Severely Deranged Mental Case Sues Me Again

Who else could this mental case be but Philip Gluyas of Albert St, Sevastopol, Victoria, Australia. This is Phil's third attempt to sue me, all for the same idiotic reason, he doesn't like me.

Since this blogpost will serve as my reply to the court, I ask the judge if there is not a limit on how many times a mentally incompetent person can sue someone. Surely, the court has wasted enough time with this nonsense that they might consider restraining Mr Gluyas from filing these stupid lawsuits.

Yes, I exposed Mr Gluyas to ridicule, though not hatred and contempt as he charges. I know I should laugh off all of Phil's public ridicule of me that he placed on Youtube with his dishonest and idiotic videos, as well as his childish website on which he and his associates bash me and give me awards for "Idiot of the Month". However, I suspect that the planet contains some people who are equally as stupid as Mr Gluyas who might believe some of the nonsense that he publishes about me. So, I certainly have a right to reply to this stupidity and dishonesty in public.

As no mentally competent person can possibly take Phil seriously, his charges that I provoke hatred or contempt for him are ludicrous. People who have IQ's above the retarded range would normally tend to feel sorry for him. But, Phil is so obnoxious that he makes people laugh at him. He brings that all on himself by pestering people in public like a whining two year old. He has provoked all of the ridicule against himself by me and many other sane people who he attacked on the internet.

It was ruled in an Australian court several years ago that Mr Gluyas has a personality disorder, not Asperger's Syndrome. I think he's just plain stupid. By definition, Asperger's is brain damage, as is any condition on the Autistic Spectrum. So, through Phil's insistence that he has Asperger's, he is himself confirming that he does indeed suffer from brain damage. Anyone suffering from brain damage fits under the slang term "mental case" so we see that Phil's contention that I made false statements about him by using those terms is, by his own words, simply not true.

From previous court case:
"The AAT affirmed the decision under review and, in the course of its decision published on 9 December 1991, observed:

"In view of the evidence of Dr Rose and Dr Adrian, which we accept, that the applicant's personality problem has not been caused or made worse by his employment by the respondent and that the episodes of stress have been brief, transient and self-contained, we find that there has been no causal connection between the stress in September 1990 and the later episodes of stress, and also that any rehabilitation which the applicant requires is a result of his personality disorder and not of any stress or resulting anxiety symptoms. If the respondent as a caring employer wishes to assist the applicant as an employee to manage his personality problem, we would not wish to discourage it from doing so; but clearly it has no obligation under the Act to provide rehabilitation in the circumstances of this case.
... ... ... ... ...

There is no doubt that the applicant's behaviour on 4 September 1990 amounted to misconduct and that the stress reaction was the result of that misconduct. When he gave his evidence, it was clear that he had a quite unrealistic idea of what his obligations to his employer were. He appeared not to realize that his employer is entitled to have him do his work in accordance with its requirement and that a proper way of his employer informing him of its requirements is through more senior officers giving him instructions and advice. He appeared also not to realize that his employer is entitled to require its employees to work in harmony with one another and that, in spite of his personality problem, he has an obligation to his employer to make every effort to work harmoniously with other staff. In giving evidence he said that he placed his interests above those of the respondent. Generally, he appears over the years of his employment by the respondent not to have taken seriously his obligations to his employer. He has not conducted himself in a manner appropriate to an employee at his level in the organization; often he has refused to respond appropriately to the advice, assistance and indeed the instructions of those supervising him."



Phil claims that the fact that I stated that he abuses all people on the autistic spectrum is a false statement. Wrong, Mr Gluyas does abuse all people on the autistic spectrum by promoting false information about autism. Anyone who is stupid enough to believe what Phil says about the cause and cure for autism risks harming people who suffer from autism. That harm is manifested through negligence due to ignorance which would result in people remaining autistic when they could have been cured if they had known the truth. I don't think that Phil's abuse of autistic people here is malicious but is due to his stupidity. So, I would not ask that he be formally charged for abusing disabled people. However, the words he uses are still abuse since not all people who might read his words will know instantly that Phil is presenting false information.

As to Phil's complaint that I published his unlisted phone number, Phil left a message on my answering machine on which he left me that number, did not advise me that it was unlisted and did not ask me to refrain from publishing it. Thus, he gave me the number, unprovoked, and I'm free to give it to anyone I choose.

Phil is asking an Australian court to rule contrary to the first amendment of the United States Constitution. Neither I, nor any United States citizen will recognize any ruling by any court which violates our right to free speech. If Phil Gluyas wants to ridicule me in public, as he has done repeatedly since 2006, I will ridicule him as I see fit. Please advise Mr Gluyas to shut up, stop behaving like a whiny child, and stop thinking he can use the court to force people he attacks to refrain from returning the favor.