Redleg V artists

Robert Raymond Cripps, now owner of " Ruby's Music Room ", a jazz music venue, is shown above.

Lee-Anne 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 encounter.

Cripps 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 Defence" 2012).

Though in the Tao Jiang "Points of Defence" of 2012 Cripps only mentions "heated exchanges" with Demetrios, his email of 26 June 2009, sent to Lee-Anne Raymond, in which he directly addresses Lee-Anne, he writes:

 “If you wish to have any further discussion please write to me to prevent heated arguments causing further problems”

The "heated discussions" were largely Cripps aggressively chastising Lee-Anne.

Lee-Anne, who is clearly present, is excised from Cripps' account of 2012 in order to deliberately "foster a misconception". Cripps is a liar (refer definition above).

In 2009 Cripps insisted:
1) that we comply with requirements that were not in the contract;
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 writing; and
3) that the contract, which outlined a set series of procedures for it to be altered, had been voided, (rescinded) and therefore was no longer applicable.

The "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".

The 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 photographs.

Cripps called the work racist on 18/6/2009 and on 24/6/2009.

On 24/6/2009 he claimed that "racism" was the basis of:

1) claiming that the contract was void (rescinded)

2) his seeking to have us removed for trespass; and

3) 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:

Victorian Consolidated Acts Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 - SECT 15 Prohibition of authorising or assisting vilification or victimisation [Index] [Table] [Search] [Search this Act] [Notes] [Noteup] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help] 15. 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 this Part. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/s15.html NOTE 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 Islam. NOTE 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. NOTE 3: Section 11. (1) (a) (i) of the above Act provides for exemptions, such as "genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose". It 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 in this manner (posting disclaimers and asserting "racism") made it so only on his saying so.

Cripps 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.

Cripps' actions employed circular reasoning (a tautology) to justify rescinding of the contract; by claiming that the show was racist, which 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 rescinding...

Cripps 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 affair.

Cripps' disclaimer of liability, left. "Disclaimer" From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "A 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." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclaimer NOTE : Cripps' disclaimers of liability and large "WARNING" have been claimed by him to have been for some other reason.

Even though for 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:

1) 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

2) 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");

3) the large "WARNING" warned of some unspecified danger and not to the content (Tao Jiang "Points of Defence").

THE FACTS:

1) 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 photograph's metadata;

3) 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;

4) Cripps' own staff were witness to our arrival during the gallery's open-to-the-public hours;

5) Most of the "heated argument" of that day was Cripps berating Lee-Anne telling her that she is a "sarcastic woman".

Cripps 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.

"Heated 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 preoccupied.

What 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:

"Rescission 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 situations:   • It may be expressly provided for in the contract. • 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." http://www.innovation.gov.au/SmallBusiness/LegalHelp/LegalTopics/Contracts/Pages/RescindAContract.aspx

To date our experience has shown us that the Australian legal industry (judges, barristers, solicitors) condones lying.

Australian 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 Defamation Act.

In 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". With such a law Australia unambiguously intends censorship. This conclusion is logically unassailable. If one cannot impart truth (inform) because: 1) truth will cause contempt for someone exposed by having the truth mentioned/written, and; 2) in 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 intent of such a law is to prevent the availability of information: censorship.

Robert Cripps is a liar.

This 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).

Australian 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.

Australian 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.

Australia is a highly unethical country

In the U.S.A. the law protects the right to to freedom of expression.

Australia, by being signatory to the UN convention of Human Rights, is supposed to protect the same right. It does not.

The right to freedom of speech in the  U.S.A. IS NOT a right to "freedom to lie", which is punishable by law.

In Australia lying is knowingly and deliberately protected by defamation law.

The legal industry in Australia is dishonest, disingenuous, and malevolent

The 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!

ONLY AUSTRALIAN LAW PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO LIE, not the US.

The 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.

Australian defamation law IS ILLEGAL IN THE U.S.A.

In the US Australia's defamation law is defined as "LIBEL TERRORISM" because it fails to respect the right to freedom of expression.

Australia's 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.

This website is hosted on U.S.A. servers.

U.S.A. 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 free speech.

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