Raymond Cripps, now owner of " Ruby's Music Room ", a
jazz music venue, is shown above.
Raymond is protesting to Cripps about his bizarre
conduct during our exhibition at his failed Guildlford
Lane Gallery. Cripps is being told that his conduct
had been, and had continued to be, unacceptable. For
the purposes of suing us to make a profit from his
unprofessional conduct, Cripps has lied about this
From Wikipedia, the free
"To lie is to deliver a false statement to
another person which the speaking person knows
is not the whole truth, intentionally."
|Lying by omission
"Also known as a continuing misrepresentation,
a lie by omission occurs when an important fact
is left out in order to foster a misconception.
Lying by omission includes failures to correct
pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of
a car declares it has been serviced regularly
but does not tell that a fault was reported at
the last service, the seller lies by omission."
has come to claim that he had to debar us access to
our own exhibition Humanist Transhumanist because of
some yet-to-be defined "behaviour" by Demetrios during
"heated exchanges" with him (Tao Jiang "Points of
in the Tao Jiang "Points
of Defence" of 2012
Cripps only mentions "heated
exchanges" with Demetrios,
his email of 26 June 2009,
Lee-Anne Raymond, in which he directly addresses
you wish to have any further discussion please
write to me to prevent heated arguments
causing further problems”
"heated discussions" were
largely Cripps aggressively chastising
who is clearly present,
from Cripps' account of 2012 in order to deliberately
"foster a misconception". Cripps is a liar (refer
2009 Cripps insisted:
1) that we comply with requirements that were not in
2) that we comply with his demands even though the
contract itself listed a set series of procedures
before any amendment to the contract could be made,
including that any proposed changes had to be in
3) that the
contract, which outlined
a set series of
procedures for it to be altered, had been
(rescinded) and therefore was no longer
"heated exchanges" which Cripps claims occurred only
between himself and Demetrios (as he claims in 2012)
instead occurred between himself and Lee-Anne Raymond,
whom he angrily called a "sarcastic woman".
photograph above shows Lee-Anne arguing*(refer note
below) with Cripps. Leaning on Lee-Anne's leg is the
back-pack in which Demetrios brought in the tripod and
expensive camera to take the photographs on that day.
Lee-Anne kept Cripps preoccupied, arguing against his
claim of "racism", while Demetrios took the
to argue (arguing) is not to quarrel.
Lee-Anne is presenting our argument:
From Wikipedia, the free
logic and philosophy, an argument is an
attempt to persuade someone of something, by
giving reasons for accepting a particular
conclusion as evident."
called the work racist on 18/6/2009 and on 24/6/2009.
24/6/2009 he claimed that "racism" was the basis of:
claiming that the contract was void (rescinded)
his seeking to have us removed for trespass; and
the reason for his posting of disclaimers (circled) to
protect himself from liability (being sued) over the
content which he called "racist" and "illegal". Cripps
was seeking to to disassociate himself from our
exhibition so that it would not be seen to be
encouraging, authorising or assisting another person,
us, and be made liable for a penalty, even though we
advised him that he had no grounds to either do so or
hold his belief. The law he was alluding to for the
purpose of justifying his actions is below:
and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 - SECT 15
Prohibition of authorising or assisting
vilification or victimisation
[Table] [Search] [Search this Act] [Notes]
[Noteup] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]
Prohibition of authorising or assisting
vilification or victimisation
A person must not request, instruct, induce,
encourage, authorise or assist
another person to contravene a provision of
1: Cripps' claim was that
criticism of Christianity, Judaism,
Zoroastrianism and Hinduism was not racist,
but criticism of Islam was; he was claiming
that atheism is racist only if it criticises
2: In 2006 the Supreme Court
of Victoria (on appeal) found that
criticising an idea (religious belief) held
by a person does not mean that any person
holding that idea is vilified; that is, the
law exists to protect an individual from
vilification, not their ideas.
3: Section 11. (1) (a)
(i) of the above Act provides for
exemptions, such as "genuine academic,
artistic, religious or scientific
is not a matter of whether Cripps believed
he had to protect himself, but that he was
looking to provide any possible reason to
not have to fulfill his contractual
obligation to us, and not have to
reimburse us the money we had paid him.
Cripps was incensed that he was
contradicted and acted to demonstrate to
us and his staff that he was right
(regardless that he was not); as if acting
manner (posting disclaimers and asserting
"racism") made it so only on his
did not merely want it made known that he disendorsed
our show with his disclaimers, but undertook
deliberate actions to make certain that no one could
make any mistake what-so-ever about his disendorsement
of it; so that no-one could mistakenly believe that he
had endorsed it by having allowed
our works to remain hanging in his gallery. He
demanded unilateral alterations to the contract, that
we were not bound (contractually) to agree to, that
were designed to keep us from entering the gallery for
the purpose of making our capacity to support our show
impossible simply so that he cannot have been accused
of “supporting”, “authorising” or “assisting” us in
any way. Having achieved the outcome he desired
he claimed that it had been up to us to sell
our works and that we had voluntarily "abandoned" an
exhibition that we had worked on for for many years
and that we had promoted extensively.
actions employed circular reasoning
(a tautology) to justify rescinding of
the contract; by claiming that the show was
he "proved" with his disclaimers, which gave
him "reason" to rescind the contract, which
he rescinded because it was racist, which
caused the disclaimers,
which proved the racism, which caused the
never put his accusation of "racism" in writing, nor
did any of his staff corroborate that he called us
racist. Cripps' staff preferred, until recently, to
allow false claims that he made against us on their
behalf and in their names, stand. Cripps'
staff do not appear to have ever understood their
role, which they deliberately undertook, in this
disclaimer of liability, left.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
disclaimer is generally any statement
intended to specify or delimit the scope of
rights and obligations that may be exercised
and enforced by parties in a legally
recognized relationship. In contrast to
other terms for legally operative language,
the term disclaimer usually implies
situations that involve some level of
uncertainty, waiver, or risk.
A disclaimer ... may
specify warnings or expectations to
the general public (or some other
class of persons) in order to fulfill a duty
of care owed to prevent
unreasonable risk of harm or injury.
Some disclaimers are intended to limit
exposure to damages after a harm or injury
has already been suffered."
: Cripps' disclaimers of
liability and large "WARNING" have
been claimed by him to have been for some
Cripps the claim of
"racism" was effective in keeping us out of his
gallery; he did not put it in writing. This
meant that we could
not sue him for defaming us; but since admission
to having called us "racist" would mean that we could
sue him, it also meant that he would have
to invent another reason in the future, or face
being sued himself. In defending
himself against our VCAT claim Cripps was compelled to
offer a reason, other than the one that he provided
us, for barring us entry and for the posting of
disclaimers. He has submitted the following claim:
Demetrios insisted that he had the right to come and
go as he pleased (Tao Jiang "Points of Defence"), as
if the entry had occurred, or was being sought, at
some ridiculous hour outside the gallery's
open-to-the-public hours; and
his disclaimers were necessary not because of our
content, as the disclaimers themselves categorically
stated, but because the essays that accompanied the
works were not expressed in a simple manner (Tao Jiang
"Points of Defence");
had not commissioned us (that is paid us)
to create artwork and write on behalf of his
gallery. Had Cripps commissioned
us to create content for him,
then he may have a
Cripps' only avenue was his contract, S 6.
Hirer warrants that it has obtained the
necessary ethics clearances, approvals,
consents, licenses, permits and
certified support staff to stage the
event at the Venue, and that the
event does not contain any illicit,
dangerous, illegal, unethical or
seditious material or content to
the Hirer’s knowledge under the Hire
Agreement, and the Hirer indemnifies the
Gallery against any and all claims,
costs, actions and damages brought or
suffered as a result of breach of this
by "necessary ethics clearancess,
approvals, consents, licenses, permits"
or where he believed
such "permits" might be sought is any
the large "WARNING" warned of some
unspecified danger and not to the content (Tao Jiang
"Points of Defence").
The contract states: The Gallery "ensures that the
Hirer has access to the Venue from 8am until 10pm 7
days a week during the Hire Term."
2) We went in to photograph the disclaimers at around
4:30 PM on a Wednesday (24/6/2009) well within the
contractual parameters; this appears in the
the photo of Lee-Anne, enumerating one by one our
objections to Cripps' unprofessional
and unacceptable conduct, was taken by
Demetrios, which shows a "heated" moment between
Lee-Anne (not Demetrios) and Cripps;
Cripps' own staff were witness to our arrival during
the gallery's open-to-the-public hours;
Most of the "heated argument" of that day was
Cripps berating Lee-Anne telling her that she is a
rushed toward both of us as we entered the floor space
hired for our exhibition. Cripps demanded that we
leave or he would call (or had called) the police. To
this Demetrios insisted firmly that we had a right
guaranteed us by the contract to enter the gallery,
and that this right is similar to the right of a
tenant to enter a property that they were leasing and
that the police would have no legal right to remove us
- which elicited the Cripps rejoinder, that the
contract was no longer applicable due to racism and
that he had called, or was calling the police, to
"evict" us BOTH.
exchanges" further to this came to be by Cripps made
to Lee-Anne. This "distraction" permitted Demetrios to
do the photography while Cripps was by this means
Cripps sought was a RESCISSION
OF THE CONTRACT and to effectively achieve this meant
that he needed to show that we were guilty of misrepresenting
our art to him:
refers to the right of one party to "rescind"
a contract due to a breach or some other
action on the part of the other party.
Rescinding a contract means dissolving and
putting the parties in the position they were
in before entering into the agreement.
A right to rescind can arise in a number of
• It may be expressly provided for in the
• One party may be guilty of misrepresenting
something to the other party.
• One party may have been forced to enter into
the contract against their will.
• The contract may be illegal.
• One party may be guilty of fraud.
• An event might occur which makes it
impossible for the contract to be performed."
date our experience has shown us that the Australian
legal industry (judges, barristers, solicitors)
law has it that any reporter who exposes someone
else's lie has, by exposing that lie, given
the liar the right to sue for having their lie
exposed. This is called "aggrievement" and is the sole
prerequisite needed to bring a defamation suit against
anyone. This right to sue for being "aggrieved",
even over truth, is defined in the 2005
Australia the defence of truth, is called
"justification (to having defamed, see below)"; this
means that the liar is held by law to have been
"defamed" by the truth. However, the liar can't profit
form such defamation.
In Australia "defamatory material" remains
defamatory even if it is proven to be true.
Truth is only a "justification".
such a law Australia unambiguously intends
censorship. This conclusion is logically
unassailable. If one cannot impart truth
truth will cause contempt for someone
exposed by having the truth
which any truth constitutes a legally
sanctioned right for someone to sue you
because they want the truth suppressed
because the truth causes others to think
less of them;
then the incontrovertible
such a law is to prevent
the availability of information: censorship.
Former High Court Judge and defamation barrister
Michael McHugh in a Dublin speech on the
"defamation tango" explains
that the defence of truth is an admission to
having defamed. Therefore, truth is penalised to
preserve a lie. Shouldn't a reputation be based
on truth? and that the truth is therefore your
Cripps is a liar.
law gives the liar a legal right to sue you and
permits them to escape "Abuse of Process" (so it
seems) because the liar has the right by law to be
aggrieved by being exposed to be a liar; and allows
someone like Cripps
to use defamation law to achieve a collateral
purpose, with that being: to abrogate his
liability for breach of contract; and to keep
information of his breach of contract from
becoming known (censorship).
law is unconcerned (to date) that Cripps is suing us
so he can avoid being penalised for breach of
contract; that he is trying to force us to "admit"
that our documented evidence that proves that he
breached his contract is instead a "lie". In
Australia, though Cripps breached his contract, it is
defamatory simply because it makes a 3rd party think
less of him, NOT BECAUSE IT IS UNTRUE.
law is concerned about the damage done to Cripps for
being exposed to be a liar because it considers his
lie (reputation) to be of greater importance than the
damage that he did to us.
is a highly unethical country
the U.S.A. the law protects the right to to freedom of
by being signatory to the UN convention of Human
Rights, is supposed to protect the same right. It does
right to freedom of speech in the U.S.A. IS NOT
a right to "freedom to lie", which is punishable by
Australia lying is knowingly and deliberately
protected by defamation law.
legal industry in Australia is dishonest,
disingenuous, and malevolent
Australian legal industry, comprised of barristers and
ex-judges, lie: they falsely claim that the American
right to free speech is really a right to lie. The US
protects the right to freedom of expression, NOT THE
FREEDOM TO LIE!
AUSTRALIAN LAW PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO LIE,
not the US.
right to free speech is not a protection to the right
to lie in the U.S.A. Countries that extol a right to
lie are Australia and the UK.
defamation law IS ILLEGAL IN THE U.S.A.
the US Australia's defamation law is defined
as "LIBEL TERRORISM" because it fails to
respect the right to freedom of expression.
2005 Defamation Act SHOULD be illegal in Australia too
as it is signatory to the United Nations Human Rights
Convention which should, but does not, give
Australians the same protection.
website is hosted on U.S.A. servers.
servers cannot be compelled to remove it because
Australian defamation law, as it now stands, is
illegal because of its failure to protect the right to
The Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 and
2009 were both bills aimed at ... barring
U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments
issued in foreign courts against U.S.
residents, if the speech would not be
libelous under American law. These
protections were passed in the 2010 SPEECH
Act which passed unanimously in both the
House of Representatives and the Senate
before being signed by US President Barack
Obama on August 10, 2010."
York State was one of the early US states to
introduce laws against English
LIBEL TERRORISM. Australia still practices
are petitioning the Australian government to amend the
Defamation Act of 2005 to end Australian
Libel Terrorism and to make Australian law
consistent with its international obligations.
Support our petition here:http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-hon-mark-dreyfus-qc-mp-amend-the-australian-defamation-act-2005