You are on page 1of 3

06/08/2018 Print window

Subject: Re: Google - Duffy: Removals

Date: Monday, 6 August 2018, 9:29:26 pm ACST

Dear Ashurst

I do not need to give you the complete URLs. Just tell your client to do a domain site
search or a search for my name. It's not difficult and it only takes a few seconds!

You and your client are both well aware that Google can ‘prophylactically’ prevent
defamatory and other illegal content from being indexed in the Google search
results. In fact, one of Google's own lawyers boasted about this in a recent article
from a presentation to the American Bar Association. I did include it in my first
affidavit in (annexure 14) but I attach it again.

Let me remind you that as much as you and you client protests there is substantial
evidence that your client does not need URLs to remove content.  It can and does
remove or block using algorithmic means and you know this.

In fact, your own client’s witness stated in the 2015 trial that Google has used uses
algorithmic alterations to remove negative terms associated with people’s name. The
fact that Google does not need complete URLs to remove content has been
accepted by courts in Australia and Germany. The fact that your client does not want
to use any means other than the submission of complete URLs is clear and the
reason that I am forced to apply for an injunction.

I am not long out of hospital after a minor procedure and my patience is tied to my
level of discomfort which, at the moment, is not insignificant. It is clear that you are
trying to trick me or wear me down – over and over again!. Please, just give this up.
It is not going to be successful. Seriously, I am not stupid and your attempts to trick
me are annoying beyond belief.

I am missing an episode of Australian Survivor on TV because of letters from the

defendant’s legal team that are irksome in their stupidity. You may be getting paid a
large amount of money to write letters at 8.30pm  at night but I do not get paid
anything to respond! 

They will all go into evidence and, as you all found out, despite Ashurst’s attempt to
assassinate my character by a number of means aimed at taking advantage of a self
represented litigant with absolutely no legal experience and who was exhausted,
distressed and terrified by using legal tactics that were an abuse of process you lost
and ergo neither the court nor the Justice is stupid. So for the life of me I can’t figure
out why you continue to try and use transparent legal tactics designed to try and trip
me up.

Let me be very clear! Firstly, I am NOT signing any confidentiality agreement. I

thought I had stated this so why ask? What part of no do you not understant?  If
Google and its lawyers agree to sign one I may reconsider. It is pointless trying to
bait me with an annexure of confidential information. Did you really think I would
fall for that? Secondly, I am not buying into the provision of full URL game that you
are trying to play. The court stated that Google did not need URLs to remove
content. Tell your client to learn to 'google' names  and stop bothering me with this
garbage! I am really really over your client and particularly its lawyers. Your client's
lawyers may want to increase their billable hours but I don’t get paid and I have to
spend my valuable time answering this garbage.

Finally, here is a bit of news for you. Had Google's lawyers treated me with a
modicum of respect and not employed abuses of process such as tying the mediation
06/08/2018 Print window
settlement with the costs of the first matter and hence sabotaging it (and incurring
my legal costs for my own lawyers) and offered a reasonable settlement I would have
walked away and signed (and adhered to) a confidentiality agreement. 

I cannot, for the life of me figure out if you were all stupid enough to think I would
accept that or if you knew I would not and the matter would continue - hence more
billable hours. Google's own lawyers had a chance to make this all go away before
the 2015 trial (as was noted by Blue J in the costs decision), during the trial and since.
I couldn't believe that you actually sabotaged a mediation that I entered into in good
faith. But Ashurst and de Ferrari actually did just that! They got paid but you knew I
would have to pay my lawyers and by with holding costs for the first matter be
forced into self representation. Well all that happened but why would you think that
this would make me go away when it failed in 2015?

Time and time again Google's lawyers have had the opportunity to settle this but you
all keep blowing it! You keep losing for your client and yet keep using abuses of
process that inevitably backfire. I guess your client pays well. Clearly, these
tactics will continue - if it walks like a horse and talks like a horse....

I am not going away determined to pursue justice for myself and I will help other
plaintiffs and I will write a book about it. But in the meantime, please, I beg you, ease
up on the stupid attempts to entrap me - I am missing my favourite TV shows!

One final issue. I notice that your documents are marked 'confidential not for
publication'. I ask what version of confidential would that be? Is it the version in
which  sign agreements and adhere to them your your client publishes
confidential information online via its shills  for the purpose of humiliating and
harming ordinary people who stand up for their rights? I would appreciate an answer
because I intend to ask the court. Conversely, by the way, my response it NOT
confidential and I can publish it online because I say so!

Yours sincerely

Dr Janice Duffy

On Monday, 6 August 2018, 7:57:58 pm ACST, <>


Dear Dr Duffy

Please see the attached correspondence.

Yours faithfully

Robert Todd Paul Dimitriadis

Partner Senior Associate
06/08/2018 Print window
Ashurst Ashurst
D: +61 2 9258 6082 | M: +61 418 971 677 D: +61 2 9258 6079
Ashurst Australia, 5 Martin Place, Sydney, NSW 2000 Australia
T: +61 2 9258 6000 | F: +61 2 9258 6999 | DX 388 Sydney | Global coverage

This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. It may be read, copied
and used only by the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please contact the sender
immediately by return email. Please then delete both emails and do not disclose their contents to any
person. We believe, but do not warrant, that this email and any attachments are virus free. You should
take full responsibility for virus checking. Ashurst reserves the right to monitor all email
communications through its networks. If the content of this email is personal or unconnected with our
business, we accept no liability or responsibility for it.

Ashurst Australia (ABN 75 304 286 095) is a general partnership constituted under the laws of the
Australian Capital Territory and is part of the Ashurst Group. Further details about Ashurst can be found
on our website at

Beyond the DMCA_ How Google Leverages Notice and Takedown at Scale.pdf