It’s been quite a frustrating few days for me, but the solution has been beyond great.
It looked like a lack of co-operation by parties who I shall not name were threatening to derail the defamation action against Best. But I found a way around it – applying to the Supreme Court of Victoria for a substituted or informal service. I then opted to send the summons for the application to Best via email, which was a smart move on my part because he replied with the following rubbish;
This sounds like a threat, Phil. I don’t open attachments that are sent to me by severely deranged mental cases. I’ve heard that they can harm my computer.
Why don’t you just tell me why you want to drag me into court and maybe we can settle this thing. I’m not skilled at bargaining with mentally impaired dimwits though so I’m not sure that will be possible.
He’s making excuses! So I send the following answer;
A legal threat, Best, which is not the sort of threat you’re talking about. That attachment is the summons to attend court. It will do no damage to your computer. This email you sent shows that you received it and I can show that to the court to prove that you know about it. I’m dragging you to court because you defamed me, stole my intellectual property and invaded my privacy (the unlisted phone number). And you have had your chance to do the right thing. You’ve had more than a few chances and ignored them each time. So there will be no negotiation, bargaining or anything else.
And calling me mentally impaired yet again just proves the point – you have no idea.
The idiot sent an answer to this which I will not be responding to except here;
Phil, All I know about your alleged summons is that you claim it’s in an attachment you sent me. Since you are a liar and are certainly not trustworthy, I’m not going to open it which means you have never informed me of anything.
Oh yes I did – see what I said above! He is lying about me and he can’t use that as an excuse. Notwithstanding the fact that I didn’t have to send him this summons.
As you know from reading my blog, I have proven beyond any doubt that you are a severely deranged mental case which means that nothing I have written about you is defamation.
No, I can prove beyond doubt that you are lying about me. That IS defamation.
I didn’t steal anything from you. I did copy part of your blog. Since you think you can break copyright laws by copying my blog, you give tacit agreement for me to copy yours.
Yes you did. You stole my name and used it without my permission! As far as copying my WEBSITE is concerned (not blog) that wasn’t fair use because you were banned from my website and you knew it. My copying you is legal because I’m not banned from your blog and under Section 41 of the Copyright Act (and for the record Chapter 1 Part 107 of US Copyright law says the same thing) it can be copied to criticise and review.
You gave me your phone number, left it on my answering machine. You never told me it was an unpublished number or asked me to keep it private so I shared it with the world.
When I told you it was you should have deleted it then, and you didn’t. The answering machine was intended for your wife – not you.
Some psychologists might want to contact you to do a study on imbeciles and they might even pay you for your time. So, I probably did you a favor by possibly helping you find some employment.
If any psychologist wanted to do such a study – it would be done on Best.
Now, if you send me a proper invitation to come watch you make a fool out of yourself in court, with plane tickets included, I might show up. But, threatening me with attachments to emails that I will never see doesn’t seem to be proper legal etiquette.
It is when you avoided the previous summons by having your wife lie to the Deputy Sheriff about your whereabouts. Your choice not to open the attachment will backfire on you – as will your refusal to file an appearance.
Now that I have a copy of the Affidavit with hopefully the original on it’s way by air mail and getting to the Court before the next hearing, it’s just a matter of the application for leave to proceed being approved. And I expect that to be a given. Then the next step will be the trial which will be unopposed and I’ll be able to prove with evidence that Best’s blogs need to be ordered taken down. With no opposition present, I’ll win. The damages may be a little harder to prove, but I am going for it.
These emails will be printed for the judge to see if he asks.