* Invoice from "Redleg Museum Services" as an example of our dealing with Robert Cripps of "Guildford Lane Gallery" (GLG)
(note:
All emails received by us were from "Robert Cripps" of "Redleg Museum Services")

* Original claim by Cripps: (Williams Winter Solicitors: makes the claim that we had committed a criminal offence which could result in a jail term for each of us.)

* Second claim, Tao Jiang letter of Demand by Cripps ("Redleg") sent to DV demanding removal of what is written claiming it to be "injurious falsehood" which is "published maliciously"

* Second claim, Tao Jiang letter of Demand by Cripps ("Redleg") sent to LAR demanding removal of what is written claiming it to be "injurious falsehood" which is "published maliciously"

* Original SOC to the Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia), April Fool's Day 2011 (most of this original SOC was struck out and had to be re-submitted).

* Email from iiNet Solicitors explaining threat from Cripps' counsel to sue them as "co-defendants" (19/7/2011)
Cripps (via his solicitors) had our pages/sites disabled. In this instance iiNet explain why they removed our pages from the internet.

* Cripps' solicitor's email to iiNet

* Pdf from Telstra lawyers explaining the threat from Cripps' counsel
why we were disconnected from the internet. (Cripps' legal team even claimed that our SOC in VCAT against Cripps was itself "defamation").

* Our proposal for the exhibition our websites are listed in our application to exhibit. On a number of times our sites have been completely disabled by Cripps' legal action which makes it rather difficult to promote our art if our sites are not available on the www.

* Contract for exhibition "Humanist Transhumanist" at Guildford Lane Gallery The contract guarantees us right of entry (which we came to be denied).

* The contact details for Cripps that appear on the exhibition contract are made publicly available by Cripps / Redleg on http://www.guildfordlanegallery.org/contact

* Photograph (detail) of Cripps' disclaimer in our exhibition (according to the April Fool's day SOC this is an "injurious falsehood".) This kind of disclaimer known as a "Disclaimer of Endorsement" is used to limit exposure to legal liability

* Screenshot of email sent by Cripps, as "Redleg", from "info@redleg.com.au" In this email Cripps demands that we have to meet conditions - which were not in the contract - before allowing us entry to the exhibition space that we had paid for.

* Our advertisement in the Art Almanac which we, not Cripps, paid for. Our inclusion of his logo was demanded in the contract. Including the logo creates the impression that Cripps endorsed, or in some way supported ("sponsored"?) our show.

* Redleg (Robert Cripps) a "sponsor" of the arts (on his releg website: http://www.redleg.com.au/sponsorship.html, Robert Cripps, trading as Redeg asserts: "[in] our commitment to servicing and developing the arts in Australia, Redleg has sponsored, and continues to sponsor, a diverse range of exhibitions and events. In doing so, we aim to assist in the continued growth of the arts in Australia"). Our own experience vis-a-vis his dislcaimer does not support Cripps'/Redleg's claim.

* Guildford Lane Gallery "sold" from http://www.guildfordlanegallery.org/news/sold , which shows the "gallery" with only its "Redleg" signage. According to this webpage, GLG was sold with "With a phenomenal result"

* VCAT claim by us against Cripps for breach of contract

* Cripps' case and our VCAT claim merged. The judgement is available on Austlii; Judge Bowman's summary: "Dispute re breach of contract … involving alleged defamation arising from basically the same facts".

* Cripps' farcical "points of defence" against our VCAT claim

* Notes for oral submission to Supreme Court/VCAT by Demetrios Vakras - we have a right to remedy breach of contract under law which is not diminished by our writing about it. Cripps' staff conspired with him to breach contract.

* Notes for oral submission to Supreme Court/VCAT by Lee-Anne Raymond

* VCAT made judge Bowman's orders publicly available. Orders are posted on Austlii. Melbourne Observer reporting judge's orders from Austlii threatened by Cripps with defamation. Sample 1

* VCAT made judge Bowman's orders publicly available. Orders are posted on Austlii. Melbourne Observer reporting judge's orders from Austlii threatened by Cripps with defamation. Sample 2 the claim here is that we will be sued for aggravated damages because someone - not us - has reported the issue.

* Robert Cripps is a liar

* Robert Cripps: Misleading and Deceptive Trading

* Robert Cripps: Misleading and Deceptive Trading- ADDENDUM

* Is that your lovely penis?

* Cripps - RMIT alumni? Revision A

* Cripps - RMIT alumni Revision B

* Cripps' acts of benevolent munificence

* Cripps - a manifestation of the Left

* Cripps - a self-confessed racist

* Cripps manifesting sentiments words not apparently understood by the "ordinary" or "reasonable" reader.

* Defamation to achieve censorship extract

* Defining "racism"

* The Hideous Robert Cripps suing to prevent us holding an opinion of him different to the opinion he holds of himself

* Cripps pulls websites on 2 March 2014

* Removed content from directory page 16/6/2014-28/12/2014

* Email to Cripps 26/6/2009 "Addenda to_ a misrepresentation of our art + rebutal"

* Complete Trial transcripts (addresses of witnesses redacted)

* Appeal of Kyrou's decision - Press Release

* 2 March 2015 Press Release "the trial and judgment have subverted the claimed purpose of the law to instead act to chill all debate regarding criticism of religious doctrines"

* More coming soon

~ webiste in progress ~

~ this site was inspired by the gunns20.org site ~

Robert Raymond Cripps sues artists for defamation:

Redleg Museum Services (ACN 105 986 829) sues

Demetrios Vakras (artist)
Lee-Anne Raymond (artist)

Supreme Court of Victoria
SCI 01484/2011

"Redleg" (Robert Raymond Cripps trading as "Redleg Museum Services") is suing us after we wrote of our experience with him when we exhibited our works in his short-lived-gallery venture "Guildford Lane Gallery" in 2009.

*  He disagreed with part of the exhibition's content which he called "racist"

*  Using racism as his pretext he barred us entry to our exhibition

*  We advertised his gallery and our exhibition (eg 1/2 page ad in Art Almanac). He posted disclaimers dis-endorsing our exhibition.

*  We each wrote about our experience on our respective websites. He sued us each for defamation

*  On the pretext of defamatory content his actions caused us to be disconnected from the internet (via Telstra).

We are accused of "defamation" because the documented evidence of Cripps' actions, such as his own emails to us, are claimed to be evidence of our defamation of him.

His SOCs demand that we apologise for writing about his failure to provide what he was contractually obligated to provide. By means of the Defamation Act of 2005 it appears that he is attempting to:

a/ abrogate his liability for his failure to provide what he had contractually agreed to provide;

b/ keep from becoming known that he deliberately withheld what he had contractually agreed to provide.


Contact : Lee-Anne Raymond, or Demetrios Vakras

Artist sites : leeanneart.com , vakras.com

Summary of exhibition / publication launch HumanistTranshumanist.com

Glossary: "SOC" is a "Statement Of Claim", "GLG" is "Guildford Lane Gallery", "Redleg" is Robert Cripps trading as "Redleg Museum Services".


About the person suing us, Robert Cripps :

robert cripps suing usRobert Cripps, pictured left, was the owner of the failed Guildford Lane Gallery.

[DV edit 3/3/2014] Theoretically, under law we have rights as consumers to know about the services and quality of the services Cripps was to provide. Had we been aware of him we would never have dealt with him. However, Australia's unconscionable "Defamation Act 2005" defines negative references as "defamatory", not because they might be false, but because bad, poor, or deceptive practices can cause another to think less of the person providing such services and therefore not use their services. In Australia, this makes such information "defamatory". Australia's Rock Paper Scissors Defamation law (Defamation is the rock to scissors, scissors to paper, and paper to rock) means Cripps can sue to prevent consumers from knowing what they should have the right to know before buying services off him.

Australian law-makers use words such as "manifest" in their legal acts. However, Australia's Rock Paper Scissors Defamation law allows for words like "manifestation" to mean something else if it might assist in a lawsuit. Though law-makers can use words like "manifestation" confident in their knowledge of what it means, the "ordinary" or "reasonable" Australian might imagine the word means something entirely else. We are being sued for using "manifestation".

In Australia the political left equate criticism of Islam with being "racist"; equate criticism of Islam as being "anti-Palestinian"; equate criticism of Islam to be "pro-Israel". These equations are made in proclamations by the left on their own websites, and can be found on the Wikipedia which is edited by "ordinary" and "reasonable" readers. The left support Islam and accuse even atheists - such as us - of being racist simply for criticisng Islam even when, as it was in our case, Islam is criticised along with other religions.

Robert Cripps, on 18/6/2009 and then on 24/6/2009 accused us and our exhibition of being "racist" using the accusations that are made repeatedly by the left, against us, which makes Robert Cripps a manifestation of the left. On that basis Cripps posted disclaimers of liability/endorsement throughout the exhibition space. However, in suing us, he has instead claimed an alternative reason; the art was too complex. Had the ideas been more "simple", or expressed more "simply" he would not have posted disclaimers. ( Cripps' farcical "points of defence" against our VCAT claim ). In this way, Cripps, like Hitler, sought to impose simplicity in art.

Adolf Hitler:

"The principles of simplicity and accessibility that feature so frequently in Soviet statements on culture were central to Hitler's artistic prejudices: 'art that is in our blood,' he continued, 'art that people can comprehend, because only art that the simple man can understand is true art.'"

The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, Richard Overy
ISBN: 978-0393327977

Hitler defined art as simple 1
Hitler defined art as simple 2

[DV edit 3/3/2014]


law to limit scope of debate - protect radical left from criticism

A political philosophy is an abstraction - it cannot be "defamed". However, political philosophies cannot and do not spontaneously come into existence; these philosophies are constructed by individuals, expressed by individuals, adopted by individuals. Criticism of these philosophies, including their being put into their historical context, can be made unlawful by the state when it allows for parties to sue for defamation because parties who hold and express such ideas have had their ideas criticised. Australia's defamation law HAS to be amended - the way it is enforced nullifies any obligation to protect the rights included in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.


Removed content from directory page 16/6/2014-28/12/2014


Emilios Kyrou decides: limits scope of debate - protects radical left from criticism and protects religion from "association" made with Hitler which is described as an "egregious defamation".


"a blot on the Jewish people"

1/1/2015

In June 2014 Emilios Kyrou delivered a finding that was entirely consistent with views he has propounded in the past. [more: unbowedatheist.com]

Kyrou sat in judgement over a matter in which religion was decried as hateful and in which Hitler's genocide was attributed to, and shown to have arisen from, his Christianity. [more: unbowedatheist.com]


Above, pp. 30-31, Humanist Transhumanist showing painting Pythia between χαός and χασμός. The racial purity pursued by Adolf Hitler is called for in Deuteronomy. Christianity, specifically the New Testament, gave rise to Hitler's racism, his hatred of Jews. Criticism of this formed part of the theme of religious criticism in the 2009 exhibition.

Kyrou sat in judgement over a matter where the Koran's exhortations to wage suicide killings was condemned.

Kyrou sat as judge over a matter where Cripps maintained that quotes from the Koran that order suicide killings would cause people to not blame Jews for a conflict in which Cripps blamed Jews. Cripps claimed, on 18 June 2009, that Muslims simply react to what Jews do, and testified to the same under oath. Under oath Cripps repeated the claim that the exhibition "could be" "anti-Palestinian", but claimed he could not explain how that would be.

Roberty Cripps blames Jews for conflict. Muslims react to Jews

Cripps' own testimony confirmed his prejudice against Jews. This prejudice is racist. Racism does not necessarily mean racial supremacism:

racism is hatred of those of another race 1

 

racism is hatred of those of another race 2

The cause supported by Cripps, "Palestine", was identified by Cripps as a Muslim cause. Cripps proclaimed "Muslims 'react' to Jews". Islamic doctrine demands Muslims "react" against Jews [more: unbowedatheist.com]. This Muslim cause against the Jews of Palestine had its origins with the Nazis (al Husseini) who as a Muslim "reacted" to the presence of Jews in "Palestine" because Islamic doctrine demands Muslims react against Jews. Al Husseini, a Nazi, made Arab-language radio broadcasts from Berlin calling for the Jews of Palestine to be made "extinct" during the war, because this is part of Islamic doctrine (the hadith). Al Husseini was supported by Adolf Hitler.

This Muslim cause against the Jews of Palestine has NOTHING TO DO WITH ISRAEL, because it was a cause pursued by Muslims who pursued it because Islamic doctrine demands it, PRIOR TO THE EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL. This is beyond dispute.

What did Kyrou rule?

Kyrou "found" that the presentation of what is historical material constitutes an "association" with Hitler and that such an "association" constitutes an "egregious defamation". Kyrou made this ruling with regards to an exhibition, Humanist Transhumanist from 2009, which "associated" Hitler's genocide of Jews with Christianiy which was supported with quotes from Mein Kampf: meaning that the exhibition itself, with its "association"of Christianity with Hitler is therefore an "egregious" defamation according to his ruling. Kyrou ruled that antisemitic statements by Cripps are not an example of antisemitism.

Kyrou "found" that the evidence of Hitler's support for the "Muslim cause in Palestine" which was part of the email sent to Cripps on 26 June 2009 constituted "vilification". This email states nothing more than is already known and which Cripps could have and should have been able to find for himself. There was, to repeat, no reference to "Palestine" or to conflict in the Levant in the exhibition of 2009. Kyrou's ruling makes atheism, in this instance, atheist criticism of Islamic doctrine (as it was made by us in 2009), an act of "pro-Israelism".

Atheism has nothing to do with being "pro-Israel" and has nothing to do with being "anti-Palestinian" - yet Emilios Kyrou ruled that it does.

Kyrou's ruling makes it unlawful to refer to material that is in the public domain - it cannot be referred to or mentioned. Photographs from the Bundesarchiv, for instance, showing Hitler with al Husseini cannot be referred to or made known to others without breaching Kyrou's verdict.

This is a prohibiting of information. The result is that by prohibiting reference to historical material it keeps intact a political (racist) bias against the Jews because it makes any reference to Hitler's support for the Muslim's war against the Jews of "Palestine" which was waged against the Jews of "Palestine" prior to the existence of Israel, an "egregious defamation". This is not a matter of "belief" of any kind, it is the logical corollary to Kyrou's finding. However, Victoria's Supreme Court is guided by something other than logic which the court is loath to admit.

Kyrou's decision - the international reaction.

Israeli author Dov Ivry, writes on Kyrou's decision. One chapter of Injustice Hits Rock Bottom Down Under fleshes out "the mufti" and his "association" with Hitler in great detail. This is the information that Kyrou ruled constituted a vilification of Cripps.

In the Times of Israel, Ivry describes the absence of any reaction to Kyrou's finding from Australia's Jewish community as "a blot on the Jewish people"

The court outcome is being appealed


court transcript cover for scribd

Emilios Kyrou disregarded the evidence to rule against us.

This is the transcript given to us by the court, the very evidence disregarded.

In his evidence Cripps admitted that he blamed Jews for conflict, and that Muslims merely react to Jews, and that criticism of Islam could cause someone to blame Muslims and not Jews. However, the judge Emilios Kyrou found that this was not racist.

Cripps admitted to having no knowledge of art, to having no understanding of art, to having no knowledge of art history, to having a limited education ("form 3", 3rd year high school), and that he only ran the gallery as a business without knowing about art. However, the judge Emilios Kyrou ruled that Cripps understood art.

Cripps claimed that he had placed disclaimers throughout our exhibition because 1) the essays were too complex and he didn't know what they meant, 2) that there were labels with Greek writing, necessitating disclaimers (despite no label to be seen in any photograph), 3) that it was necessary because though he did not understand what was written, it might be "anti-Palestinian" or "anti-Zionist", 4) that disclaimers of liability and dis-endorsement of exhibitions are standard to all exhibitions, 5) and then contradicting himself to admit ours is the only exhibition in which disclaimers were posted. However, despite Cripps' own contradictions, the judge found that disclaimers dis-endorsing exhibitions are standard in galleries hosting exhibitions.

A book has been written on the case by Israeli author Dov Ivry. It references both the "finding" made by Kyrou which is available on Austlii and the transcript from the trial which is uploaded to Scribd. Injustice Hits Rock Bottom Down Under is available from Amazon.

"'Palestinians' wage a war guided by Islamic doctrine (Koran and hadith) against Jews. To prevent blame from being attributed to the 'Palestinians' who are guided by Islamic doctrine (Koran and hadith) ... critics of Islamic doctrine [are denounced] as 'racists'

"Jews can successfully be blamed for a religious war waged against them by making taboo any and all references to the Koran and the hadith. " unbowedatheist blogspot, 15/6/2013.

Refer webite : UnbowedAtheist.com


 

Petition to fix Australian law

This site (Redleg V Artists) is hosted on a USA server.
The USA has legislated against Libel laws of countries such as Australia. Australian and UK libel law is defined as Libel Terrorism by the USA.

We 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