives are available upon request.
—
Even after multiple formal reports, he responded not with rebuttal or accountability — but with parody.
When truth knocks, some choose sarcasm over sincerity.
—
Full 77-harassment-day evidence archive submitted to QPS, TEQSA, AHRC and Ethics Australia: View here.
Update (June 10, 2025): Counter-Takedown Filed — Fair Use & Survivor-Led Documentation
On June 9, I received a formal DMCA notice from Google informing me that Patrick Johnston had submitted a copyright takedown request targeting my publicly accessible survivor evidence folders documentation already submitted to QPS as part of police evidence.
This content, previously submitted to law enforcement in the context of unwanted contact and coercive behavior, cannot retroactively be reframed as protected intellectual property for the purpose of silencing survivor documentation.
Any takedown request targeting such material constitutes a strategic misuse of copyright law, not a legitimate rights claim.
These files were published strictly under academic Fair Use and Fair Dealing protections, as part of an ethics-based documentation series. This takedown is not a valid copyright dispute, but a coercive response to institutional criticism.
Attempts to assert copyright over police-submitted evidence constitute a serious ethical and potentially legal breach. Such actions may be interpreted as obstruction of justice and retaliation against protected reporting
This is not copyright protection. This is reputational panic, disguised as a takedown notice.
The content was non-commercial, already submitted to Queensland Police (QPS) and regulators under official case IDs. Its removal constitutes an attempt to suppress documented harms rather than enforce legitimate rights. Misusing copyright mechanisms in this manner may qualify as a form of strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP).
My publication falls squarely within the thresholds of:
Australian Copyright Act 1968 – Sections 41 & 42 (Fair Dealing)
U.S. Copyright Law – §107 (Fair Use)
International norms protecting public interest commentary and trauma documentation.
I have submitted a formal counter-notice. As per standard procedure, Google has forwarded the takedown request to the Lumen Database, where it is now publicly visible as part of platform transparency archives.
View takedown request on Lumen
If harassment persists, I reserve the right to escalate this matter to ethics boards, international legal monitors, and public interest watchdogs tracking strategic censorship and retaliatory misuse of institutional tools.
Any misuse of personal information obtained via counter-notice or takedown responses will be treated as further coercive harassment and may be reported to law enforcement under digital harm and privacy abuse frameworks.
No individual has the right to suppress survivor-led documentation solely on the basis of personal discomfort — especially when such material pertains to evidence already submitted to law enforcement.
Disclaimer:
This publication is a survivor-led literary response to sustained, non-consensual sexualised depiction by a former academic.
The following poem, published after repeated requests for no contact, contains sexualised imagery of me without consent. Its language and symbolism, in my view, constitute narrative coercion. I present it here not to sensationalise, but to provide direct evidence of the literary tactics used against me.
The term “rape” refers here to narrative violation through poetic exposure — not a criminal accusation of physical assault.
All related behavior has been reported to QPS and TEQSA under documented case files.
This work is protected under survivor expression and fair commentary provisions.
The use of QUT’s name and public materials is protected under Fair Dealing provisions (Copyright Act 1968 – Sections 41 & 42), used here for the purpose of public interest commentary and critical review.
References to QUT reflect the subject’s previously disclosed academic affiliation, which was publicly visible during the relevant timeline. No implication is made about their current employment unless verifiably documented.
All related behaviors have been reported to QPS and TEQSA and documented under formal submission (Case reference: CMP140XXXX and QPS Ref: QP250074XXXX). Case ID withheld for privacy — available upon formal request by media or oversight body.
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.
Although the individual has responded publicly, the response has not addressed the core evidence. In such cases, visibility remains necessary. Selective rebuttal does not equal accountability.
Full evidence archive submitted to QPS, TEQSA, AHRC, and Ethics Australia: View here.
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.
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 (you are here)
- 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
- 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.