Our Further Response To Australian Lawyer Stuart Gibson, Who Continues To Threaten Us
from the please-read-it dept
This past Friday, we published our response to an Australian lawyer, Stuart Gibson, who apparently works for a real law firm called Mills Oakley. I know that Gibson is a real lawyer, because he’s represented big famous clients in the press before, including this impressive TV appearance in which he is left “categorically denying” statements that his client appears to have made directly and then having to defend himself when the news anchor points out what his client has actually said. Anyway, Mr. Gibson did not appear to appreciate my blog post on Friday, and sent a series of short emails over the weekend, with increasing fervor, in which he insisted that I “get proper legal advice instead of publishing your utter dribble,” that my “legal theories” were “nonsensical” and finally demanded to know if I had “the guts” to face him in court.
I, as you know, am not a lawyer — either in the US or Australia — and honestly had no idea that one was supposed to make legal decisions based on whether or not one had “the guts.” I had always assumed that this was the kind of thing that you need for bar brawls, rather than legal fights. But perhaps things are different down under. Either way, I did get “proper legal advice” (as I had before publishing my original post, but we’ll leave that aside), and given Gibson’s increasing email threats, our lawyer, the wonderful and well-regarded Paul Alan Levy from Public Citizen Litigation Group, has now responded to Gibson on our behalf. You can read it by following the link or embedded below.
In the meantime, others in the legal blogging world have begun to weigh in on Gibson’s threat, including lawyer Scott Greenfield, who dubbed it Stuart Gibson’s Really Bad Idea, and lawyer Ken White who noted that Milorad Trkulja is “not a gangster” but “Stuart Gibson Is, I Suppose, A Lawyer.” I would recommend reading both posts, for further legal analysis of Mr. Gibson’s threats (and make sure you stick around for his email exchange with Ken White). One wonders if this is the kind of publicity that Mills Oakley likes its lawyers to get.
Update: Stuart Gibson has replied to Paul’s letter simply stating: “I wouldn’t even be bothered to open this Spam.” Apparently, Gibson thinks that detailed responses that actually include citations (unlike his own threat letters) from some of the most respected litigators around are “Spam.” And the reputation of Mills Oakley continues to spiral down the drain…
Update, the second: Levy responded to Gibson by inserting the full text of the letter in the body of an email so that Gibson would not have to “open” the PDF he originally sent, and Gibson responded “Don’t bother pal.” Less than a minute later, he sent another email to Levy, saying just “Dribble.” At this point I’m confused about Gibson and Mills Oakley and how they operate. Gibson himself had specifically requested that I seek out legal advice in responding to his letter. I have done so. And now he refuses to even read it? This is the professionalism that Mills Oakley and its lawyers demonstrate?
Filed Under: anti-slapp, australia, defamation, free speech, milorad trkulja, paul levy, slapp, speech act, stuart gibson
Companies: mills oakley
Comments on “Our Further Response To Australian Lawyer Stuart Gibson, Who Continues To Threaten Us”
*giggles*
And to our left you can see a lawyer that is adding to the pile of contempt people feel for the law. Censorious douches who pray that you, not understanding the actual law, will just capitulate to their demands.
On our right you can see a lawyer who is fed up with these idiots bringing the profession into disrepute. He cites the actual law, clearly supports his position, and corrects the word choices of someone who has devolved into a blathering ball of self-indulgent indignation.
My great concern now is that the alleged ‘not a gangster’ will cast a spell on all of us reading this causing us great harm unless we forward his email threats to 35 people in the next 10 minutes. I might be a “bad guy” but I never faced excommunication from a church (or sued my current barrister trying to get money back).
Anyone else read this and immediately think of those silly “how to speak Australian” beer commercials from a few years back?
Re: Re:
Salad.
Re: Re:
“How To Speak Australian”… did they suggest substituting “dribble” for “drivel”? Or maybe it was onomatopoeia – the sound of his firm’s reputation dribbling into the loo, complete with its down-under drainwater swirling, of course, in a counter-clockwise direction.
Re: Re:
Looking at Gibson’s photo on the firm website – judging from his hair, it looks as if he may have just come from a bar brawl on his way to the photo shoot.
Re: Re: Stuart Gibson
Looking at his photo, I was reminded of Ben Jenson, the director of hiring and firing at Reynholm Industries.
Honey Gibson Don’t Care
Are You Sure?
Are you sure he’s a real lawyer, or does he just play one on TV?
Re: Are You Sure?
I don’t know, those guys in Law & Order seem like fine upstanding lawyers in real life…
Re: Are You Sure?
By the way, the last sentence of Levy’s letter was worth the price of admission:
Re: Re: Are You Sure?
I agree…that was priceless. It is akin to “Hey, now that I’ve beat you to your knees, please excuse me while I kick you in the nuts”
Re: Re: Are You Sure?
The whole letter was a delight to read. My only complaint was that it was written at a high school reading level, probably too difficult for Mr. Gibson to easily understand. I’ve read that Trump speaks at a third grade level, which would probably be more suitable. By the way, IANAL, so it’s not as if the language was obscure or overly technical.
Re: Are You Sure?
Am I sure that Mr Gibson is actually the person utilizing his Mills Oakley email account?
In the absence of other information that would tend to controvert that belief, it does seem reasonable to presume that Mr Stuart Gibson, of Melbourne, a partner at Mills Oakley Lawyers, is in control of the sgibson@millsoakley.com.au account that appeared on the head of the document we saw in the previous Techdirt story.
Why wouldn’t I believe that?
Single Publication Rule
I didn’t know that there when you publish something on the internet that it’s considered published only at that time and not constantly. The one complaint I had about the issue was that I assumed since Techdirt continued to serve up the comment, that it was considered to be “published” each time, and that would reset the clock on the statute of limitations. Thanks for the info on that.
Re: Single Publication Rule
Well, that only makes sense. Otherwise, F5 would be known as the “Reset Statute of Limitations” key.
Re: Re: Single Publication Rule
I know Mike doesn’t delete posts but if Whatever suggest this to his handlers…….
Re: Single Publication Rule
If you publish something in a newspaper, wouldn’t it only be considered published that one time. If I find that newspaper in the stacks of my public library fifty years later, does that now mean it was published again fifty years later?
If you publish a book, and I find it in a public library or a bookstore fifty years later, does that now mean it was published again?
If you publish something on the intarweb tubes, and someone reads if fifty days later, does that now mean it was published again?
Stay or Go?
I am flabbergasted by the fact that Gibson seriously thinks Mike might spend a few grand and actually travel to Australia in order to place himself within a jurisdiction that Gibson might control, giving up all the rights he has if he does nothing. Especially since there is absolutely no reason he should.
This is not a case you should would want to highlight when selling your services.
Re: Stay or Go?
Gibson is clearly channelling Donald Trump’s “We’ll build the wall and make Mexico pay for it” and other plans to enforce his policies in other countries.
On Obama’s 2012 re-election Donald Trump declared “We can’t let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty.” People joked that Trump thought he was Napoleon. And of course a person thinking that they’re Napoleon is a old cliché for mental illness.
Judging by Gibson, Trump really is the new Napoleon. Who knew?
Re: Stay or Go?
Where’s your sense of adventure? I’d book a holiday for the whole family and write it off as a business expense. Think of the circus this Gibson’s offering TD.
Re: Re: Stay or Go?
What happens when Gibson wins in court and the cost of the ‘vacation’ doubles, or triples, or worse? Australia found Google guilty, what are the chances that they would find Mike liable as well? Some of us have a different tolerances for adventure. Besides, there is usually some reward when such risks are taken. If feeding us with fodder is the reward, Mike does that fairly well without taking this risk.
Now, if he were traveling with a false passport wearing Groucho Marx glasses, things might be different.
Re: Re: Re: Stay or Go?
“What happens when Gibson wins in court and the cost of the ‘vacation’ doubles, or triples, or worse? “
I know very little about Australian law but is alleged defamation really an extraditable offense?
Please explain the exact circumstances in which said defamation perpetrator would be required to travel to a foreign country to face trial on charges which are perfectly legal in their own country.
Re: Re: Re:2 Stay or Go?
I am not a lawyer, but there are at least three lawyers weighing in on the case. Check out what they have to say, there are links in the story. There is no extradition that I am aware of in this case, and no way Gibson could win a judgment in California, which is in the US.
My comment was responding to Gibson’s challenge to Mike to have the ‘guts’ to meet him in court. Gibson meant in Australia, where an uneven playing field exists. If Mike were to travel to Australia for any reason, and Gibson still had the desire, he could probably force Mike into a courtroom. I am guessing that if Australia was ever on Mikes dream vacation list, it is probably many notches lower now.
Re: Re: Re:3 Stay or Go?
I’d first like to say, Mike, this’s tongue in cheek. I’m just playing with this. Don’t think I’m accusing you of cowardice or anything by not going with it. Anyone would wonder if you did.
That said:
But Mike loves this !@#$! 🙂 It’d be fun. I am now foreseeing the TD Australian Nutbar Lawyer Junket that Mike’s about to announce is selling to TD Insiders. Side trips to the Great Barrier Reef and a couple of NASA funded observatories in the outback are scheduled too. It’ll be beamed straight to YouTube and TPB data storage CC-Y… licencing, James Comey’s agreed to be MC at the closing night dance.
Re: Re: Re:3 Stay or Go?
“Please explain the exact circumstances in which said
defamation perpetrator would be required to travel to a
foreign country to face trial on charges which are
perfectly legal in their own country.”
“There is no extradition that I am aware of in this
case, and no way Gibson could win a judgment in
California, which is in the US.”
Y’all are confusing criminal and civil law. Extradition only occurs for criminal cases. In civil cases, if the defendant is a foreign person or corporation, then then only money damages are at issue (not prison time), so there is no need for the court to extradite the defendant’s physical body from one country to another.
If the foreign defendant loses the case, the plaintiff can seize any assets the foreign defendant has in the country to satisfy the judgment. If the foreign defendant has no assets in the country, the plaintiff has to take his judgment to the courts in the foreign defendant’s country and ask them to enforce it.
In the present case, if Trkulja/Gibson do that, the US court will look at the judgment, see that it doesn’t comply with US principles of free speech and due process, and reject enforcement of it under the SPEECH Act.
At no point will Masnick ever be in danger of extradition to Australia.
Re: Stay or Go?
I am flabbergasted by the fact that Gibson seriously thinks Mike might spend a few grand and actually travel to Australia in order to place himself within a jurisdiction that Gibson might control, giving up all the rights he has if he does nothing. Especially since there is absolutely no reason he should.
This is why anyone who insists that Dotcom should just give up and go to the US is missing the point.
They went after him after bulldozing a bunch of laws. On what planet do you believe that such an adversarial group would actually accord you the appropriate rights offered by the law?
Re: Re: Stay or Go?
Has anyone actually ever suggested that!?
Re: Re: Re: Stay or Go?
Yes, multiple times.
Pretty much any time the subject comes up in fact you’ll have someone chiming in and claiming that if Dotcom was really innocent he’d never have fought extradition at all and would have immediately headed to the US for his pre-determined sentencing, and that by fighting extradition he’s only demonstrating his guilt, because clearly the US courts are just completely unbiased and would absolutely offer him a fair trial.
Re: Re: Re:2 Stay or Go?
I guess I don’t read comments by nutjobs that much.
I think it’s fair to say that if you think people should leave the country they are in, to go to some other country which they supposedly violated the laws of from their home in the country they are in to face trial for laws they are not subject to, you are a nutjob, and can be safely ignored.
Update
FYI, Gibson has responded to Paul’s letter, and we have updated the post with his… um… “response.”
“a series of short emails over the weekend, with increasing fervor” I can’t be the only one dying to read these…
Aussie
I have a few friends from down under, and that are good solid folks. Nice, but they don’t put up with much BS. I think their comment to Gibson, one of their own countryman crying like a little baby would be.
“Take concrete pill and harden the fuck up mate”
Stuart now knows how others deal with his missives.
About his response to Levy's letter
Stuart Gibson has replied to Paul’s letter simply stating: “I wouldn’t even be bothered to open this Spam.”
Gibson thus puts convincing and final proof on the table that he does not know what spam is.
First, it not a proper noun nor an acronym, thus is never spelled “Spam” unless it begins a sentence, and certainly not “SPAM” in any case.
Second, the canonical definition of spam is “unsolicited bulk email”. While Levy’s communication is of course email, it is neither unsolicited (having been sent in response to Gibson’s threats) nor bulk (since it is a single message).
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised at this development, given what else has transpired.
Re: About his response to Levy's letter
Why am I thinking that there are readers of this site that might resort to instructing Mr. Gibson as to the actualities that really are spam via some actual examples. I believe that someone above kindly listed his contact information for those so inclined. I wonder what types of examples might grace Mr. Gibson’s inbox in the near future?
Re: Re: About his response to Levy's letter
If you carefully follow some of the links laid out in comments under the previous Techdirt article, it seems rather improbable to me that Mills Oakley Lawyers is a phish.
Would you be willing to bank on that? Or would you need some additional searching to verify that yourself—given today’s ‘net environment.
Re: et tu Stuart Gibson?
At this point, I have to wonder what it takes to constitute malpractice in Australia. How can a lawyer manage a case ethically if he refuses to read the fundamental replies from the legal council of party he is threatening? Is Stuart Gibson pulling a Charles Carreon? :-O
Re: Re: et tu Stuart Gibson?
I think we can stop ragging on Carreon now and pick on Gibson instead till we get bored of it. And as long as he keeps acting like a flippin’ drongo, we won’t.
Popcorn, anyone?
Re: Re: Re: et tu Stuart Gibson?
Oh, wow, I haven’t seen that for years! I love Strine slang, too. I’m going to have to watch for chances to use “flippin’ drongo” for the next couple of weeks.
Re: Re: et tu Stuart Gibson?
What case? This’s all just mano a mano threatening. Until something’s filed in court, this’s just bluster, not anything the authorities need concern themselves with.
The Internet (web) says “Pics, or it didn’t happen.” Same thing.
Re: About his response to Levy's letter
IDK, I’ve always thought of those damn e-mails as “Specially Processed American Meats”, maybe WWII Brits were just ahead of their time!
Re: About his response to Levy's letter
Gibson’s lack of a basic understanding of the meaning of spam might simply reflect his lack of basic understanding of the internet. Also perhaps it reflects his lack of basic understanding of the term unsolicited. Or the term bulk. Could it possibly reflect even a lack of understanding of the practice of law? Everyone would have to draw their own conclusions from the available evidence.
Re: Re: About his response to Levy's letter
What is the meaning of a 419?
Re: Re: Re: About his response to Levy's letter
Alternatively, what is the meaning of “spear-phishing“ ?
One of Gibson’s “big famous clients” is Scientology? BWAHAHAHA! To me Mr. Levy’s final sentence in his reply to Gibson (apart from giving me the best laugh of the day) sums it all up, “Actually I believe that what you are trying to say is “drivel.””
Re: Re:
I do believe that someone is going to have to explain that to Gibson. It is more than likely that it went right over his head.
Re: Re: Re:
Or down his chin.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chins.
So did the display of Mr. Levys letter vanishing have anything to do with Stuarts response? Force him to read his email?
How sure are we that Mills Oakley isn’t Predna re-incorporated in Australia?
Got my popcorn. This is gonna be funny.
Popcorn…. must by stock in popcorn!!!
Re: Re:
You might want to purchase some too…
> And the reputation of Mills Oakley continues to spiral down the drain…
Clockwise, or counter-clockwise?
I have to wonder if other people at his firm have heard about this yet..and if so, why they haven’t stopped him.
Re: Re:
Mills Oakley | Home > Staff > Melbourne > Stuart Gibson
Re: Re: Re:
I have no idea why you posted this..it doesn’t address anything in my post.
Re: Re: Re:
When I google “mills oakley lawyers melbourne australia,” the first link that comes up is, “Lawyers Melbourne – Qualified Personal Injury Experts,” which leads me to think it’s a gang of ambulance chasers.
On their home page they say, “Mills Oakley is a rapidly growing Australian commercial law firm, resourced by over 75 partners and more than 500 staff…”, so I think I can conclude that this Stuart Gibson is probably an unpaid intern who is probably working off the books. Oh, no, wait, he’s actually one of their 500 staff. Not even high enough up to have the photographer help him look a little better. Blue tie with grey suit? Unfocused look. Not looking at the camera, but off into the distance. Wonder how much he charges per billable hour. Wonder how many billable hours he’s generated from this farce.
Second update
The email conversation between Paul and Stuart has continued and we have updated the post accordingly.
Re: Second update
I’m convinced this guy is Charles Carreon’s long lost brother.
My favorite part.
The helpful tip about “drivel” versus “dribble” is my favorite part in the whole thing.
Re: My favorite part.
Indeed. It was the first out-loud laugh I had today.
Please dribble yourself accordingly!
“I had always assumed that this was the kind of thing that you need for bar brawls, rather than legal fights.”
If Crocodile Dundee is anything to be believed, a legal fight is a bar brawl.
what's still not in dispute
So the lawyer is still not arguing against the claim his client is incompetent?
Re: what's still not in dispute
by being incompetent himself no less.
Memo to Gibson...
Give it up Stu, you’re only making yourself look more stupid.
Master Class Trolling 305: Letting the victim troll himself.
Now open for prospective students on Techdirt.com
To Techdirt staff....
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” — George Carlin
Not A Gangster Milorad Trkulja
Just so I am clear:
Milorad Trkulja is “not a gangster”, he just happens to show up the vicinity of gangsters? Meaning – “during google”?
“Mills Oakley is a rapidly growing Australian commercial law firm, resourced by over 75 partners and more than 500 staff across offices in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra and Perth” and they are known to hire “lawyers” with the name “Stuart Gibson”?
Did you know that Mills Oakley just reported “2014 was a milestone year for Mills Oakley, marking the firms 150th anniversary “?
Did I get everything? Milorad Trkulja, Stuart Gibson, Mills Oakley, google, gangsters? But not a gangster-Milorad Trkulja?
Re: Not A Gangster Milorad Trkulja
I’d never heard of Mills Oakley before I read the Techdirt story last Friday.
But Internet Archive has a screenshot from Dec 1, 1998.
Re: Re: Not A Gangster Milorad Trkulja
Victorian Legal Services: Board + Commissioner: Register of Legal Practitioners & Law Practices
1 result for ‘mills oakley’ in ‘Law Practices’
Re: Not A Gangster Milorad Trkulja
We SEO what you did there.
Re: Not A Gangster Milorad Trkulja
We can place a “Stuart Gibson” sgibson@millsoakley.com.au as a “partner” at Mills Oakley, on Sep 20, 2014.
But looking at that same page from Sep 1, 2014, we don’t see a “Stuart Gibson” listed. Which doesn’t mean he wasn’t with the firm as early as August of that year, but we don’t see that on this archived page.
Re: Re: Not A Gangster Milorad Trkulja
Victorian Legal Services: Board + Commissioner: Register of Legal Practitioners & Law Practices
• 1 result for ‘stuart gibson’ in ‘Local Legal Practitioners’
• No results for ‘stuart j gibson’ in ‘Local Legal Practitioners’
Imo, there’s insufficient information here to positively associate the single result found for “stuart gibson” with any particular “stuart gibson”.
Re: Re: Re: Not A Gangster Milorad Trkulja
Oh, and broadening the search—
• 18 results for ‘gibson’ in ‘Local Legal Practitioners’
• No results for ‘gibson’ in ‘Locally Registered Foreign Lawyers’
But scanning through the 18 results yields only the single potentially pertinent record found with the previous searches. Again, that single record does not seem to list sufficient information for a positive association with a particular individual of interest.
Hey Now
To be fair, it wasn’t his client’s statement that he was categorically denying happened, it was the founder and messiah of his client. The reporter was claiming (correctly) that L. Ron Hubbard said you needed to put people in isolation. Gibson was merely denying the correctness of the teachings of the prophet … shun the nonbeliever!!!!
Re: Hey Now
Gibson was merely denying the correctness of the teachings of the prophet
It sounded to me like he was denying that Hubbard ever said that. Which is bonkers if so, it’s in black and white. It’s Trump-level revisionism.
Mike...
On behalf of all the Techdirt readers…
Thank You! Thanks for printing the legal escapades of buffoons like Stuart Gibson. It is truly entertaining.
Carreon my friend!
'I wanna win the case! I want I want I want!'
At this point, and based upon his actions so far I think it’s pretty clear that his standard tactic is to attempt to bully and threaten his targets into backing down and complying with his demands, and he’s throwing a tantrum because it absolutely didn’t work this time.
When all you have is bluster and empty threats, and neither of them work, then you have two options:
1) Realize that you’ve got nothing and back down.
2) Double-down and continue to make a fool of yourself.
At this point it would appear he has decided to go with option #2, and is sure to provide hours of entertainment for TD readers everywhere as we get to watch the latest installment of ‘When supposedly professional individuals have public meltdowns’.
Re: 'I wanna win the case! I want I want I want!'
When all you have is bluster and empty threats…
If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table.
But perhaps things are different down under.
Doubtful, apparently the lawyers down there are just the same kind of assholes and idiots.
“Don’t bother, pal”.
Now, who here with me thinks this oh so snide remark is coming back to bite him?
Mr. Trkulja, jokingly referred to as a “gangster” as I understand it, has seemingly done himself a great disservice by hiring Stuart Gibson. I’m getting the strong impression that this lawyer is lazy, as evidenced by not only his general lack of interest, but also his clear lack of effort on multiple occasions. Hopefully someone has taken the time to inform Mr. Trkulja that if he continues on this course, he could potentially end up on the hook for not only his lawyer fees, but Mr. Masnick’s as well due to Anti-SLAPP law in California. Given the performance of this lawyer thus far, I’m guessing very likely not.
Sounds like the protective ozone layer has gotten a wee bit too thin down under. You lads best keep it indoors for a spell.
I did not know that Prenda taught law in the land down under.
I will not be surprised if we end up knowing Gibson is actually a pseudonym used by Carreon. Ahem.
At what point does a polite letter/email get sent to the higher ups at Mills Oakley, asking if this is the professional image they want their company to be known for?
Why even bother? This guy is only a level 6 lawyer, he’ll probably be wiped out by a roving band of orcs shortly…
Re: Re:
I think he got 20 when he rolled for damage!
Lawyers....
I do realise that lawyers’ criteria for taking a case can be summed up as:
1. Can the litigant pay?
2. Fees
3. Fees
But … in a previous case, Milorad Trkulja was in conflict with his lawyer, Stuart Gibson. If his current lawyer is the same Stuart Gibson, why did he again elect to represent Milorad Trkulja? (See 1, 2 and 3 above.)
Re: Lawyers....
Especially when the core of the current case is about an anonymous comment from 2012?
I think that the stated main issue is objectively unreasonable. But there are all sorts of weird, strange people on the ‘net, and Mr Trkulja might be one of them.
So then, is Mr Trkulja’s solicitor, Stuart Gibson, behaving in a reasonable fashion? I don’t think so. Wouldn’t Mr Gibson have a duty to advise Mr Trkulja that “it’s just not worth it”?
So, my read is that something else must be going on.
Unless it’s just that weird clients get represention from strange solicitors. —Like attracts Like? —Nutcases attract nutcases?
Re: Re: Lawyers....
Something that I ran across earlier, but didn’t extract. This is from a Jan 30, 2012 story in the Syndney Morning Herald, by
Lawrence Money:
(Emphasis added.)
So what might that tend to indicate? Could Mr Gibson’s tactics be explained strategically? As operational art?
Re: Lawyers....
Trkulja v Gibsons Solicitors Pty Ltd (Fed.Magis.Ct. of Australia 2011)
——That 2011 case between Mr Trkulja and Mr Gibson’s firm has been mentioned previously here at Techdirt. But I have not seen following case mentioned here before.——
Trkulja v Efron & Associates (Victoria Ct.App. 2014)
(Emphasis altered; footnote omitted.)
And from the same 2014 case:
(Emphasis altered; footnote omitted.)
If the first email was “dribble,” does that make the second a “double dribble”?
?? Why am I reading – I think it’s the third – article on this when you could’ve just written “Stuart Gibson works for a law firm nobody will remember tomorrow as a quasi-legal something, but is both incompetent at work and ignorant of his own religion”?
It’s just weird and roundabout to have Gibson himself imply all these things of himself when he’s not the journalist. From the sounds of it, he’s a self-abuser, so I feel a bit dirty about the whole thing, just as a casual reader, too.
Response
There is a huge culture clash going on here and it looks bad for Americans. Absolutely no appreciation for another country’s laws or culture.
First, both drivel and dribble can be used interchangeably. While the correct use in the US would have been drivel, dribble is the standard word used in Australia. Same way Americans use “z” where the British use “s,” or Americans say “french fries” and British say “chips.”
Second, Mr. Levy is a typical American lawyer who thinks American law rules the world. He just doesn’t seem to get it. I have no doubt that Mr. Gibson will be able to get a judgment for his Client. Mr. Levy (Tech Dirt’s Lawyer) focus on the SPEECH Act is beside the point. We live in a global economy. If Gibson gets a judgment, he can take that judgment and attach any assets Tech Dirt may have any where else in the world. And even if Tech Dirt doesn’t have assets any where else in the world, banks are now global. While NY has the bank separate entity rule, some countries don’t recognize that rule. An Australian Court can also order Google to remove all of these posts and articles. Perhaps once a judgment is entered and Gibson’s client moves for a citation of assets/discovery and Tech Dirt refuses to comply, it can be held in contempt…..
You can’t ignore other countries rules and then expect the whole world to just apply American law. The Client is an Australian….Tech Dirt’s shots are entirely gratuitous and malicious — its being done for giggles.
The key difference between Australia and the US is the First Amendment (or freedom of speech) is not used as a sword to assault random people. The right to privacy is considered a fundamental right because unlike freedom of speech it cannot be used to hurt people. Freedom of expression, generally, if you look at its history it is used as a shield. Public corruption, major crimes yea report on it, that’s in the public interest. But this type of stuff by TechDirt, which is basically just making fun of a random guy and exposing him to the ridiculous commentators on here…..this is supposed to be freedom of speech? It is akin to cyber bullying.
Re: Response
The lowest common denominator shall dictate to the rest of the world what they can and can not do.
What a silly point of view.
respect mah authoritah
Re: Response
Well, hello there Mr. Gibson!
Re: Response
Mr Gibson is just some “random guy”?
Mr Gibson is a radio personality who has voluntarily become a public figure.
Further, Mr Gibson appears to have voluntarily injected himself into the current situation. His name appears in the threat sent to Techdirt, under the Mills Oakley Lawyers letterhead. Given the previous litigation between Mr Trkulja and Mr Gibson’s former firm of Gibsons Solicitors Pty Ltd, it seems doubtful that Mr Gibson would have any continuing obligation to represent Mr Trkulja in any new matters. In any case, Mr Gibson should have no obligation whatsoever to represent Mr Trkulja in objectively unreasonable matters.
No. Mr Gibson volunteered. He’s not “random”.
Re: Re: Response
I think we should also point out that Mr. Gibson is (in contrast to “some random guy”) an attorney. He SHOULD be made fun of, far and wide for his idle threats and responses, if for no other reason to let his potential clients know the exact caliber of attorney they are getting with this individual.
Caveat emptor, indeed.
Re: Re: Re: Response
You yourself may make fun of Mr Gibson, if you wish.
When I read his threat and demand for both actions and money, I did not regard it as idle. Nor have I regarded it as a jest or joke of any sort.
Now certainly, it’s impossible to look at the core of Mr Trkulja’s complaint as anything other than silly. “Ludicrous” was a word I used earlier. No reasonable person bothers to pursue a three-year-old anonymous blog comment, which contains a mere mildly pejorative charactization. That is unreasonable.
So some levity must be expected to lighten the circumstances. And you yourself may make fun of Mr Gibson, if you wish.
Re: Re: Re:2 Response
Yes, it is an idle threat. We know that because he doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. He may very well get an default judgement, but he will be completely unable to enforce it. Ergo, it’s moot. That’s what makes this sad excuse for an attorney such a joke. He’s wasting his client’s money with no possibility for anything other the a pyrrhic victory. A COMPETENT attorney would have pointed this out and told his client it drop it, and not waste a Australian court’s time.
Re: Re: Re:3 Response
A COMPETENT attorney would have pointed this out and told his client it drop it, and not waste a Australian court’s time.
But…. then he wouldn’t get the billable hours.
Re: Re: Re:3 Response
You and I probably use the phrase “idle threat” in different ways.
Many internet users have grown familiar with email which purports to be from FBI Director Robert Mueller. If an email like that is of the threatening variety, I don’t characterize it as an “idle threat”.
Similar emails purport to be from the IRS, and again, I don’t tend to characterize them as “idle threats”.
The threat letters Tech Dirt received on the Mills Oakley Lawyers letterhead is not quite of the variety I just referenced. For one, the threats were much more targeted (cf. “spear-phishing”). Two, they arrived in postal mail, rather than email.
But I seemed to recognize enough commonality in the pattern, that among my initial concerns were whether Mills Oakley Lawyers was a legitimate law firm. I had never heard of them before.
So, again, you and I are probably using the phrase “idle threat” in different fashions.
Re: Re: Re:4 Response
Definition of idle threat
: a threat that a person does not really mean to follow through with
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idle%20threat
In this case it does not really mean to follow through with it because he lacks the ability to. He knows (or should know) that he lacks that ability.
Re: Re: Re:3 Response
The demands included money. From p.2 of the letter:
Re: Re: Re:4 Response
And?
He cannot enforce anything even IF he got a judgement in an Australian court, so his demands are moot. That’s the point, the client will have to pay, and will never be reimbursed, unless you think he’s working on contingency, in which case he’s a worse attorney then I gave him credit for.
Re: Re: Re:5 Response
It did not seem proper. Or quite usual.
Note that the unrelated legal threat that Ken White at Popehat reported on Wednesday (Feb 17) did not include a demand for payment.
Perhaps in Australia, it’s common to use the postal mail, and/or email, to send ridiculous demands for money. Perhaps in Australia, the letter was sent with a proper expectation of payment.
Re: Re: Re:5 Response
Mr Levy may be representing Masnick pro bono publico, although I have no actual knowledge of the financial arrangements between Mr Levy and Masnick.
Pro bono publico representation of private individuals is, of course, in the public interest, although it is not quite the same as representing the people.
Re: Re: Re:6 Response
I can’t say I know how they do this down under, but here most pro bono cases are handled as a way of bolstering one’s history with fairly easy wins (where the only major difficulty is lack of money) for advertising purposes.
If this is a pro bono case, it’s a severe miscalculation. The litigant looks like someone who needs to put their big-boy pants on, the lawyer looks like an incompetent boob afraid to even read a letter from the other party’s council, and his law firm looks like they shouldn’t be called on to do anything IN Australia, let alone anything with an international element to it. All of this is visible on an international stage, and will show up to everyone searching for Mills Oakley for the next half century. If they are being paid for this, it’s not enough for the damage it’s doing to their name, let alone if they aren’t.
Re: Response
Perhaps once a judgment is entered and Gibson’s client moves for a citation of assets/discovery and Tech Dirt refuses to comply, it can be held in contempt…..
Yeah, of an Australian court. The worst case scenario is that he wouldn’t be able to travel to Australia, because there is no way in hell he would ever be extradited.
You can’t ignore other countries rules and then expect the whole world to just apply American law.
Then why should Australian law apply to someone in the US?
this is supposed to be freedom of speech?
Not supposed to be. It is.
Re: Re: Response
Contempt of Kangaroo court?
Re: Response
Re: Re: Response
Unlike Australian and New Zealand governments who’ll bend over backwards to do anything but protect their own citizens.
Re: Drivel vs Dribble
As another Australian I can say I have never heard dribble used that way and a quick ask around found that no one else had either, the best suggestion was that someone who was less literate might simply mistakenly misuse a word they did know for one they had heard others use. so I have to ask why are you so set on defending this lawyer by putting down Techdirt? Are you from Melbourne? Are you employed at any legal firms? Are you a gangster? Enquiring minds want to know.
Re: Re: Drivel vs Dribble
MALAPROPISM.
😀
Re: Re: Drivel vs Dribble
I am slightly vexed that Oxford Dictionaries does not have an Australian English variant. When I select the “ENG (UK)” dictionary there and search for “dribble”, I myself do obtain a result which contains ‘us’ intermediately in the url. Nevertheless, the result represents itself as British and World English:
(Examples omitted.)
Neither of the two main senses shown there is synonymous with “drivel”. Moreover, I do not see “dribble” shown as an alternate spelling for “drivel”.
Utilizing the same resource for “drivel”, going past the dictionary definition —where I do not find alternate spellings— and looking at the English Thesaurus, I do find:
But I do not find “dribble” as a synonym for “drivel”.
What is the go-to dictionary for Australian English?
And I’ll acknowledge, too, right off the bat, that dictionaries, no matter how eagerly they attempt to describe contemporary usage, do tend to fall slightly behind the most radically modern scenes.
Re: Re: Re: Drivel vs Dribble
Oops. I’m afraid I searched too superficially here, and now must amend what I wrote.
Using the Oxford Dictionaries English Thesaurus for “dribble”:
So “drivel” is shown as a synomym for “drivel” as a verb, after all.
That’s what I get for not looking hard enough, I s’pose.
Re: Re: Drivel vs Dribble
I am not Australian, but know more than a few. I’ve heard them use the word “dribble” as slang, but only in reference to a certain kinds of waves that make for bad surfing.
Re: Re: Drivel vs Dribble
I’ve seen Americans use “dribble” in place of “drivel”. I just figure they’re the same folks who think it’s a doggy-dog world, for all intensive purposes.
Re: Re: Re: Drivel vs Dribble
You’re right. I guess I just have to tow the line.
Re: Response
What a ridiculous bias. You say “cultural differences” then say how global everything is. You say Techdirt and it’s commentators are rotten cyberbullies yet ignore Gibson’s own attempts to threaten and bully. And frankly, trying to paint Paul Levy as some clueless legal dwarf, and Stuart Gibson as some kick-ass “never lost a case yet” lawyer had me spewing Earl Grey out of my nose.
Re: Response
This is the real world. No matter where you are on the planet, if you act like an idiot you can expect to get called out on it no matter which country you come from.
Re: Response
I don’t understand how you reach this conclusion. Throughout his letter Mr. Levy repeats that he is not versed in Australian law, so cannot comment on the likelihood of Stuart prevailing there. He then goes on to explain what American law is in different jurisdictions. It appears that in order to get a judgement against Masnick he would have to sue in a California court. An Australian court cannot impose a lien on property in California.
Don't resort to "Bar Fights"
I love this shit – always have! 😀
Renzo Gracie lives in New York – USE HIM! LEARN FROM HIM!
Challenge Gibson to the Octagon, or, offer him a free flight to Japan for something in the ring.
🙂
I am beginning to think Mr Gibson may be a bit of a shit. In his letter referenced above, Mr Gibson, in the course of his presumably heartfelt exposition about the butt hurt his client felt and how bad this could be for Masnick in australia, also felt free to threaten what he could do to him here in the US. He received an education (a preferable term to asswhooping) on the US parts of his letter from Mr Levy as can be seen above. Yet he responded with a churlish disregard for the information on a topic he raised. Whilst he may be none the wiser, he is at least now better informed and any boorish threats he makes in future about what he can do to people legally in the us will at least be enlivened by some actual real facts. And yet where are the thanks? He acts with what appears to be a cavalier dismissiveness. Surely some gratitude is in order? And perhaps if he feels unable to say thank you, how about a sum of money in lieu of tuition?
Am I the only one who read Stuart Little in the headline?
Thank you Paul Levy for keeping it gangster!
“”I wouldn’t even be bothered to open this Spam.”” How did he know it was the awful canned product and not spam? Of course he read the email and being so petty and petulant he denies doing so. Chest beating macho moron. I wouldn’t want this waste of space as a lawyer. As a Australian I would like to apologise to Mike for the behaviour of Mr. Gibson.