Redleg V artists

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

Cripps' crack legal team: Christopher Dibb & ? Tao Jiang (replaced)

1. Redleg Museum Services now runs RUBY'S MUSIC ROOM , Registration number:    B2409701A, ASIC;
2. Cripps' Redleg Museum Services Pty Ltd was the respondent to objections raised in VCAT regarding his Ruby's Music Room
3."The team behind one of Melbourne’s much loved galleries and performance spaces, Guildford Lane Gallery are very proud to present Ruby’s Music Room."

Note: Redleg runs Ruby's Music Room, and in the past ran Guildford Lane Gallery. That is a simple fact. But to mention it, and make sure that we are not sued for some reason on grounds we are not aware of and have not anticipated, entails that we have to make "a bigger deal of it" than we otherwise would. It would have been simpler to just mention the fact, but by leaving it at that might be said to have been done by us out of "malice", or that it may have been wrong in fact; hence we need to show where the relationship lies between Redleg and Ruby's Music Room. Indeed, it becomes MANIFESTLY obvious that we could avoid mention of the fact and avoid any legal repercussions; self-censor; which is precisely the the outcome achieved by Australia's 2005 Defamation Act, though the act itself asserts categorically that it is not designed to "unreasonably" impinge on the right to freely impart (and receive) information (though not necessarily expressed by these exact words).

Revision B

see also Revision A

Cripps? his dead dog? RMIT alumni?


Cripps' current venture is named "Ruby's Music Room". It is a continuation of "Ruby's Room".
"Ruby's Room" was a space run within the exhibition spaces of Cripps' Guildford Lane Gallery building in which performances were held.

Cripps is promoting either himself, his new venture, or his dead dog as "an RMIT alumni". It would be patently absurd for anyone to believe that his dog could possibly be an RMIT alumni. However, such a claim can be seen to be consistent with the other claims made by Cripps on behalf of the dog which would be silly for anyone to take seriously. To explain: Cripps' purported love of music and jazz, for example, is claimed to be an attribute of the dog as well - so in essence the descriptions of the dog actually appear to be projections of Cripps persona onto the dog. Thus by claiming that Ruby is the RMIT alumni it would appear to mean that Cripps is projecting another of his own attributes onto the dog. Cripps though is not an RMIT alumni and to make such a claim is to make a misrepresentation, a deception.


Cripp's dog, now dead, was named "Ruby Redleg" (fig. 2, fig.3 & fig.4).

1) "Redleg" is the name of Cripps' company;

2) "Redleg" ran Guildford Lane Gallery;

3) "Redleg" now runs Ruby's Music Room; and

4) "Redleg", as well as Cripps, are BOTH currently suing us!

Under Australian law Cripps is being permitted to sue us as two entities. We are being sued, believe it or not, by "Redleg", ostensibly Cripps' dog? and by "Robert Raymond Cripps".

Cripps named his current venture after his dog (fig. 1).

fig. 1: "named for the owner's dog Ruby (RIP, sweet pooch)".

Cripps made many proclamations regarding the dog. Postings (on Facebook) for both Guildford Lane Gallery, and later Ruby's (Music) Room, are even made by the dog itself.

According to Cripps, his dog was a lover of music, art and theatre (fig. 2), as is Cripps.

fig. 2 Cripps' dog was a lover of theatre and would have acquired its tastes from the many theatres it visited.

Cripps' dog was, according to his RMR website, his canine soul-doppelganger. From his website, fig. 3 (which was pulled on or after 8-9 September 2013, but which was re-activated on 13 November 2013):

At the ripe old age of 22 (over 150 doggie years), Ruby was Une Grand Dame. She travelled
across the continent with her best friend Robert; (the brains behind Ruby’s Music Room) and
acquired an eclectic taste for the finer things in life; with a particular penchant for music and
food. There was nothing canned for this lady! Ruby was a magnificent dog and friend.
Ruby was also a lover of Jazz, Classical, Opera & World Music and aimed to share this love
with the fine people of Melbourne in the eclectic Jazz quartier of Little Lonsdale and Bennetts
Unfortunately, in the final stages of construction, Ruby passed away. 22 is a fine effort for
such a beautiful Charge.

fig. 3 Cripps claims to be the brains behind Ruby’s, and references to Ruby are about the dog.

While Cripps' dog was alive it compensated for Cripps' intellectual limitations.

Cripps' limitations were severe. According to the claims he has sworn to, Cripps found the content of our exhibition "too complex" for him to understand, and therefore, on the grounds of the “complexity” of the content, he put up disclaimers throughout our exhibition space. **

(**NOTE: at the time of our exhibition Cripps proclaimed that he posted disclaimers of liability over content to protect himself from any liability over our content. He claimed that the content in question was regarding criticism of religions made in the exhibition which he said was "racist". His current claim is that the liability he was protecting himself from was - since it remains about content - actually liability over prospective mental-injury-due-to-complexity, as this is the only interpretation one can make of his claim of liability-over-complexity. Cripps made the "complexity" claim under oath in VCAT. It can be found in the TaoJiang "Points of Defences" ( and is discussed at

As Cripps himself openly concedes, he is bamboozled by apparent complexity. Cripps is, by such a means, admitting to being unsophisticated, simple, and limited in his intellect. Did the dog compensate for Cripps’ shortcomings?

Cripps, as it appears to me, is instead utilising his dog to achieve a deliberate and intentional outcome. By using his dog as a proxy he can make many claims about himself, none of which require any basis in fact. By attributing these characteristics to his dog Cripps safeguards himself from being sued for misleading those he deals with in business, because he can effectively argue that only a fool would have accepted such representations that were clearly made on behalf of a dog, representations which cannot possibly be taken seriously. Therefore anyone taken in by such claims is at fault because of their own suggestibility.

However, since Cripps has been projecting his own persona onto the dog, since he was running GLG, it is a reasonable expectation that if he makes claims of "Ruby's", being Ruby the dog, the collector and dilettante, being an RMIT alumni as well, that these are claims made regarding the venue owner, Cripps.

Cripps’ dog, his business-partner, apparently made postings on Facebook promoting exhibitions that were being held at Cripps' failed Guildford Lane Gallery (fig. 4)

fig. 4 Cripps' dog makes entries for Guildford Lane Gallery exhibitions on Facebook. Both are equally talented.

Cripps' dog even set up its own Facebook profile page (fig. 5) so that it could promote art.

fig. 5 Cripps' dog set up its own Facebook page.

Cripps' claims might be mistaken as innocuous. They are not.

Cripps is claiming that either he or his dog studied at RMIT, and that he or his dog is an RMIT graduate, an alumni of RMIT. He either claims this for himself, or has someone claim this on his behalf. Though it could be that one of his staff might be the alumni, we are not to know, for the claim is that Ruby, or “Ruby’s Room”, which has already been identified as the dog (fig. 6), is the alumni. In Cripps' own words:

"Ruby is a lover of Jazz, Classical, Opera & World Music and aims to share this love...Ruby is a well travelled old Dog [who]...delights in collecting, as she did with Robert ...take a look at some of Ruby’s fine findings from around the world!"

fig. 6 (

And is it this dog, "Ruby's Music Room", that is listed on the Facebook page as an RMIT alumni (fig. 7)?

By a method of elimination: RMR, the business, the venue, the building, cannot ever be an alumni, or a "social media gal". It is a building and a business name. It has to be someone who is part of the business, a business partner, and Cripps has no business partner.

Is Cripps the alumni? Maybe. Would that make Ruby, the dog, the "social media gal"?

Is one of Cripps employees the RMIT alumni? a member of his "RMR Team"? Does this mean that one of Cripps' employees has identified themselves as Ruby? or has someone Cripps hired and who is working there listed their own personal educational qualifications for the benefit of Cripps?

The claim to be an RMIT alumni on Facebook augments the bona fides of the business, "Ruby's Music Room", and there is nothing that would indicate that this claim is made on behalf of any of any of the individuals that work, or may have once worked, at RMR.


Cripps states boldly on his website - as it now stands (or as it stood from October until 13 November 2013) - that RMR is owned and operated by Cripps (fig.8), so there is no ambiguity: all postings made on Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, or on his own site, have been made, if not by Cripps himself, then on Cripps' directions.

fig. 7, Cripps’ promotes his dog? as the “social media gal”? and either his dog or himself as an alumni of RMIT? RMIT is the institution in which Robert Cripps’ brother, Peter Cripps works as an arts educator.

fig. 8, Cripps runs the show. Don't let anyone claim otherwise! Cripps is Ruby’s Music Room. Ruby, the RMIT alumni, would therefore have to be Cripps?

fig. 9, Cripps hired someone for “Online profile management” and for “Managing publicity for the venue” who would undertake making pronouncements on behalf of Cripps and under his direction.

(NOTES: Cripps' current "Ruby's Music Room" page/profile on Facebook (fig. 7, right) evolved from an older page/profile "Ruby's Room" (fig. 7, left) which had been part of his failed GLG. Cripps created a new page/profile specifically for Ruby's Music Room.

The old url has "RubyMusicRoom", whereas the new has "RubysMusicRoom". Postings for his new venture were made on his new RMR page/profile. However, these appear to have stopped on/around 20 September 2013. All postings after that date are now appearing on the old GLG "Ruby's Room", though this may change.

Cripps proclaims himself to be the “brains behind Ruby’s” (fig. 3). And, additionally, he has categorically asserted that he owns and directs Ruby’s (not anyone else), fig. 8. Cripps hired people to make these claims for him (fig. 9). And Cripps alone is responsible for fostering whatever misrepresentations are made about his business such as being an RMIT alumni. If one of his staff is the alumni, then why would they credit Ruby’s Room” to be the alumni? It makes no sense.

And, remember, according to the Consumer and Competition Act 2010, whether or not a trader intends to to mislead is of no relevance; what is of relevance is if the trader can mislead by making false claims.

Cripps is disguising his claim, disingenuously, by making it appear to be amusing or witty, because no-one can possibly believe that his dog, or his business, is an RMIT alumni.

Yet by choosing to make this claim in this manner, Cripps might be seeking to mislead in such a way that he might be able to claim that only a fool could fall for puffery. Yet this is not puffery (fig. 10). There is a reasonable expectation that "the brains behind Ruby's", Robert Cripps (fig. 3) or a business partner, is the alumni, not his dog, not his building, not the business, not a random staff-member who answers the phone, and not the person he has hired for "online profile management" (fig.9) who one expects will be managing the profile of RMR and not posting their own personal profile as being that of "Ruby's".

And how could such a deceptive claim be of benefit?
Cripps called for volunteers and interns to “work” at his new RMR, ( & Revision A). By claiming to be an RMIT alumni could induce a prospective volunteer to volunteer at RMR because it would cause them to form a genuine belief that Cripps has a legal right to call for volunteers because of whatever association he might have with RMIT, an educational institution. That is, the reasonable expectation is that Cripps, or a business partner (not an employee or the dog), would have to be the alumni.

Small, and seemingly innocuous misrepresentations Cripps made to us led us to agree to exhibit at GLG.

fig. 10, Cripps' claims are not wild enough to constitute puffery. Above, the ACCC definition of puffery. The claim to being an alumni is deception.

Robert Cripps, above, ran a failed-gallery

 Author: Demetrios Vakras 30 November 2013

We are petitioning the Australian government to amend the Defamation Act of 2005 to make Australian law consistent with its international obligations.

Support our petition here: