|
Revision B
see also
Revision A
Cripps?
his dead dog? RMIT alumni?
30/11/2013
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.
SUED
FOR THE HONOUR OF A DEAD DOG
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):
"SO
WHERE DOES RUBY’S
MUSIC ROOM GET
HER NAME?
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
Lane.
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" ( http://www.redlegvartists.com/Points_of_Defence_ORC-comments.pdf
and is discussed at http://www.redlegvartists.com/cripps-lies.html).
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
(http://rubysmusicroom.tumblr.com).
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.
WHO
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS CLAIM?
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, (http://www.redlegvartists.com/fraud-addendum.html
& 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:http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-hon-mark-dreyfus-qc-mp-amend-the-australian-defamation-act-2005
|