~ webiste in progress ~
REDLEG: Robert Raymond Cripps ran "Guildford Lane Gallery" (2008-2011).Guildford Lane Gallery was the trading name of "Redleg Museum Services P/L" (ACN 105 986 829).
 |
About
Robert Cripps, "Redleg":
Robert Cripps, pictured left, owned the
failed "Guildford
Lane Gallery" which was the business-name/trading-name of
"Redleg Museum Services P/L", "Redleg".
Previously, Redleg was "The Redleg Group P/L", a transportation company that failed, whose assets were sold off, and was liquidated by ASIC in 2005 (pdf here). The liquidation involved "Redleg Museum Services" (without the "P/L"), one of the trading names of the de-registered company that has never been re-registered. In
July-September 2015 Cripps/Redleg
was ordered to return to us money totaling (nearly) $300
thousand (AUD). Instead Cripps/Redleg held onto the money for a year, and in April 2016 Cripps, the sole director, secretary, and shareholder of his business, packed his business assets (which included a Steinway piano), put them into hiding, and subsequent to doing so, declared himself "bankrupt" in July 2016 (Annex 10 Geneva Petition ). |
ARTISTS: Demetrios Vakras , Lee-Anne Raymond
exhibited their art at Redleg's for-hire "gallery" in 2009.
Introduction
Both artists, Demetrios Vakras and Lee-Anne Raymond, were sued by "Redleg" (Cripps) in the SCV (Supreme Court of Victoria) because they wrote on their websites of the actions Redleg/Cripps took against their art (and hence their character) while it was on exhibition in the gallery during June-July 2009. Redleg (Cripps) sued because he claimed what he did to the artists (ourselves), that damaged our honour and reputation would make Redleg look bad, and injured his reputation by us making it known.
In court (the SCV) Redleg (Cripps) proclaimed that Vakras (who is of Greek descent) had used Greek words written in "another script" (Greek) and that as Vakras refused to re-write the Greek material in "simple English" (even though the Greek words were already translated), that he, Cripps, was left with no other option than to exhibit our art in a manner prejudicial to our reputation by placing multiple disclaimers throughout the exhibition space and placing a very large "WARNING!" outside the exhibition to "forewarn" and dissuade prospective gallery visitors about the exhibition material that judge, Kyrou who adjudicated the defamation trial, declared was "potentially offensive".
The reasons given by Redleg (Cripps) to to the court (SCV) for doing what he did breach Australia's Race Discrimination Act (RDA) which is based on Article 1 of the ICERD, (codified in Sections 9, 13 and 18 of the RDA). During the trial Redleg's counsel (lawyer), Christopher Dibb, excoriated Vakras because he did not share the ancestry of "most people" who "are not Greek" which, by law, should have counted against Redleg (per the Evidence Act, Section 87).
The
court (Kyrou) ruled that Redleg's actions (ie, to racially
discriminate) were not prohibited by the "contract" (Hire
Agreement); that there was no "moral" requirement for
Cripps/Redleg to observe anything other than what was written into
the "contract"; and that Vakras and Raymond had made Cripps look bad
by writing about what Redleg did to them, even though what
Redleg/Cripps did is in violation of rights available under law to
both artists. According to Kyrou, there was nothing to prohibit
Redelg/Cripps from discriminating against Vakras on racial grounds
because Vakras had used "foreign words"; and that both artists had
no right to expect that their reputation would not be attacked by
Redleg because race discrimination and reputation were not mentioned
in the "contract". Contradictorily however, Kyrou declared that
Cripps' reputation was protected (by the Defamation Act) even though
this was not written into the same "contract".
"The matter" has gone before the Supreme Court of Victoria, the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal, the (Australian) Human Rights Commission, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia, and finally the High Court of Australia, in which judges Keane, Edelman, and Nettle, ruled to void the Race Discrimination Act (ss 9, 13 and 18) and remove the defamation protection (per its definition under moral rights) per the Kyrou finding.
"The
matter" has been submitted by us to Geneva as a human rights
violation of both artists by Australia in breach of the ICCPR
(ICESCR and ICERD) due to the actions against them by the Australian
State representatives, being the judges, book-ended by David Beach
of the SCV and Geoffrey Nettle of the High Court.
The actions by Cripps/his gallery, "Redleg", attacking our honour and reputation can be found at:
Vakras:
http://vakras.com/guildford_lane_gallery.html
Raymond:
http://leeanneart.com/guildfordlanegallery.html
Summary
of Petition against Australia in Geneva
This
page is being re-edited after a two year hiatus (from
July 2015 to August 2017) in light of our (Lee-Anne
Raymond's and Demetrios Vakras') Geneva Petition against Australia
(its judiciary) for its violation of our human rights.
Our
petition to Geneva is posted here on RedlegVartists:
Vakras_Raymond_ICCPR_Geneva_ComplaintForm-against_HCA-FCA-FCCA-SCV-VSCA-july2017-redact.pdf
Summary of the Petition to Geneva:
- Australia, as signatory to the ICCPR, ICESCR, ICERD (and the Berne Convention), is mandated under domestic law to protect us from an attack to our reputation of the kind made against us by Cripps/Redleg which was done because we had exercised our right to express our (atheist) ideas in our surrealist art exhibition which is also protected. Further, in light of the attack on us because we had expressed our ideas, we have a right to both object to, and protect ourselves from damage done, by an attack made on our reputation without our defending ourselves being claimed to instead defame our attacker (Redleg).
-
(Marylin) Warren, Ashley and Digby (Victorian judges) – whose ruling
of July/September 2015 was affirmed by the High Court of Australia
(judges Keane and Edelman) on 6 April 2017 – ruled that we cannot be
permitted this right to exercise. Warren, Ashley and Digby claimed
that as any attack on our
reputation by actions done (as were done to us by Cripps/Redleg)
were actions known to have been done by the party who did them
(Cripps/Redleg), that to write about them would instead damage the
reputation of the doer of those actions (defame the doer of the
act) - removing from us and every other Australian artist and
author a protection legislated into Australian law (under Moral
Rights).
-
the ICCPR, to which Australia is signatory, gives us the right to
seek remedy against an officer acting in their official capacity.
Chiefly, we seek remedy against Emilios Kyrou, judge of the Supreme
Court of Victoria who acted illegally by introducing his own
falsities without which he could not have made the adverse ruling
against us (partially reversed on appeal). Judges cannot invent
(fabricate) the "evidence" that they require in order to make the
ruling they seek to make. Our objection extends to the Victorian
Appeal Court judges and the High Court of Australia who failed their
duty under law. We point to Clause 5 of the Australian Constitution
which binds the Australian judiciary to abide by laws made by
Parliament, and that there is no law in existence that permits the
actions of Kyrou, or that grants the superior courts any discretion
to dispense with Clause 5.
-
further, per the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
(Articles 26 and 27) Australia cannot shirk its responsibilities
under the beforementioned covenants it is signatory to. To be clear,
Australia cannot misuse Common Law to claim that it is unable to
fulfill obligations it has signed up to, and cannot misuse Common
Law to prosecute us for "Scandlization" because we are petitioning
Geneva for the purposes of compelling Australia (the judiciary and
courts) to do what they should do according to law. Our right
extends to open and impartial justice.
-
We emphasise, we are not merely asserting rights simply because
Australia is signatory to International Covenants, but that
Australia has made these rights available to us in the country's
domestic law code, which means that under Clause 5 of the
Constitution all Australian Courts and judges are bound by these
laws protecting our rights, and that the judiciary have acted
unlawfully in denying us our rights.
- Our right to object to, and protect ourselves from, damage done by the kinds of acts done by Redleg/Cripps arise under Article 15 1 (c) of the ICESCR (and 6bis Berne Convention). This right has been made into domestic law under s 195 AK of "Part IX" the "Moral Rights" Amendment to the Copyright Act, and it is not lawful to any Australian court to remove from us our rights given us by Parliament:
| COPYRIGHT
ACT 1968 - SECT 195AK, Derogatory
treatment of artistic work In this Part: "derogatory treatment " , in relation to an artistic work, means:... b) an exhibition in public of the work that is prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation because of the manner or place in which the exhibition occurs; or (c) the doing of anything else in relation to the work that is prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation. |
|
About the exhibition "Humanist Transhumanist" held in 2009
* We had advertised our exhibition that was to be held in Redleg's gallery in print ( the Art Almanac ) and promoted it extensively on the internet (one example of our online posting on the City of Melbourne website, below), as too had Redelg (refer Artabase who still host Redleg's online posting of our exhibition).
* Cripps declared he "could not understand the paintings" [confirmed in the court Transcripts]. He further declared ignorance of art. On the strength of his professed ignorance of art and in particular to his ignorance of the nature of surrealism, Cripps declared that our entire surrealist exhibition – critical of the religions of Judaism, Zoroastriansim, Christianity, Islam (and Hinduism) – was "racist", and for reasons that Cripps admitted he could not explain, that the exhibition was "anti-Palestinian". * Cripps'
opening night tirade against us was witnessed by a number of
people, one of whom was Paul Carter of RMIT, (colleague of
Cripps' brother, Peter, also at RMIT). The opening night
tirade by Cripps was conveyed by Carter to artist Josie
Waddelton (who was at the time unknown to us). And, after
she experienced the "destruction" by Cripps of her own
exhibition opening, she sought out the artists (us) whose
experience Carter had previously imparted to her.
When contacted by our solicitor Carter denied being at the
gallery. The Australian judiciary permitted for us to be
sued for defamation for writing about what Cripps did to us.
Clearly the law extends to every other witness: Carter too
was open to being sued by Cripps for defamation because he
had spoken about what he had observed. * Several days
after the opening night Redleg posted multiple disclaimers
throughout our exhibition
dissociating Redleg from the ideas expressed in our art.
This action proclaimed our art to be so thoroughly
objectionable that it could only be exhibited to the public
with the gallery expressing its unambiguous and categorical
objection to our art and our ideas and posting a large
"WARNING!" outside ( VCAT
claim by us against Cripps ). * With his faux
"racism" charge made against us as his pretext,
Redleg essentially
barred us entry to an exhibition we had already paid for in
advance. For the period in which our work was presented to
the public in Redleg's gallery, it was at the mercy of
Cripps' vile interpretations of it, which he said had made
necessary the disclaimers and "WARNING!". Visitors drawn to the exhibition because of its extensive on-line promotion, arrived to see our art, our ideas, and our-selves (the Authors/artists), denigrated. Cripps told visitors that our exhibition was "rubbish"; commented on the "racism" of the both of us; and defamed us both. On the strength of Cripps' self-confessed total ignorance of art, we were presented by Redleg to the public as artists who should be shunned and rejected, as authors of objectionable, racist, art. * More can be read about Redleg's actions:
The
Nature of the Complaint against Australia – bias Judicial
corruption is entrenched in Australia and is permitted by
its highest court, the High Court of Australia. Though
Australia is a signatory to, and has obligations under
Article 11 of the United
Nations Convention against Corruption, it has yet to
enact any law that would curb judicial corruption. Kyrou's decision - the international reaction (so far). Israeli
author Dov Ivry, writes on Kyrou's decision with a
specific focus on its condoning of antisemitism in Injustice
Hits Rock Bottom Down Under.
Contact : Lee-Anne Raymond, or Demetrios Vakras Artist sites : leeanneart.com , vakras.com Summary of exhibition / publication launch HumanistTranshumanist.com
Petition to fix Australian law This site (Redleg V Artists)
is hosted on a USA server. Support our petition here:http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-hon-mark-dreyfus-qc-mp-amend-the-australian-defamation-act-2005 |
||||||||
