Fran Sheffield - The Fighting Fund - ACCC Proceedings

[Lynn Cremona]

UPCOMING COURT CASE - WILL YOU HELP?
(This is a redacted version of the original post. If we had not removed certain points by midnight tonight, we may have been in sub judice and tomorrow, in goal. Please continue to help by sharing this post as much as possible).

You are probably aware that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced proceedings against Homeopathy Plus, my husband and me last week in the Federal Court of Australia.

(If this is news to you, you may like to read: A Letter from Fran Sheffield – Today I will be in Court).

At last we are free to tell what happened, and we hope you will read to the story’s end as the events involved have the potential to affect you as much as us. We also have four important areas in which you may be able to help.

AT THE BEGINNING
When the ACCC decided to commence fast-tracked proceedings against us we had little more than a week’s notice to prepare for the Directions Hearing. The ACCC was concerned that three pages on our website (one of which had been removed almost a year ago) were misleading or deceptive. These pages contained information about whooping cough, the whooping cough vaccine, and [REDACTED].

When we were advised that proceedings would be commenced, we decided to defend the action as we believed (and still believe) the information we provided was correct.

THE DIRECTIONS HEARING
At the Directions Hearing in the Federal Court last Friday (March 1, 2013), the ACCC sought immediate orders and a fast-tracked date for when the case would be heard in full.

So what was the outcome of this hearing? Thanks to excellent representation by our barrister, the Justice removed the fast-tracking; the case is now scheduled for late August, at which time we intend to defend our position vigorously. In the meantime we have agreed to remove the pages in question from our website until the case is heard.

WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?
There is still a long way to go. The case is significant and a lot is at stake – not just for us but for anyone who accesses and wants to continue to access information on vaccines and healthcare from an alternative viewpoint.

When our case reaches court in August, the following questions will be asked:

1. [REDACTED]
2. [REDACTED]

You may be wondering if the repercussions of this case will extend beyond Homeopathy Plus, my husband and me. You may also wonder if a precedent will be set that not only affects the practice of homeopathy in Australia but also the practice and supply of information by many other complementary and alternative therapies. And, like others, you may be asking, “Is it fair for someone to be prosecuted by a government agency just for questioning certain aspects of government health policy and offering an alternative view?”

We have received advice that the right to publicly question government information about vaccines and provide alternative information on homeopathy will be a central issue in this case (i.e. the extent of those rights and when they can be censored) so obviously, important issues are at stake.

We cannot say more at this time about the details of the case, but we hope this has gone some way to explaining its significance. We need your support and are asking you to help in a number of important areas.

THE FIGHTING FUND
If you have ever practiced or been helped by homeopathy, now is the time to show your support. A conservative estimate for legal and court costs in this case is at least $50,000 – an incredible amount of money in one lump, but not so much if divided between many. Just 500 homeopaths donating $50 each would create a fund of $25,000 right there!

If other alternative therapists – chiropractors, naturopaths, herbalists, acupuncturists (the list goes on and on) – joined with us, we would all be in a much stronger position.

And for those who want to protect their right to alternative information and natural healthcare, your donation, no matter how big or small, will help provide strong and effective legal representation.

You can donate in any of the following ways:

1. Fax your credit card details and the amount you want to give to 02 4044 0153 (international faxes: +612 4044 0153)

2. Make a PayPal payment at: fransheffield@homeopathyplus.c om.au – Remember to add FIGHTING FUND in the comments section and we will send you a receipt.

3. Direct deposit funds into the following designated account – be sure to email us at office@homeopathyplus.com.au with the amount and FIGHTING FUND in the subject line so we can send you a receipt:

Westpac Account: Fighting Fund
BSB: 032 627
Account: 198475

4. Pay by card over the phone at 02 4304 0822 (International callers: +612 4304 0822)

5. Mail your cheque to Homeopathy Plus at:
7b/1 Pioneer Avenue
Tuggerah NSW 2259

Remember to provide your name and address so we can send you a receipt.

To those who have already contacted us with offers of help and donations, thank you so much! Your support is greatly appreciated and means a lot to us.

OUR LEGAL TEAM
Our legal team is still being assembled for this important case. If you are a solicitor, barrister or Queen’s Counsel and would like to be involved, please contact us on 02 4304 0822 or send an email to fransheffield@homeopathyplus.c om.au

CALLING ALL EXPERTS
If have expertise in the area of whooping cough, vaccines, or the [REDACTED] and would like to help with the case, please contact us on 02 4304 0822 or send an email to fransheffield@homeopathyplus.c om.au

GETTING THE STORY OUT
Help spread the word about this case in any way you can. Tell your family, friends and patients about it and the implications it may have for their access to alternative health information and treatment. Post it on your blog and Facebook pages. Tweet it and pin it up on Pinterest. Share it on other social media sites. Send the information to any email lists you may be involved with. It is important to get the word out to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.

IN CONCLUSION
If you love homeopathy and want continued access to information on vaccines and healthcare from an alternative viewpoint you MUST choose to act. Please help us and please help homeopathy. By doing that, you will also help yourself.

Thanking you so much,

Fran Sheffield.

--
Imagine Peace
http://www.homeopathicsolutions.blogspot.com/

[Irene de Villiers]

If anyone wants to see an example of draconian laws that would suit the British Old Bailey of 1715, but are ostensibly written for a modern 2013, then do see the website of this ACCC ( and check out the facial expression of the person in charge while you are there.)

That said, if you go enough layers deep, there's a rule at this webpage:
http://www.productsafety.gov.au/content ... ystandards
which has to do with business requirements in connection with meeting mandatory safety standards and mandatory information standards.

It has a Full list of all mandatory standards starting at A for aquatic toys and ending with V for vehicle support stands.
There is NONE for homeopathy or vaccines or anything relevant to Fran's website that I can find.
So there cannot be a violation of an ACCC safety standard here.
The rule about this that I find so draconian:
"It makes no difference whether the business intended to mislead you or not. If the overall impression left by a business’s advertisement, promotion, quotation, statement or other representation creates a misleading impression in your mind—such as to the price, value or the quality of any goods and services—then the behaviour is likely to breach the law."

In other words the business is somehow responsible for what goes on in the potentially sick minds of any nutcase reading what they write!
What kind of law is that!

Let's apply the law to the time when the earth was flat to test its validity and application in 2013:
If some business even implied that MAYBe the world might not be flat and provided measurements to show spherical features - this MIGHT not convince all the nutcases reading the spherical info and having a prejudice against it. by THIS law, the business would automatically be in violation of this draconian law for [resenting an idea other than one fool wants to bel;eve, thus misleading the foolish ignorant reader - unintentionally misleading the closed minded - and being "guilty" of doing so.

Fran - you are in Gallileo's company in a system as crazy as he experienced.
Einstein said: "A closed mind is the enemy of any science" .....
and in Australia it is illegal to even suggest that truth replace commonly held fiction as it may SEEM misleading to the ignorant. And that's all it takes to violate "the law". I suspect the Neaderthals had better logic.
Apparently it does not matter. If someone FELT misled, however unjustifiably, it is a law violation.

I think if this was me defending it,l I'd present all the Gallileo type cases I could find to illustrate the ridiculousness of the law itself. Of course also point out that you cannot win as LACK of vaccine info will feel misleading to some and presence of vaccine info will feel misleading to others.
I'd present ten different scenarios all in opposition to the others and all able to have someone FEEL misled.
(Include your version as one of them).

Point out that the law can prevent ANY opinion about anything due to the craziness of the business needing to mind-read each individual website reader to know what THEIR background is and what would cause THEM to FEEL misled.

THEN point to the conflicting law on freedom of speech valid in AU - which allows you to present a new-to-the world finding and opinion - however new to the reader.

ALL new findings are going tp FEEL misleading initially.
They have to start somewhere.
Does it have to be at the stage of The Inquisition?

It's the second email I've written with suggestions.
I have twice been in the same position as Fran.
Did not ask for money - defended it purely on the principles and wording of the law that I researched.
So I'm offering what I see in that regard here, hoping there may be a usable idea for defense.
Worked for me.
What I do not agree with is playing dead or be a victim.
As soon as one agrees to stop doing something one has a right to do - or remove stuff from a website that is perfectly good - it may be seen as prima facie evidence of the business "knowing" they are NONcompliant with law.
Thus I've flatly refused to change anything on my website both times I was accused, as I had written it all to be within the law - telling them THEY, and not I, were in the wrong.

Can we launch a counter-campaign?
How about we all place a complaint that the website is misleading for LACK of alternative vaccination info on whooping cough when it IS a homeopathy site - and SHOULD have info on the well tried and tested homeopathic alternatives to whooping cough vaccines - and complain to ACCC that it is misleading to not see that on a "homeopathy" site?

WE can all send in the refs to the info, and demand that it be fairly represented and not misleadingly missing.
That we go to the site BECAUSE it is - or claims to be - a homeopathy site, not a vaccine drug company site - and we EXPECT it to have the homeopathy info (since the drug companies do not and there needs to be fair representation and not lack of competition) - else it is misleading to call it a homeopathy site and leave out the homeopathy info that gives people the relevant alternative to vaccines. (ACCC says they want fair competition.) If enough of us complain about the other side of the coin..... (after all it is THEIR logic that the reader must not feel misled.... not even inadvertently....)

Fran????

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: > only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[John Harvey]

Irene, your last suggestion here is very amusing!

I think you may have misread the intent of the passage that you quoted in bold (which may be found at ). Its intent is not to say that it is applicable when you have gained the impression that you have been misled; it is to say that it is applicable when the impression you have gained is a misleading one.

I agree, though, that it is ludicrous of the ACCC to suggest that any particular reader's ability to completely misconstrue the intent of a piece of writing can warrant legal action against its author. The law's usual standard is what a reasonable person might understand by it; and this is nominally based on the the definitions that appear in reputable dictionaries. To broaden use anything that "you" have understood from it as a basis for blaming the author opens the way to attacking anything at all.

And there is an interesting coda to the ACCC's claim in the quoted paragraph: the ACCC has laid itself open to charges of misrepresentation on the basis of its own web site.

Your impression from the paragraph -- that it is possible for the ACCC to use your impression that "you" have been misled as a basis for legal action against the author -- is itself a misleading impression that you gained by reading the passage. If the ACCC applies its own rule to itself, then your ability as an individual to misconstrue the paragraph becomes sufficient basis for legal action against the quoted passage's author: the ACCC itself. On the basis of its own statement, you have just shown that the ACCC's behaviour in writing the passage it did "is likely to breach the law".

And, of course, if the claim is not intended literally to apply to "you", that is, to any reader, then it is a claim that is inherently misleading, as it quite clearly states that it is intended to apply in such a circumstance. It will still fulfil its own criterion of being misleading and is therefore "likely to breach the law", and renders the ACCC liable to the same legal action by the ACCC that it is subjecting Fran Sheffield to.

So, either way -- whether the quoted passage is literally accurate or whether it is merely misleading -- its existence enables the ACCC to take legal action against itself.

I wonder whether it will do so.

Kind regards,

John
--
"There is no exercise better for the heart than reaching down and lifting people up."
— John Andrew Holmes, Jr.

[Laurie Willberg]

What's even more interesting is that there is no regulation regarding nanometre scale particles in consumer goods...
http://www.demosschiropractic.com/menst ... th-pms.cfm
There is also information on cartels (pharma companies anyone?) and competition http://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-co ... -behaviour
Is this not really an issue about competition?
Just some ideas.
Laurie

[Carol Orr]

"It makes no difference whether the business intended to mislead you or not.
If the overall impression left by a business’s advertisement, promotion,
quotation, statement or other representation creates a misleading impression
in your mind—such as to the price, value or the quality of any goods and
services—then the behaviour is likely to breach the law."

Whether the above quote is as stated above or the way John stated...I think an
important point to make in your defense would be when this "law" would apply
and would make sense as opposed to how they are using it.

For example, I used a people finding service about ten times last year to
find people for a reunion. If the free white pages didn't have the address
and phone number there was an ad that appeared saying ''.99 to find" the
person. I put my credit card information on there the first time and it was on
file the next time I used it. 6 months later and six months after I had no
longer needed any phone numbers I found that they had been charging me 25.00 a
month for their membership. It took me another 7 months of disputing the
charges as misleading and deceptive, if not downright fraud, and writing
letters to the attorney general of my state, before I was finally reimbursed.

[Laurie Willberg]

Sorry that first link was supposed to refer to nanotechnology.
http://www.productsafety.gov.au/content ... mId/971497