Anti-Semitic lawyer threatens to sue The Australian over hate messages
Sydney lawyer Justin Carroll exchanged horrifying anti-Semitic slurs with a colleague. Now he’s demanding The Australian delete the messages and promise not to publish any more.
A top Sydney defamation lawyer who exchanged anti-Semitic slurs with a colleague has threatened to sue The Australian, claiming publication of the cache of WhatsApp messages is “not in the public interest”.
Messages obtained by The Australian in April revealed former BlackBay Lawyers partner Justin Carroll, 45, and his colleague Yianni van Gelder, 28, railing against “more Jew-confected anti-Semitism”; laughing at the “Holohoax” and the “Schlomo-caust”; and claiming a client will “try to ‘jew’ me” by negotiating better rates.
Lawyers acting for Mr Carroll have demanded The Australian remove the articles from all online platforms, “immediately destroy” any printed copies and “cease and desist” from any further publication of the material.
The letter from Tom Howard, of Tom Howard Legal, warns that if these steps are not taken, Mr Carroll reserves the right to sue for damages and may refer the matter to “state and federal law enforcement authorities”.
The Australian has told Mr Carroll it declines all his demands and will vigorously defend any proceedings he commences.
On behalf of his client, Mr Howard asserts the WhatsApp messages were “self-evidently a private and confidential conversation” between Mr Carroll and Mr van Gelder over several months.
“The matters discussed in the WhatsApp material range from discussing business plans for our client’s new business venture (which included a discussion concerning business strategies and exchanging corporate logos) to political topics of the day to matters relating to the intimate private life of our client and his colleague, among other things”, Mr Howard said.
“The matters discussed in the WhatsApp material were confidential, such as to impose on your client an obligation of confidence with respect to how it used that information.”
Mr Carroll’s lawyer claimed there was “no public interest” in publishing the messages because the matters discussed “did not expose any wrongdoing by our client”.
The legal letter does not refer to the litany of anti-Semitic messages traded between the lawyers before leaving BlackBay as they plotted to set up a rival firm, allegedly taking clients and confidential information with them.
Mr Carroll tells his colleague that “Jews fabricate most cases of anti-Semitism”, sharing a video claiming Jews were responsible for perpetrating the attacks, which ends with a picture of a stereotyped Jew spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue, with the words “Hey Rabbi … watcha doin?!”
When Mr van Gelder discovers Open AI chief executive Sam Altman is a Jew, he declared: “Don’t think we should use it anymore … it was created by a Jew. That can only mean trouble.”
After watching an Al Jazeera documentary on Gaza, Mr Carroll declares: “Watch this documentary and tell me that Israel is not an utterly depraved society.”
In a talk about a client, Mr van Gelder asks: “Have you responded to the Jew? He’s probably going to try to negotiate rates.”
Mr Carroll responds: “You mean … he will try to ‘jew’ me?”
Mr Carroll has previously declined to answer questions from The Australian on his comments.
A claim by Mr van Gelder that Judaism “basically tells them to harm children” was a classic example of the blood libel trope, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry said, a false accusation dating to the Middle Ages that Jews murdered children to use their blood in rituals.
The ECAJ has asked the Legal Services Commissioner to investigate whether the messages brought the legal profession into disrepute and if established, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the pair in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
In his legal letter to The Australian, Mr Carroll alleged the messages had been obtained “improperly and unlawfully”, in breach of provisions that make some unauthorised access to restricted data on a computer an offence.
The letter also suggested The Australian may have “doxxed” Mr Carroll, in breach of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, by referring to the location of his place of work as “an office near Martin Place in the CBD”.
It is unclear from the letter how this reference could constitute doxxing when Mr Carroll himself publicly advertises his office address and phone number on his website.
Mr Carroll in the letter said he had “not yet formed a view” on whether The Australian breached the act in this regard.
Mr Carroll’s lawyers alleged their client “has been regularly subject to threatening and abusive phone calls” since the messages were published.
The legal letter also contended the WhatsApp messages were obtained while Mr Carroll was an employee of BlackBay Lawyers and, as such, was subject to the provisions of the Workplace Surveillance Act, which prohibits disclosure of information unless for “a legitimate purpose”.
StrongRoom AI creditor targeted administrator over sale: court
A StrongRoom AI creditor made “vehement and consistent” attacks against its administrators, who worry it could defeat an attempt to sell the business.
What is the ACT government afraid of in this case?
What message does the ACT government want to send to the people of Australia? That the administration of justice is not taken seriously by the elected representatives in that jurisdiction?