by Demetrios Vakras

On the Domain Hijacking

Houghton, Cripps et al: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD

"A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(civil)

Read about the disaster that was our exhibition at Guildford Lane Gallery in Melbourne, Australia by visiting


Cripps Legal Team:

William ("Will") T Houghton (Victorian Bar link: http://www.vicbar.com.au/find-a-barrister/advanced-search/search-results/barrister-profile?1668 ) ; and

Tao Jiang (Migration Agent - Migration Agent Registration Number: 0854775 - https://www.mara.gov.au/agent/ARDetails.aspx?ud=3053&FolderID=394 )
On legally sanctioned harassment:

- Houghton/TaoJiang are aware that our writing that we are being sued by Cripps is true, as it is they who, on behalf of Cripps, are bringing this action against us. They also know that truth is a defence. Despite this, they have advised iinet and Telstra that our writing that we are being sued defames Cripps, which means that they are suggesting that what we write is untrue. Because of their representations our sites have been disabled, and we have been disconnected from the internet. They know the law, and understand where they legally stand: THIS IS LEGALLY SANCTIONED HARASSMENT;

- (Just before 1 AM) on 8 June 2011 I emailed Houghton/TaoJiang demanding that they stop their harassment of us. The page http://www.vakras.com/guildford_lane_gallery-addenda.html had been pulled off the internet by iinet a few hours earlier on 7/6/2011. The page in question was included in the email sent to Houghton/TaoJiang as a pdf. This page reproduced emails that had been sent by Cripps to us which unambiguously showed that what I wrote was the truth (the legal defence against "defamation"). However, Cripps' legal team, despite this, decided that IT WAS THEIR DUTY TO MENACE AND HARASS US, on behalf of their client: THIS IS LEGALLY SANCTIONED HARASSMENT. That is, that Cripps' legal team continued to pursue us with the claim of "defamation", though knowing that this claim was VEXATIOUS. We do not understand why the laws of this country allows them to get away with this. Obviously the concept of "legal ethics" means that solicitors and barristers are expected to act unethically on behalf of their client;

The intention of Cripps is simple: get us and our sites off the internet

Claiming "defamation" accomplishes this. Cripps' legal team do not care about evidence - or lack of it - as their actions, outlined above, have already shown. As it is their aim to take us off the www, then the domain hijacking is just another means by which this might be accomplished. As to how Cripps, Houghton, TaoJiang, Blake Dawson, and Telstra may have colluded to achieve this is unknown to us, but it achieved the ends Cripps, and Houghton, and TaoJiang have been pursuing all along.

For a website to be available to the www the DNS has to be active, and the domain has to point to an IP number. If someone hijacks the domain and then redelegates the DNS and removes the IP, the site will disappear. Our sites were hijacked in this manner. Our sites had disappeared from the www because our server was disconnected. Either by way of a disconnection or by way of hijacking the end result would be that our sites would disappear from the www. Whoever hijacked the domains knew what was happening and hijacked our domains during the period in which the hijacking could be concealed by the disconnection. If the hijacking had been attempted while we were still connected to the internet, then it would have been immediately known (the sites would have vanished from the www). We discovered the hijacking when we finally reconnected to the internet by alternate means and logged in to our account with the domain registrar (Melbourne IT) so that we could change the DNS and point the domain to another IP number. We found that our 2 domains were no longer under our control. Either all, or some, of these parties (except Melbourne IT) conspired by some means to achieve this. Whoever hijacked our domains, or organised for them to be hijacked, had to have been aware of the disconnection. THIS TIME THEY HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME - FRAUD - WHICH IS NOT LEGALLY SANCTIONED. We believe that a conspiracy to commit fraud has occurred. Although we believe that this act is criminal, it may be that we might only be capable of showing that a civil conspiracy to commit fraud has occurred.

(note: the contact details would have had to have been removed prior to the hijack, as a redelegation of the DNS elicits an email from Melbourne IT which is sent to the domain name owner. No such email advice was sent.)

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)
CIVIL CONSPIRACY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(civil)
DOMAIN HIJACKING: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_hijacking

related: telstra problems