| BY LETTER
dated 5 June 2009 Mr. Leslie Venville director of Archibald
& Brown Lawyers threatened the publisher with Supreme
Court action for alleged (unspecified) vilification of Mr.
Caeli Lovell in breach of the Queensland's Anti-Discrimination
Act plus other matters that include defamation and "most
serious" things that his law firm and Mr.
Lovell, did not like. The publisher denied that there
is any vilification or defamation, and stated that in any
event all matters published on his websites were true. Further,
via his websites the publisher publicly informed Archibald
& Brown that there will be an account of lawyer's
dirty tricks (at www.LawyersDirtyTricks.com)
to rack up opponent's costs (instead of addressing core issues)
and to trick opponents, bully boy tactics (SLAPP
suit), intimidation and attempts to restrict freedom of
speech, that are encountered in the minefield of trying to
achieve justice in the Australian Legal System against bogus
florists such as Zoom
Blooms et al. |
| THE PURPORTED (PHANTOM) LAWSUIT - The above named
Supreme Court applicants/plaintiffs joined up to sue the publisher
of the websites in the Brisbane Supreme Court, and in contravention
of Supreme Court Rules gave notice of the proceedings via
a telephone message left on the publisher's answering machine
at 8-22am on Friday 19 June 2009 to be in Court 5A of the
Supreme Court Brisbane at 10am on that same day. The publisher
lives 2.5 hours drive from the Court if parking can be found.
Later that same day the publisher received a letter dated
16 June (but posted 18 June) from Archibald
& Brown signed by Leslie Venville director, giving
notice of the Supreme Court proceedings. By the time of receiving
that letter the hearing would likely have been over. |
|
|
| Given the circumstances, it was impossible for the publisher
to appear in Court and anyhow was not obliged to, because
of the contraventions of the Court Rules and the absence of
personal service of any Originating Process Court Documents.
As such, what appears to be a clear railroading exercise,
failed. |
| On the following Monday 22 June Mr.
Caeli Lovell lawyer & employee of Archibald
& Brown sent an email to the publisher containing
the following message: "This matter went before
Justice Daubney at the Supreme Court on Friday 19 June 2009
as foreshadowed in our correspondence to you of 16 June 2009.
We note that you did not appear, despite having received our
correspondence and telephone message to you". Mr.
Lovell later refused to provide any further information
or a Court File Number despite being requested to do so. |
| On Tuesday 23 June the Registry of the Supreme Court informed
the publisher of the following information: "Further
investigation into this particular issue has brought to light
that the fees have not been paid [by the applicants].
Because of this, the Application has not been allocated
a File Number, nor has it been given a Court Date. Fees outstanding
is $984.50. Prompt response to this issue will result in the
matter being efficiently and effectively processed by the
Civil Jurisdiction Team." |
SO... considering that there were no proceedings,
and according to the Court Rules there can be no proceedings
unless the fee is paid (SEE
rule 971(1)), the publisher published the following questions:
| And the publisher sent Archibald
& Brown, Mr.
Lovell and Mr Venville emails containing the following
material: |
|
•
|
From my reading of the Court's reply,
do you believe it is appropriate to label your purported
fiasco to the Supreme Court as a Ruse a
Spoof or a Hoax? |
|
•
|
Do you believe it is appropriate to
have this as the first spotlight story on, http://LawyersDirtyTricks.com
? |
|
YOU BUNCH OF WANKERS,
|
|
•
|
Why didn't you say that the fee had
not been paid ? |
|
•
|
How did you get heard before a Judge
last Friday without paying the fee ? |
|
•
|
What is the file number ? |
|
•
|
The answers (if any) will be published
on www.LawyersDirtyTricks.com. |
The questions were not answered and remain not answered.
Interestingly, these lawyers choose to allege to the Supreme
Court that the questions are rhetorical, while at the same
time refusing to answer them. |
THE LAWSUIT IS FILED - On 25 June
2009 the applicants paid the fee and filed the matter in
the Supreme Court and were given the file number 6747/09
for an URGENT
APPLICATION for an injunction to restrict public access
to the publisher's websites until a defamation trial.
|
| Subsequently the publisher became under siege
by process servers who at one stage appeared to set up camp
outside the publisher's premises. Clearly this was an exercise
to intimidate the publisher and his family by serving numerous
copies of wrong and duplicate documents, thus also racking
up costs. |
ON 1 July 2009 the URGENT
APPLICATION went before Chief Justice de Jersey. The
affidavit of Mr.
Lovell to support the application and setting out numerous
grievances is HERE.
|
At the hearing of the hearing of the URGENT
APPLICATION, counsel for the applicants alleged that,
amongst other things the publisher had:
|
•
|
defamed Archibald
& Brown (and director Venville) by calling
it :
bogus florist defenders; and
a firm that approves the fraudulent conduct of its client
Ready Flowers Pty Ltd; and
a firm that engages in unethical conduct to intimidate
and silence opponents of its clients; and
a firm whose conduct is to be exposed on www.LawyersDirtyTricks.com;
and
a firm that had threatened a SLAPP suit to intimidate
the publisher; |
|
•
|
defamed Caeli
Lovell by calling him :
a lawyer that cannot be trusted; and
a person that has engaged in unethical and dirty tricks;
and
a liar; and
a person that has has acted in a way to bring the
legal profession into disrepute; and
a person whose conduct is to be exposed on www.LawyersDirtyTricks.com;
and
that the publisher exaggerates an allegation that
Caeli
Lovell is homosexual;
|
|
•
|
defamed Gary
Owen by calling him :
a person who has set up hundreds of bogus florist web
pages;
a scammer; and
unethical; and
a person that engages in conduct that is a fraud upon
consumers; and
a person in contravention of the Queensland Criminal
Code; and
a person who provided information in a court document
that he knew to be false;
a person to have issued a SLAPP suit; |
|
•
|
defamed Thomas Hegarty by calling him
:
a scammer; and
that he engages in conduct that is a fraud upon consumers;
as he is identified as an owner, director, CEO and marketing
manager of Ready Flowers; and
that he also boldly and blatantly lied during a Ready
Flowers video advertisement; |
|
•
|
defamed Harvey Rough by calling him :
a scammer; and
that he engages in conduct that is a fraud upon consumers;
as he is identified as being implicated in the operations
of Ready
Flowers; |
|
| In an affidavit filed in the Court, the publisher
had denied many of the allegations except where an allegation
may be true in which case it has been sworn to be true. Interestingly,
none of the applicants have filed an affidavit denying the
allegations. |
As the publisher was unable to attend the
hearing of that URGENT
APPLICATION, counsel for the applicants were able to
convince the Chief Justice to make a temporary injunction
restricting public access to the websites in issue until
the matter was properly heard on a future date. Accordingly
the matter was adjourned to 3 August 2009 and the temporary
order for an injunction was made. |
| ON 3 August 2009 the publisher represented
himself in court and the application was dismissed by Justice
McMurdo. The applicants were ordered to file and serve
a Statement of Claim within 14 days. No costs were awarded
(i.e., the applicants will have to pay for their counsel and
other expenses irrespective of the final outcome). |
| The judge was quite concerned that the matter
had gone on for so long without a Statement of Claim being
filed which is believed to be a major factor in his decision.
The applicant's counsel gave reason for not filing a Statement
of Claim because the publisher had not responded to the proceedings.
This was untrue as on 8 and 9 July 09 the publisher had filed
an affidavit in the Court and an Appearance/Notice of Address
for Service. The publisher's affidavit to the Court filed
30 July 09 is HERE
and exhibits to that affidavit are HERE
(6mb). |
| The Judge was also concerned after being informed
of the purported application to the court on 19 June 09 where
it appeared Archibald
& Brown Lawyers (unsuccessfully) tried to railroad
the publisher into a hearing which apparently didn't exist,
and then informing the publisher that it had actually gone
ahead in his absence. On this matter, the Judge said to the
applicant's counsel after checking the record for this non
(apparently phantom) hearing, "is there anything
you should be telling me Mr. Anderson" who replied
with the Sgt. Shultz answer, "I no nothing your
honor, I was not involved". |
| The "phantom" hearing is to become
a major issue in this defamation matter, and now the applicants
are faced with trying to put together a very expensive and
complicated Statement of Claim which must surely be a SLAPP
(intimidation) suit if the Statement of Claim is in fact not
filed. |
| Defamation proceeding are notoriously long,
complicated and expensive (for those that employ lawyers)
and at the time of writing this report (20 August 09) the
applicants are in default of Justice McMurdo's order to file
and serve a Statement of Claim. |
| In particular Officers of the Supreme Court,
Caeli Michael Lovell (COURT
DETAILS), Leslie Edward Archibald Venville (COURT
DETAILS) together with the law firm Archibald
& Brown, appear to be in defiance of this Order of
the Supreme Court. (SEE COMPLAINT
TO LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION) |
INTERNET
RELAY FLORISTS REVIEW
