Following directly on from the previous post addressed to The Googles, I have received a response from Jonathan Brohier of DeGaris Lawyers to my request for a formal In Camera (recorded) meeting with him and his client/employer Bill DeGaris...and here t'is...
Here, defined in his own words, are the lies, deceits, bullying and threats that Bill DeGaris has been using to manipulate Google and/or threaten me...and here's my response to Billy, mate, emailed to them this morning, Wednesday 11th April 2018...
Jonathan Brohier
Wednesday 11th April 2018
c/- DeGaris Lawyers
19 Penola Rd
Mt Gambier SA 5290
Dear Mr Brohier,
I refer to your recent correspondence (28th March 2018)
on behalf of your client and employer, Bill DeGaris; my initial
response of 4th April 2018; and your response to that,
dated 5th April and received by post Monday 9th
2018.
Mr Brohier, I do not
understand why you;
- continue to deliberately misrepresent the many unpleasant realities of your client/employer's conduct, as often covered in my blog, The Mount Gambier Independent, then;
- continue to threaten me about my supposed 'defamation' of your client/employer, but then;
- refuse to take any action regarding these alleged 'defamations', and;
- also refuse my request to resolve these issues In Camera in a formal meeting at your office.
You have abused and
threatened me and attacked my blog, all apparently because I am
allegedly defaming your client/employer, but when I have requested to
attend at your offices, and put myself officially on your record to
resolve this, you flatly refuse. This is a clear indicator of the
disingenuous nature of your various allegations and threats.
This refusal is a clear
indication that you know the veracity of my statements about Bill
DeGaris's extraordinary conduct, and therefore also understand that a
formally recorded meeting only serves to expose the reality.
Your client/employer
has refused to meet with me because he knows what he has done and
thinks he can simultaneously avoid the repercussions of his
outrageous conduct whilst still trying to attack me and/or my blog
via other means, eg, these constant 'defamation threats' to Google.
Why have you refused to
provide copies of your alleged complaints to Google? This is between
me and you and your client/employer, and you are the ones
manipulating Google. Furthermore, I have still not received a single
'official Google Notification' about your alleged complaints.
Do you not understand,
Bill Degaris was not representing Glyn Dorling, the “text-book
grooming paedophile”* teacher from St Martins Lutheran School, I am
not angry at Bill DeGaris for his conduct whilst acting for and
thereby protecting the paedophile teacher.
(*Flinders Child
Protection Unit, August 22nd 2002)
Bill DeGaris was
supposedly representing us parents and our abused children, he was
supposedly my lawyer. I am irretrievably traumatised by your
client/employer's complicit and deliberate betrayal of us families,
his clients, thereby protecting the paedophile teacher.
You state;
“We note that
you have not apologised for any of your defamatory allegations and
imputations
outlined in our letter dated 28 March 2018.”
When I state that 'Bill
Degaris betrayed me and my child', that is not an 'allegation' or an
'implication', that is a definable, provable statement of fact. Bill
DeGaris did betray me and my child, and your client/employer knows
exactly what he has done, and that he has also done it to many other
families, and dozens if not potentially hundreds of children.
I have never “alleged
or at least implied that Mr DeGaris is a paedophile.”, rather, I
have stated across multiple posts that I consider Bill DeGaris's
conduct, his deceits and his betrayal, I consider that to be far
worse than the behaviour of paedophile teacher Glyn Dorling.
Some would argue that
“text-book grooming paedophile” teacher Glyn Dorling was/is
suffering some degree of 'Mental Illness', for lack of a better term,
and therefore was not entirely responsible for his atrocious conduct
at St Martins Lutheran School.
In stark contrast, your
client/employer was a legal professional in full possession of his
faculties and supposedly representing families of abused children,
and he has made multiple conscious decisions to act against us
families and our abused children, to definably betray his own
clients.
Your client/employer
knew exactly what happened in that classroom at St Martins in 2002
and several years previous, and then was intimately complicit in
deceiving and manipulating his own clients into a vulnerable
position, causing our 'case' to collapse in chaos.
As your client/employer
is fully aware, in early 2006 Child Abuse Commissioner Ted Mullighan
stated to parents that police had approached him expressing concerns
that Glyn Dorling was back teaching in a Lutheran school in Victoria.
Bill DeGaris knows that
as fact because that meeting between his clients and Comm Mullighan
took place in your client/employer's office in his old office
building on Wehl St Sth, with Bill sitting right there. Has your
client/employer not told you this?
Even Comm Mullighan
acknowledged that it was inconceivable that an unrepentant “text-book
grooming paedophile”, who officially blamed the children for the
abuses he committed against them at St Martins, would simply stop
abusing children. Regardless, there is clear evidence of Glyn
Dorling's conduct from his several years at St Martins prior to his
sudden removal mid-2002, let alone conclusive proof of his abuses
against our 7 year old kids.
The ultimate reality is
that a “text-book grooming paedophile” teacher walked away
absolutely unscathed to go and 'teach' elsewhere because of your
client/employer's betrayal of us, his clients.
I fully stand-by and
repeat my assertion that Bill DeGaris's conduct is far worse than
that of the paedophile teacher he conspired to protect. Furthermore,
I have repeatedly explained this position through-out the blog, but
you have tried to take part of a single paragraph from one post of
900+, and then try to say that that it is somehow proof that I have
called Bill DeGaris “a paedophile”;
“At least by
imputation you clearly allege that Mr DeGaris is a paedophile.”
That sentence is
self-contradictory. What does it even mean?
I repeat, Bill
DeGaris's conduct is far worse than the paedophile teacher's, and I
am more than prepared to defend that position In Camera at your
offices or anywhere else of your choice, but I do not believe that
meeting/hearing will happen because your client is aware of what
awaits him in that situation, the explicit reality of his own
conduct.
You further state
“Mr DeGaris is
limited in pursuing civil defamation proceedings against you as the
remedy for
defamation is an award of damages. As you are a “man of straw”
(i.e.
have no capacity
to pay legal damages) there is no point in pursuing that line of
redress. We will
however, be pursuing alternative legal means to ensure that you
can no longer
make these allegations.”
This is a lie on
multiple levels, and yet further indication of your entirely
disingenuous conduct on behalf of your client/employer. Why have you
mentioned 'civil' but not 'Criminal Defamation'? You have previously
repeatedly accused me of “malicious” actions designed to cause
harm, is this not the legal definition of what constitutes 'Criminal
Defamation'?
Bill DeGaris is not
sueing me because he knows that any such legal action serves only to
expose the realities of his betrayal of his clients, to expose his
definably corrupt conduct as an active participant in the cover-up of
the abuse of my child and dozens of other kids at St Martins.
It is absolutely
appropriate and plausible that your client/employer sue me for either
Criminal or Civil Defamation, and having proven that alleged
'defamation' in Court, you can then apply for Suppression Orders to
stop me blogging my supposed falsehoods. Indeed, you yourself have
repeatedly stated and/or threatened exactly that in your original
letter, and I quote;
“This letter
represents a Concerns Notice pursuant to section 14 of the Defamation
Act 2005.”
Why repeatedly threaten
me with 'Defamation Action' in one letter, then in the very next,
dismiss that potential action as being 'pointless'? This is yet
further proof of the disingenuous nature of your various allegations,
threats, deceits and manipulations.
Why do you try to mock
me about my personal situation in trying to justify your lie? All you
have done is identify and acknowledge the extreme trauma that your
client/employer's betrayal has bought into my life and that of my
child and family and the lives of so many others. Indeed, I am a
broken and a broke man, and a good deal of that is directly
attributable to your client/employer's betrayal.
Furthermore, I note
that you have focussed solely on the St Martins Cover-up and have not
included further threats about how your client/employer came to be
the owner of the SERDE building, and/or various other business
relationships he is involved in.
Tell your
client/employer that he is a coward and a liar and a betrayer and
that his own despicable conduct, his deceits and his betrayals, they
never ever go away for him, in the same way that they never go away
for the deeply traumatised children and families he betrayed.
In these two letters
you and your client/employer define your own deceits and
manipulations of Google by refusing to meet In Camera and resolve
this horrendous issue, choosing instead to continue to hide behind
hyperbolic yet undefined bullying and threats and spurious
'defamation' accusations.
I offered you an
appropriate way to resolve the many issues of your clients/employer's
conduct, (ie, via an In Camera meeting at your office) but you have
refused my request because you know that it will only expose your
client/employer. Instead, you have chosen to hurl further base
threats and abuse at me, carefully trying to avoid any possibility of
your client/employer being held to account.
You have clearly chosen
to join your client/employer Bill DeGaris and involve yourself in the
St Martins Lutheran School Child Abuse Cover-up, and in that context
you have made a mistake, but your persistent blatant attempts to
threaten and bully me, one of the traumatised parents that you know
was betrayed by your client/employer, this shows you to be of the
same calibre as your client/employer.
I am advised that
Google's own 'Complaint Guidelines' direct potential complainants to
first contact the person they wish to complain about and attempt to
resolve the situation before lodging requests for removal of posts.
Making these same bullying threats about 'Concerns Notices' back in
2013 does not constitute 'contacting me to sort it out'. I put my
name on every post and you have my contact details on file since
2005, so why have you not followed that primary Google protocol? Why
have you attacked the blog without contacting me first? Why refuse me
copies of your alleged complaints when that's exactly what Google
tells you to do before lodging complaints with them?
As a result of your
recent actions, and using your own recent letters as evidence,
'official complaint notices' have now been lodged with Google, citing
your deceits, bullying, threats, and the multiple 'defamations' you
have made against me to Google. These 'complaints' include a thorough
explanation to Google of how you and/or your client/employer have
been using 'false defamation allegations' to deceive and manipulate
them.
Ironically, I have been
threatened with defamation so many times by your client/employer and
so many others, that I do not need a lawyer to tell me that your
“malicious” and provably false allegations against me are
'defamation' because you have made these claims to a third party,
namely, Google itself.
You and your
client/employer have acted with deliberate deceit and “malicious”
intent, to a third party, and that is the legal definition of
'Criminal Defamation'. Your “malicious” lies have then been
publicly displayed, technically a further 'Criminal Defamation' of me
by both you and Google, but Google is legally exempt because they
have acted with genuine intent and good faith in response to your
deliberate lies.
I repeat my requests
for you to immediately provide me;
- copies of your alleged complaints to Google, and;
- an In Camera meeting with you and your client/employer.
Yours,
...and there you have it dear availees...
Tomorrow: More "Bizarre Trial" Stuff And/Or Renewables Stuff
I am Nick Fletcher and this 'ere is my blog, and apparently it gets in, right in, and that's why there is a definably concerted effort to try and shut me down...cheers and laters...
No comments:
Post a Comment