<< MAGAZINE MULTI-LINKED ~ MAIN ~ POWERFUL SIGN OF RESPECT >>
CLOWN QUALIFIES FOR LEGAL AID
Thom Lyons’ demented legal action against Whacking Day might one day require that we raise some funds for the defence—or line up a few lawyers willing to work cheap in the name of free speech. Until then, follow Thom-related developments at Tex’s place.
I’ve been following Tex’s, ummmmmmm, discussions with Thom. Amusing, but if that idiot actually gets into a court room with this silly case, put me down for a donation.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 01 at 11:15 PM • permalink“Come on Thom, sue me. I’m waiting, you pole-smoking cumstain”
“Thom Lyons: an amusement park for the mind”
“Again, how much is true, and how much is horsehit? It’s difficult to tell with old Thommy.”
“This guy is the Tolstoy of bullshit.”
It’s certainly been fun following it, but I wonder, would Thom’s lawyers be able to get a harassment order to stick because of that first quote?
Any legal experts reading?
Thoms poor, lonely little brain cell must have finaly exploded. I dont think he realises that until now his humiliation has been confined to a bunch of bloggers and readers.
Getting to court might actually get his dementia into the papers and on TV.
I know being a looney, deluded, walter mitty type is probably considered an asset in the greens , but surely even they have limits??
(I am prepared to be proven wrong)Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 02 02 at 12:18 AM • permalinkTimT — The quote was in Tex’s site, right? So the only way Thom could find is if he went looking for it. Case dismissed.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 02 at 12:21 AM • permalinkI am by no means an expert, but I believe that any action for “stalking” in Victoria can include e-mails, telephone calls and the suchlike, by virtue of s.21A of the Crimes Act 1958.
Any such “stalking” must be done with “the intention of causing physical or mental harm to the victim or of arousing apprehension or fear in the victim for his or her own safety or that of any other person.” (subsection 2)
It is a reversal of onus, as the accused has to prove the lack of intention.
However, subsection 4A provides a defence:
(4A) In a proceeding for an offence against subsection (1) it is a defence to the charge for the accused to prove that the course of conduct was engaged in without malice—
(a) in the normal course of a lawful business, trade, profession or enterprise (including that of any body or person whose business, or whose principal business, is the publication, or arranging for the publication, of news or current affairs material); or
(b) for the purpose of an industrial dispute; or
(c) for the purpose of engaging in political activities or discussion or communicating with respect to public affairs.One would think that an argument on the subject of Cuba in a political newsgroup (aus.politics.guns or alt.politics.bush) would certainly be “engaging in political activities or discussion”.
End. Of. Story.
Can wronwright get Victoria Legal Aid for his film career?What?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 02 at 01:42 AM • permalinkTex, I am not admitted in Victoria but am willing to offer what help I can. I can’t seem to find an e-mail address on your site so if you can send me some contact details I’ll be happy to talk.
Posted by Just Another Bloody Lawyer on 2006 02 02 at 01:44 AM • permalinkI can guarantee that Vic Legal Aid has no idea of the full story, and they’re just acting on what Thom has said to them. Once they get the full picture I think their enthusiasm for the case will wane.
My guess: This is a once off letter to mollify Thom, but there shouldn’t be any real ongoing problems. One thing I know about lawyers is that they really don’t like getting involved in these sort of pissant disputes, they might write a letter or two to show their client what good guys they are, but it is very unlikely that the lawyers will push the claim with any enthusiasm.
I thought Thom was living in the States?
How can someone living in the States get Victorian legal aid?
What a F’n joke.
As for the requirement of the legislation that the act of stalking require intention to do mental harm I would say that the mental harm was done some time ago and was significant in magnitude.
Here we go - will the real Tom Lions please stand up?
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 02 02 at 05:27 AM • permalinkI’m happy to put something in the Tex kitty as he’s given me endless hours of amusement busting this lunatic’s fecal ideas and a personal history that only James Thurber could have imagined someone imagining. A fine contender for the title of “Stupidest Person on The Internet”.
I notice he’s suddenly gone quiet on aus.politics in a vain attempt to prove he’s not insane. Pick any five of his zillion compulsive posts and you’ll be opening the yellow pages under “B” for butterfly nets.
Now there’s a thought, what is the legal process to have someone committed?
Regretfully, it appears that Mr Lyons brought a knife to a gunfight, and is now retreating to the last refuge of a scoundrel, litigation.
I’m in with the fund.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 02 02 at 09:41 AM • permalinkLet’s face it - we’ve all at least known someone who’s had to face some ridiculous civil charge in court, brought about by some deranged moron with a tenuous grasp on reality.
All I can say is that if Thom gets his shit together and lodges a case, I hope Tex isn’t shy in coming forward with the cap. I would definitely be interested in donating a few hours work towards his legal defence.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 02 02 at 02:41 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Tex should also approach Victorian Legal Aid for representation. Could be fun…