Mr. J, a Former Professor Series – Entry 74: Why Patrick James Johnston Cannot Sue Me for Defamation
Public-facing (Friendly breakdown) and Academic / Legal Analysis
Public-facing (Friendly Breakdown)
Context: Police Decision
On 3 June 2025, Queensland Police Service (QPS) officially closed both cross-complaints.
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.
Email received: June 3, 2025
Their statement clearly advised:
“No further action to be taken unless more serious matters occur… The complaint appears to be mostly an allegation of defamation with no other criminal offences… Advice: Johnston should cease contact and pursue civil defamation through Substack if required.”
This means:
His complaint was dismissed.
Police explicitly considered defamation as a civil (not criminal) matter and recommended he go through Substack (platform moderation) or private civil litigation.
Subsequent Emails: His Explicit Waiver
After the police decision, Johnston sent me three further emails:
June 23, 2025 (“Please read”): Johnston confirms putting me in his will, mentions $330k, tries emotional blackmail, but never denies previous accusations.
June 26, 2025 (“Please read”): Johnston continues gifting talk, emphasizes “I promise I will never call you”, suggests he “honors” me, but again no denial.
July 3, 2025 (“Farewell”): Johnston explicitly states:
“So. Say what you like. It no longer matters.”
This sentence is crucial. In legal terms, it is an explicit waiver: Johnston verbally surrenders his right to challenge further statements.
Email sent on 22 June 2025 – Day 109 of documented harassment
After QPS had already closed the case with a formal warning to cease contact.
Email sent on 26 June 2025 – Day 113 of documented harassment
After QPS had already closed the case with a formal warning to cease contact.
Email sent on 3 July 2025 – Day 120 of documented harassment
After QPS had already closed the case with a formal warning to cease contact.
Absence of Denial: No Protective Narrative
In defamation cases, a claimant typically needs to show they explicitly denied the alleged facts (e.g., “I did not do this”).
Johnston:
Never issued a public denial of my narrative rape or sexual abuse accusation.
Instead, he hid behind metaphors and “poetic” language, or simply repeated, “Say what you like.”
By failing to deny and by continuing private communications, he forfeited narrative defense and factual correction.
Continuous Contact: Inconsistent Behavior
While threatening possible legal or emotional consequences, he continues to email, contradicting any claim of “serious harm” or “complete severance”.
If Johnston truly suffered severe reputational harm:
He would immediately cut contact.
He would pursue formal legal remedies instead of sentimental emails.
His actions prove he is more interested in emotional manipulation than genuine legal redress.
Police Closure: No Criminal Basis
The police explicitly rejected his claim for harassment or defamation as criminal offences.
They stated that overseas publication and jurisdiction make it “almost impossible” to pursue, even within Queensland.
They advised civil action, which he chose not to pursue and explicitly waived (“Say what you like”).
Result: Legal and Narrative Immunity
Combining all points:
✔️ Police closed investigation, explicitly advising civil path only.
✔️ He waived his right through emails.
✔️ He failed to deny my allegations publicly.
✔️ He continued contact, contradicting “serious harm” or “irreparable damage”.
✔️ He has no enforceable basis to demand retraction or compensation.
Johnston cannot sue me for defamation — not because I am ‘untouchable’, but because he willingly dropped his shield. He wrote, ‘Say what you like. It no longer matters.’ He surrendered his right to deny, then kept writing me emotional bait letters. He did not defend his name; he kept performing his own tragedy. In legal and narrative terms, he closed the door himself.
Academic / Legal Analysis:
Introduction
Defamation claims require a combination of factual misrepresentation, demonstrable harm, and the claimant’s clear effort to defend their reputation. This analysis outlines why Patrick James Johnston cannot sustain a defamation claim against the author, based on publicly available correspondences and official investigative conclusions.
Official Closure of Criminal Complaints
On 3 June 2025, the Queensland Police Service (QPS) formally closed both cross-complaints between Johnston and the author. In their communication, QPS explicitly indicated:
“No further action to be taken unless more serious matters occur… Allegations of defamation are civil, not criminal.”
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.
Email received: June 3, 2025
Key implications:
The criminal dimension was dismissed.
The authorities explicitly redirected any defamation concerns to civil remedies.
Post-Investigation Communications: Affirmative Waiver
After the police decision, Johnston sent multiple additional emails (dated 22 June, 26 June, and 3 July 2025). In these, he repeatedly adopted a tone of resignation, notably stating:
“So. Say what you like. It no longer matters.”
This sentence constitutes an express waiver of his right to contest future statements narratively or legally. In defamation jurisprudence, such explicit statements can undermine the claimant’s later attempt to assert harm or demand retraction.
Email sent on 22 June 2025 – Day 109 of documented harassment
After QPS had already closed the case with a formal warning to cease contact.
Email sent on 26 June 2025 – Day 113 of documented harassment
After QPS had already closed the case with a formal warning to cease contact.
Email sent on 3 July 2025 – Day 120 of documented harassment
After QPS had already closed the case with a formal warning to cease contact.
Absence of Explicit Denial
A foundational element of defamation defense is the ability to show that an allegation is false and that the claimant actively sought to correct it.
In this case:
Johnston did not publicly deny the accusations of narrative or sexual misconduct.
Instead, he relied on poetic metaphor and performative writing, refraining from a clear factual rebuttal.
This passive strategy weakens his legal standing and demonstrates a failure to mitigate reputational damage — a requirement in defamation claims.
Continued Contact: Contradictory Conduct
Johnston’s continued personal emails contradict his potential claim of “irreparable harm.” Persisting in private correspondence after receiving advice from law enforcement to cease contact undermines assertions of serious emotional or reputational injury.
Such behavior may be interpreted as narrative manipulation rather than a genuine attempt at harm redress.
Jurisdictional and Procedural Constraints
QPS noted that prosecution is “almost impossible” due to the author’s overseas residence and the publication jurisdiction (primarily digital, hosted outside Australia).
Moreover:
Defamation law emphasizes territorial jurisdiction and reputational harm within that jurisdiction.
Without clear transnational legal grounds or public denial, enforcing any claim is procedurally unfeasible.
Conclusion
Combining the above factors:
Police closure of criminal complaints.
Explicit waiver in private correspondence.
Absence of factual denial or narrative correction.
Contradictory ongoing contact.
Jurisdictional impracticality.
These elements collectively nullify Johnston’s potential for a viable defamation claim. Rather than protecting his reputation through transparent rebuttal, Johnston’s narrative strategy was to disengage publicly while simultaneously maintaining private symbolic contact. This duality further discredits his hypothetical legal standing.
This case exemplifies the complex intersection of narrative control, emotional coercion, and legal accountability. It illustrates how personal narrative performances — when documented and analyzed systematically — can inadvertently undermine one’s own legal defenses.
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.
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 (you are here)
- 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
- 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.