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 & Buddy Low (Efron & Associates, Melbourne) 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).

The Hideous Robert Cripps

Beauty in the eye of the beholder? Australian defamation law says: sue the beholder.

Demetrios Vakras, 17 January 2014

The hideous Robert Cripps is suing us to alter our opinion of him because it conflicts with the opinion he holds of himself.

Robert Cripps, above, simply hideous: "his smile made him look more hideous than ever". Australian law has it that an opinion - which is subjective - is sufficient justification to sue over if it is in conflict with your own opinion of yourself.

Mac dictionary "hideous", adjective: "his smile made him look more hideous than ever"

Apparently, we can only think highly of Cripps because he thinks highly of himself.
Robert Cripps, far left, close to perfection? Is suing because our opinion of him does not match his personal delusion. Surely I don't have to define delusion too??

Australian law has it that one party can sue another if that party forms a negative opinion of them. The law holds it that ONE PARTY OWN$ how another perceives them. Australian law has it that no party can form an idea about another without the say-so of the party over whom they form an idea. In Australia the legal indu$try has it that this is consistent with the country's international legal obligations. IT IS NOT. Australian defamation law violates Human Rights. I have the right to hold an opinion, regardless of whether that opinion is shared by others, or whether it contradicts Cripps' opinion of himself. An opinion is a belief that does not require evidence; belief in god is an expression of an opinion on the existence of god. In Australia opinions constitute a legally punishable act; they are a thought crime.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is voided by Australian judges.

In Australia it is unlawful to hold an opinion.

In Australia it is unlawful to hold an opinion. The courts dictate what thoughts one can or cannot have.

Cripps suing us for defamation.

By suing, Cripps has made it incumbent on us to prove how awful he is. We had a reasonable expectation that by providing the proofs Cripps might back down; CRIPPS WILL LOSE HIS CASE, we can demonstrate truth.

Instead, our providing proofs (evidence) means, according to OZ law, that we have simply defamed him more and his legal team's position has appeared to be "we just sue harder Mr. Cripps". Every element of OZ defamation law intends to make it possible for a plaintiff like Crip$$ to benefit more because the evidence that proves what they have done, is that which defames them. And the lawyer$ who have framed $uch law$, are the one$ who $tand to make financial gain from tho$e who utili$e such law$, and it i$ they who will eventually $it in judgement of ca$e$ of "defamation". The legal indu$try is malevolent, or greedy, $elf-$erving or $tupid and is plainly di$ingenuou$ with the lofty claim$ they make about $uch a law.

Australian law has it that any truth which can cause a person to become an object of ridicule, and causes others to hold them in contempt for their actual actions, is defamatory of them.

A former High Court embara$$ment, Michael McHugh, has described truth as an admission to having defamed (Dublin lecture). The existence of proofs simply allows people to "sue harder" because it is true. Had the truth not been made known, then defamation cannot have happened. Simple. Suppression of information is the only way defamation will not occur. The Australian legal indu$try have no problem with cen$or$hip, just a problem with hone$ty. Though intended by the nature of its wording a$ an act of censorship (were it intended otherwise, it would have been worded differently), the claim is made that the Defamation Act of 2005 is not a censorship Act. This is intellectual di$hone$ty and obfu$catory $ophi$m.

Left, Michael McHugh, former judge of Australia's High Court, the defence of truth is an admission to defamation. Image from There is no shame or embarrassment in Australia's legal fraternity. Why should they be embarrassed? They can sue those who can embarrass them with "contempt".

OZ defamation law's intention is to achieve censorship and allow the doer of bad acts to profit from doing bad acts by suing those who do not self-censor and report on those acts. This is made incontrovertibly MANIFEST by Cripps suing over the disclaimers he posted (fig. 0.a). Cripps posted 4 (or 3) such disclaimers throughout our exhibition space on Saturday 20th, or Sunday 21st of June 2009.

The gallery was open to the public during this time. We did not find out about the disclaimers until we were told about them, from a person who saw them on 21/6/2009. This person had told others about them too. We had paid for the gallery to be open to the public, and these disclaimers were available for any visitor to see, which is why they came to be seen by the person who advised us of them.

1) visitors saw Cripps' disclaimer on 21/6/2009 and formed a negative opinion of him;
(gallery not open to the public 22-23/6/2009);
visitors saw Cripps' disclaimer on 24/6/2009 (in our presence) and formed a negative opinion of him;
visitors saw Cripps' disclaimer on 25/6/2009 and formed a negative opinion of him;
visitors saw Cripps' disclaimer on 26/6/2009 and formed a negative opinion of him;
visitors saw Cripps' disclaimer on 27/6/2009 and formed a negative opinion of him;
5) visitors saw Cripps' disclaimer on 28/6/2009 and formed a negative opinion of him;

(gallery not open to the public 29-30/6/2009);
6) visitors saw Cripps' disclaimer on 1/7/2009 and formed a negative opinion of him;
visitors saw Cripps' disclaimer on 2/7/2009 and formed a negative opinion of him;
visitors saw Cripps' disclaimer on 3/7/2009 and formed a negative opinion of him;
visitors saw Cripps' disclaimer on 4/7/2009 and formed a negative opinion of him;
visitors saw Cripps' disclaimer on 5/7/2009 and formed a negative opinion of him.

Cripps had, by his own actions, established himself to be of his fame by the time I wrote of him. It never took writing about his disclaimers to defame him. My writing about him did NOT transmogrify his fame into something other than what Cripps had already made it by his own actions which were witnessed by others prior to my writing of it.

Therefore: that Cripps can have cause to sue demonstrates incontrovertibly the logical corollary: defamation law exi$t$ to allow one party to make a financial gain by by $uing over the evidence. If the evidence did not exist, or if it can be made to not exist, there would be no "defamation". This is Censorship. The former High Court embara$$ment, Michael McHugh in his Dublin speech praised OZ law for not not being an impediment to the imparting of information. McHugh was not making a joke.

Every visitor formed a negative impression of Guildford Lane Gallery, a negative impression of its director/ owner, Robert Cripps, of Redleg (the company of which GLG was a part) while the disclaimers were in place.

I wrote of his disclaimer and posted an image of it on my website (on 21 or 22 August 2009) 2 months after Cripps' public posting of his disclaimer. Somehow, the claim is that I have defamed Cripps, even though he had already established this fame himself.

fig. 0. One of Cripps' disclaimers in-situ. Photographed by me 24/6/2009.

My photograph of Cripps' disclaimer - was actually posted on my website so that Cripps would not sue for defamation because he would not succeed in a lawsuit as the photograph is evidence of truth. Again, to repeat, that the photograph can constitute "defamation" of him that gives him grounds to sue is an unambiguous demonstration that the intention of law is to prevent information being available, to UN-make EVIDENCE. It can be made to be as if it had never happened. The photograph is listed as "defamatory" on Google-com-au on Cripps' say-so. I have corresponded with Google to confirm this. And in the earliest "cease and desist" letters, Cripps claimed that the photograph was an "injurious falsehood" posted by us when we knew it to be false and which was posted with malicious intent to hurt Cripps!

fig. 00. Australia's Censorship Act 2005. Note (d), the claim of non-litigious resolution regarding truth. Since truth defames, removing references to truth is the only way to achieve a non-litigious “resolution”. This Censorship Act is about removal of "defamtory" material. "Defamtory" material inludes the facts. Thi$ Cen$or$hip Act i$ AN INCENTIVE TO $$UE, NOT A DI$INCENTIVE. The fact$ $hould not be the rea$on to $$ue $omeone, fact$ $hould be the rea$on that prohibit litigation. The legal indu$try, judge$, barri$ter$, $olicitor$, love this law. $$ Go figure?

The disclaimer ON ITS OWN negatively affected the reputation of Redleg / Robert Cripps.

Cripps is an idiot for posting it.

Cripps has claimed it was the reason he gave us on 24/6/2009 (that I provide on my webpage) that defames him; that is, he told us that his disclaimers were due to our work being "racist" and that he was protecting himself from liability because of the "racism". Cripps' current claim is that disclaimers were posted due to complexity.

This Cripps-complexity claim simply makes Cripps look to be an even greater idiot than what he was in his having posted disclaimers in the first place. It was that he posted disclaimers FULL STOP that caused gallery goers to think he was an idiot, regardless of which reason is provided. The reason is irrelevant.

Robert Cripps disclaims liability because of complexity fig. 0.a. Cripps' disclaimer of liability, left. That he claims it was necessary because he might incur liability over complexity simply makes him look more idiotic.

Definition of “idiot”. Cripps is a man of limited intellect and limited in his erudition, and his difficulty with "complexity" simply confirms him to be an idiot. Having admitted to being an idiot by way of his complexity claim, OZ defamation law allows him to "sue harder" because reporting on his admission to being an idiot makes him look bad.

Worse still

Worse still, Cripps' behaviour during the exhibition defamed us.

The law has allowed it that Cripps' behaviour during our show that defamed us, and diminished our artistic integrity gives him further grounds to sue us because of his own actions that defame us (see caption to fig. 0.b). Only in OZ (Australia).

fig. 0.b. Robert Cripps, above, is suing us because of his personal delusion. Cripps' actions defamed us, but Au$tralian law allows him to make a profit from his defamation of us. Cripps has already admitted, in his sworn answers, to having approached one female viewer of Lee-Anne Raymond's work to ask if it was her "lovely bottom" in the painting she was looking at. This reduced the standing of us, our work and our reputation. It is unlawful to sexually harass in the provision of goods and services, and this includes clients. And it is a subjective judgement made by the object of the unwanted attention. Cripps, the gallery owner, was contractually tied to us in providing this service to the clients of the gallery, our clients. The law also stipulates that anyone who is aware of such an act has the legal obligation to do something about it otherwise for the purposes of the Act a person who has failed to act is considered to have also "done the act". Cripps ridiculed us and our art, and diminished the integrity of our exhibition by such behaviour, but he is suing us for what he did. Perhaps he believes that his beauty is so overwhelming that that which would have constituted sexual harassment under the Act, constitutes a "compliment" when coming from him? It is not a compliment! Read the Act. Would it have been appropriate if Cripps asked "is that your lovely penis?" Further reading:

In order to prove our case Cripps has crapped our lives: Cripps-crapped lives.

data-harvesting, lots of it

We have had to embark on a massive data-harvesting venture in order to find out who Cripps associates with, what views Cripps shares with his associates etc. The reasons for doing this are many. In some instances it is in order to show whom it was that he conspired with to commit his fraud against us (by means of his deceptions that led us to exhibit at his gallery), show who it was that conspired with him to keep their witness evidence from being available to us.

More importantly, find out who, out of those who exhibited at his gallery, or worked at his gallery, shared his opinions, opinions that he has come to deny having. It's going to be interesting.

Regarding conspiracy: In law, CRIPPS AND HIS STAFF (which includes his volunteers) acted in combination to do us injury. Cripps' staff lied. Cripps' staff concealed the role they played in assisting his defrauding of us; they remained silent in the face of claims made by Cripps so that they could allow Cripps to prevent us entry to the gallery; and by the nature of their conspiracy they denied us our legal right to sue Cripps for defamation. Cripps' staff are as culpable as is he.


Our computers' desktops are DEFACED with various files and folders related to Cripps.

Cripps destroyed our exhibition in 2009, and has destroyed our lives in his suing us. We have not been producing art and unlike Cripps have not gone for trips to Cuba, or New Orleans or Paris...

These files and folders on the desktops constitute the results of research of information in the public domain of his staff (including volunteers), partners, and associates, both at GLG & RMR.

The majority of the information has yet to be posted. The folders exclude the entire drive, "Tartarus", full of Robert Cripps-crap, with the "Ugly Stick" folder (named after Cripps) which is of all the subpoenaed documents, court documents, interrogatories etc.

There are 180 Cripps-Crap folders & files on the "desktop" of our computer, as on December 2013.

fig. 1 example of desktop. The desktop background is from our photoshoot in March 2011 at Port Campbell which we visited in order to take photographs of the perigee moon. We were sued by Cripps on our return.

fig. 2 example of desktop. The desktop background is from our photoshoot in March 2011 at Port Campbell which we visited in order to take photographs of the perigee moon. We were sued by Cripps on our return.

fig. 3 example of desktop. The desktop background is from our photoshoot in March 2011 at Port Campbell which we visited in order to take photographs of the perigee moon. We were sued by Cripps on our return.

As we have been Cripps-crapped by other means in the past (Cripps had us disconnected from the internet), we are further Cripps-crapped by having to back up all of our files and documents in multiple locations, on multiple domains, on multiple drives, to which we can connect to by multiple means.

To Be Continued------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Cripps, left, who ran the failed GLG, realised and accepted he was racist to hate Jews ("self-confessed racist" means just that). He preferred to call me "racist" in my critique of Islamic doctrine (the Koran) because he preferred to blame "the Jews and their state in Palestine" for a conflict that was not mentioned in my criticism of religions. Supporters of the "Palestinian cause" call "racist" any critic of Islam - as they did recently in Melbourne, Australia, when they organised pro-"Palestine" protests against a critic of Islamic doctrine.

 Author: Demetrios Vakras 17 January 2014

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: