1. Your organization is by name The Foundation for Rabbit Free Australia and thus by implication does have an agenda consistent with point 1. "The allegation that our client "is a body dedicated to the destruction of rabbits in Australia". It appears you are thus attempting to repress freedom of expression on a ground which is inadmissable in that while it may be of concern to you , this point is nevertheless truthful.

2. The further allegations you have stated have not actually been disproven nor even denied by you. Therefore it is again possible that you are attempting to repress free expression which is de facto accurate.

3. Your only criticism appears to be that of 'extravagant language', which is a matter of interpretation and of personal style and not a matter of fact.

4. Your following statement is inadmissable: "In light of the extravagant language which you have used in your , it is necessarily to be inferred that you intended to damage our client's reputation within the wide audience to whom your website is published."

This cannot be inferred at all. It is not substantiable that Margurite is acting with the intent of damaging your client's reputation, but rather the intent of protecting rabbits from what she considers is indiscriminate and painful consequences. Therefore to allege that this NECESSARILY is to be INFERRED as an intent to damage is michevious and could place your firm in the position of being classed as a vexacious litigant.

5. Furthermore it cannot be inferred that by setting up a home page, which is a passive service offered free and only to those people who seek the particular information the site holds, that a person is actively seeking to damage a reputation. This is particularly a characteristic of the internet which in a watershed case, three US judges acknowledged was a chaotic information process which was not identifiable with a broadcast medium.

6. Your following statement is oppressive and threatening without having any real meaning. You appear to be threatening to consider taking action and while you do not actually indicate that you will, you attempt to take advantage of threatening Margurite in advance in a manner which constitutes intimidation of a provate individual, who as things stand is simply utlizing their freedom of expression to express an opinion.

"If you do not take steps as soon as practicable to remove the offensive material from your website, the fact that you have been afforded this opportunity to mitigate the loss and damage to our client and have declined to take advantage of it, will be a matter which will be drawn to the attention of the court in any proceedings which our client might contemplate taking against you."

I strongly object to this legalistic manhandling of a defenceless woman by a large commercially motivated organization. Although you have expressed concern about her statements you have offered no evidence that her statements are in fact wrong. You should therefore offer Margurite evidence that she is in fact wrong if you wish her to consider a change in the content of her homepage. Otherwise it can and should stand.

I would suggest you ask your client how they might feel about this heavy-handed bullying initiative being disseminated over the internet as a protest about the unethical practices of your client as an organization. I would thoughtfully suggest that this action is likely to be most perilous for your client, because it exposes questionable aspects of their business practice.

While I am not personally taking any position about rabbit control and acknowledge the need for ecological resasons to control exotic species which are noxious to natural ecolosystems, this has no bearing on the right to freedom of expression on the internet.

Should your initiative to bully Margurite not be effectively challenged, the way lies open for commercial firms to pick on and repress any private dissent against their corporate practices for gain. Because of the very great financial advantage a large firm has over a small individual income earner, this process could set a very oppressive precedent for the general population effectively muzzling privately generated protest and concern about corporate activities.