"An Outbreak of Reason..." In Defamation Law? Unlikely.

Grendel's Mother 2007

At a Directions Hearing intended to assign yet another new start date for our case to be heard at trial Supreme Court of Victoria Associate Justice Melissa Daly remarked as a question to the appearing barristers "…it is possibly safe to assume there has been no outbreak of reason?"

Where Defamation Law fails is in its practice. The facts of a case, the truth, simply get in the way when all that defendants should do is back down in order to be seen as reasonable by the court. It is a flawed and insincere system that is the Victorian Supreme Court. 

I recognise that Justice Daly's comment may come from a sense of helpless frustration as it is likely connected to valid concerns of a congested and overworked court system. However, is this the fault of all parties associated with the attendant grid-locked cases? What I'd ask Justice Daly, if I could is, where is this complained of lack of reason actually present? The subject of reason is one raised over and over by my co-Defendant and I with regards it's relative absence in light of efforts, particularly by the Plaintiff and his lawyers in our case, but also by the justice system itself, to ensure the journey of the case has as little relationship with reason as possible. 

In Defamation Law the legal sanctions and burdens are all on the defendant. The constant rescheduling of our case at such a late hour is out of our hands, and, we've jumped through every fiery hoop one can imagine to get there. What is it that we could do to make matters more reasonable? Give up and lose our life's possessions entirely as well as completely shred our ethics and values?

Justice Daly's off the cuff remark, noted above, in part a defensively put apologia of sorts to the appearing barristers, presumes by its tone that problems or flaws only exist outside those caused by her own industry, and because it presents a perversion of reality I must point out the following:

1. I am a reasonable person the remark implies this isn't the case.
2. My co-defendant is a reasonable person the remark implies this isn't the case.
3. Each in our own way critique the assailing of reason by the forces of unreason in our art and writings. The remark implies this is irrelevant.
4. Justice Daly's off the cuff remark implies the court assumes there is a lack of reason on behalf of all parties to a case.
5. The remark and its attendant assumptions issued within an open court room embarrassed with its tone. And, those in attendance found the justice's remark to be amusing at my and my co-defendant's expense.
6. Reason itself has already been rejected on a number of occasions by officers of the court system itself…Daly has no weight behind her assertion that there is little reason on behalf of the parties when it is the court that has assisted to create the unreasonable circumstances allowing for the case to continue at the behest of an unreasonable litigant.
7. Defamation Law provides an unreasonable person, who has the financial means, the capacity to utilise the law as a weapon, as a tool of censorship to suppress knowledge of the truth.  As I've noted in previous postings Defamation Law is a known means by which to threaten critics, prevent criticism and quash evidence of truth and therefore apply limits to truth and free speech which the law claims it does not intend to restrict or limit. For further reading see: "Defamation Terrorism is Alive and Well in Australia" & "How Defamation Law Achieves Censorship in modern Australia" etc. 
8. Defamation Law contains no sign of reasonable checks and balances to prevent its misuse. Misuses are only identified at trial and are rarely punished. 
9. Those that finally get to trial to defend truth are labelled "unreasonable" by a court system that cannot cope with the self-created problems it complains it has become overburdened by. Our case being delayed is due to other newer cases usurping it in importance (as ours was delayed). This is an outcome we cannot affect. 
10. The over-burdened court, through its own unreasonable processes, has made a case string out to almost 3 years, then blamed those who are inextricably caught in the inevitable congestion for this outcome. Thus the court turns on those who have been victims once making them victims all over again by in addition blaming them for possessing a lack of reason.

The question of reason is one we put to the Plaintiff Robert Cripps. When Robert Cripps consistently spewed forth public diatribes containing accusations of racism against us and our exhibition (that we'd unfortunately held in his failed Guildford Lane Gallery) we attempted to reason with him. We challenged his ideas and pointed to the flaws in those ideas and complained to him of his behaviour towards us. The attempts we made to defend our reputation and art however simply further incensed an unreasonable person. 

Why the attempts we made to "reason" with Cripps so spectacularly failed is a good question that we'd like to have answered too. He either ranted more or denied ever having made the accusations we complained of. He further lied about steps he took to distort viewers' understanding of the content of our exhibition and his successful aim to deny us access to the gallery for the duration of the show. His behaviour was and is not that of a reasoned or reasonable person. 

I give you "Exhibit A" being the defamation case before the Supreme Court of Victoria brought by the Plaintiff Robert Cripps. It is not that I or my co-Defendant lack reason in being forced to defend ourselves against a person using an unreasonable system that feeds and nurtures his unreasonable sense of hurt. Robert Cripps, a person who has caused me and my co-Defendant harm, and the Supreme Court of Victoria have forced me to engage with them both, not the other way around.

Daly (et al) complain of what I see as a self inflicted - overburdened - system. It appears they have a different view since it is believed there must be a taint upon our character or the character of other/all parties to a case by association, as they will have us all lumped together as persons who lack reasonableness. 

It is Robert Cripps who detected the weaknesses in Defamation Law and who is now attempting to exploit it to his advantage. He like others before him see an opportunity, using defamation law to make up for complained of poor business practices and unprofessional behaviour. Defamation Law and the courts contribute to and validate such unreasonableness by not striking out cases brought to it that are clearly vexatious litigation. 

If Defamation Law is to maintain a valid place it must reform and tighten up its proclaimed "objects of the act". Where are the early phase checks and balances to avoid its misuses? It should never be used to prop or conceal a poor reputation in order that it may continue to cause harm. It should never be possible to misuse Defamation Law in order to make financial gain on the basis of concealing the truth of a pre-existing and extant poor reputation. 

The result is that in practice Defamation Law does exactly what is claimed it is framed to avoid, limit and restrict the imparting and receipt of information, as it dismisses truth as being harmful to a reputation and therefore defamatory. 

The only cause of any harm ever to Robert Cripps, is Robert Cripps. Perhaps he really should be suing himself?

If there exists any lack of reason it is in a poorly framed Defamation Law that does not care where, how or when it should not be used, in a judicial system that merely looks the other way as it is over-whelmed(?), and in Plaintiffs who will exploit these built in flaws.

Other Reading (image heavy): http://www.redlegvartists.com/fraud.html