Another day, another attempt by our anna to sue someone.
Defamation is something that is easy to claim. Proving it is something different though.
Here we have a reply from a law firm that identifies itself as a defamation lawyers.
Our anna approached them about the blog post that Reasonable Hank put up about our anna’a attempt to defraud the Australian Government. As is anna’s way she didn’t publish what information she sent Australian Defamation Lawyers (http://www.australian-defamation-lawyers.com.au/) only the reply.
We assume that the blog post in question is the one where our anna explains how she stuck it to the man (https://reasonablehank.com/2016/03/15/qld-antivax-activist-confirms-she-and-her-friends-all-commit-centrelink-benefits-rort/).
Now, we were interested that the information given to our anna by Australian Defamation Lawyers.
Firstly, being referred to as an anti-vaccinationist is not grounds for defamation as it is a matter of general public interest.
And secondly, how is it possible to ruin a persons reputation when one of the referenced fraud attempts was published on the internet 5 years previously.
The other thing that really confused us was that this response from the Australian Defamation Lawyers was published under the initial sentence.
If you want to join me in joint action against Google, please message me.
Nothing in the response from Australian Defamation Lawyers was regarding Google, only Reasonable Hank.
And there is no additional information provided subsequent to the comment “We do need to charge for that preliminary work.”
Could it be that our anna, being a person with multiple degrees who works for both the Queensland State Government and the Federal Government, but is also destitute and homeless is just trying to get others to join her just to pay the legal fees?