Dear Mr. Hooper, I write in response to your letter indicating your representation of Mr. Robb Demarest with regards to my website, RobbDemarestCheats.com.
As you can appreciate, I have no interest in breaking any laws while exercising my right to free speech to warn other vulnerable, single mothers about Mr. Demarest’s behaviour.
My interviews with some of Australia’s biggest media outlets were carefully vetted by their respective lawyers prior to publication/TV airing. My subsequent write-ups on my website are a combination of opinion (which you agree I’m entitled to), and my reporting of interviews with other women who started coming forward, backed up by full transcripts.
I’d like to thank you, therefore, for helpfully pointing out that I’m opening myself up to prosecution in areas of my website where I have made allegations that you feel are unsubstantiated.
Extract from your letter –
While you are entitled to your opinion, when you allude to unprovable slanderous accusations you are exposing yourself to legal action. As example, you allege as facts that he was stalking someone, that he drove someone to suicidal ideations, that he is attached to twelve evil spirits and that he strangled someone. These are not opinions. These allege specific acts on his part.
Re: the examples you gave, I have gone back and extracted portions of my interviews with the other women, where these claims were made. I’ve inserted them into my original posts to substantiate them and cover myself legally.
Here’s the list and accompanying screenshots for your easy reference –
- Stalking –
Woman #8 – I had to block him on social media because he would stalk me. Crazy.
2) He drove someone to suicidal ideations –
a.) this from one of the women –
I saved everything from my phone I’m putting them in files when I had first told you about saving my pictures I was in a really bad place
I was even thinking about asking my lawyer to do (a) will and I was gonna will you all that information just in case something happened to me I didn’t think I was gonna mentally make all this
b) This was from a conversation with a counsellor who spoke with the same woman, who subsequently reported back to me with her permission –
you did a good thing letting her know
i believe if she had been told this in 6 months time she (would) be very suicidal
c) this from another woman –
He nearly ruined my life for my children
If it wasn’t for them I wouldn’t be here x
3) He’s attached to twelve evil spirits. Funnily enough, Mr. Hooper, this actually came from Robb himself.
Here was the original conversation –
Robb Demarest –
I have had a bunch of psychics tell me how many ghostly attachments I currently have. I’ve heard between 8-12. I figure it would just be “the more the merrier” now.
In fact, it was something of a running joke between him and me. See this –
Robb Demarest –
As far as the attachments, I’m not sure I buy it. It could be true…
And this –
Jackie M –
maybe the hangers-on spirits are messing with you
Robb Demarest –
Or my surpressed (sp) desires to see your clothes rack were manifesting in the subconscious
4) He strangled someone –
He tried to sort of strangle me during
He wouldn’t let me leave till 6.30
Also, since you brought up the matter of using recordings of someone without their consent; extract from your letter –
Furthermore, you have also violated statutes prohibiting use of recorded conversations without consent exposing yourself to additional criminal and civil sanctions
if you could point your client to this particular extract from http://www.lawstuff.org.au and similarly remind him about his vulnerability to criminal and civil sanctions, that would be great –
It’s NEVER ok to photograph or record someone’s private parts or private activities without their knowledge or permission – http://www.lawstuff.org.au
In relation to this conversation (sexually explicit content blacked out) –
Robb Demarest –
I have pics of you
Woman – Not dirty ones
Robb Demarest –
Woman – You recorded me!
Robb Demarest – Just a picture
Just to reiterate, the law, as stated above, covers “just a picture”.
I have been wanting to confront Mr. Demarest in a public forum for over a year now, but he has yet to respond to any media regarding this story.
As a matter of fact The Dr. Phil Show is still waiting for him to accept their recent invitation to appear on the programme with both myself and some of the other women I’ve written about.
Considering how Mr. Demarest is constantly trying to get on television, I can only imagine he’s missed the invitation.
If you could maybe ask him to check his spam folder for the email, that would be greatly appreciated.
If The Dr. Phil Show is not his cup of tea, I’m ready to face him in court here in Australia, though I do appreciate your pointing out that my transgression can lead to 3 years’ jail >>
While my advice to him includes filing a formal complaint with the Sydney Prosecutor’s Office regarding violations of Australia’s cyber-harassment statutes and directing his legal counsel in Sydney to pursue civil sanctions and monetary damages…
I would defer to the prosecutor’s office in this regard, my understanding is that it carries a maximum sentence of three years in jail.
I guess a statement like that has the effect of stifling free speech and scaring off most victims from ever speaking out.
(Especially one who is the sole carer of a disabled toddler. Who incidentally spent the first 7 months of his life in hospital, while the man who wanted to adopt him as his son sneaked off and proposed to another woman while pushing me to pitch TV shows for him from my son’s hospital bed. But I digress.)
But then most of his victims aren’t Hakka (inside joke – Robb would appreciate it).
I’d like to advise Mr. Demarest that any lawsuit from him will inevitably lead to a countersuit from me. Also, I’d like to refer him to the following while he’s contemplating such action –
A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).
(Source – Wikipedia)
And this from http://www.insidecounsel.com , since you brought up your chat with “UK lawyers” –
David Beckham – A magazine printed an article claiming that Beckham had hired a prostitute, so he sued. Since Beckham could not prove the magazine acted maliciously, he lost the court ruling and his $25 million lawsuit was tossed out.
(Source – http://www.insidecounsel.com)
In the face of 5+ years of transcripts and multiple witness testimonies, I think Mr. Demarest would struggle to find that I acted with any knowledge of “falsity or reckless disregard for the truth”.
If anything, most people who have interacted with me know that my pedantry borders on the legendary.
And of course, as I have said in the past, I will delete my website as soon as Mr. Demarest retires permanently from public life.
I know you cleverly cited cyberharassment and cyberstalking laws as opposed to ones related to “slander”, but I’d like to think it follows the same “vibe” >>
(Scene from Australia’s all-time favourite David vs Goliath lawyer movie – you should try and catch it. It’s hysterical.) >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuXIq7OazQ
Thanks again for your letter, Mr. Hooper; also by the way, it was delivered right in the middle of my live broadcast on Indonesian Ayam Goreng (www.Twitch.tv/JackieMFood – Follow me there for great Asian recipes), causing a 5-minute interruption and effectively making the content useless for future reshares.
I get that these things happen, but it’d be wonderful if Mr. Demarest would consider compensating me for the chicken and herbs I used in that episode.
$8.50 would about cover it; he can send it to my Paypal account. Have a wonderful day, sir.