Posts Tagged ‘Cure Ukay’
High Court Orders Injunction Against Greg ‘Cure Ukay’ De Hoedt.
Greg De Hoedt
There is little else that needs to be said about this. It is self-explanatory and is a total vindication of my action against De Hoedt to stop his lies and abuse.
I was forced to take legal action against four people with regard to the hate campaign that was launched against me back in 2012. I reached a settlement agreement with Alun Buffry. A consent order concluding my claim against Sarah McCulloch will be published shortly and De Hoedt is now restrained from repeating or causing to be repeated any of his lies on pain of going to jail.
The ringleader Chris Bovey is still to face justice. Whether I can succeed against his great wealth and army of solicitors and barristers remains to be seen but the issues are the same. Bovey is probably the most malevolent, dishonest manipulator I have met in my life and he is responsible for encouraging the other defendants into the conduct that led them to the High Court. He has a great deal to answer for both to those he has misled and to the massive damage he has caused to the cannabis campaign in the UK. I particularly regret the way he turned Greg De Hoedt against me. I counted Greg as a close friend and it causes me great heartache that I had to pursue him to this extent.
Bovey has had my claim against him struck out on procedural grounds. My appeal will probably be heard in the autumn. Given new case law that has arisen in the meantime I have good grounds for optimism. If I succeed and the substantive issues in my claim are heard then he will be looking at a damages award well into six figures. Bovey’s biggest problem is that if an award is made against him, he has the assets which the Court can seize.
High Court Judgment On Greg De Hoedt.
Reynolds v De Hoedt
Hearing note – 22 May 2014
Royal Courts of Justice
Master Bard in Chambers
Application to set-aside Default Judgment of 23 February 2014
JUDGMENT
Greg De Hoedt
1. This is an application to set aside a Default Judgment of 23 February in a libel action brought by the Claimant.
2. The Defendant has been represented by Mr McLean. The Claimant was represented by a Mackenzie friend, who is a pupil, who addressed me in terms clear and modest, and perfectly proper.
3. The temperate nature of the hearing has not been matched by the matters which have gone on between the parties. The Claimant is president of CLEAR which is campaigning for the legalisation of cannabis. The Defendant and others used to be with CLEAR but departed in circumstances described at best as acrimonious and became associated with NORML which has similar aims. As it happens there has been a great deal of unpleasantness and vituperation. As far as I can tell it has been largely one way and directed at the Claimant, who has brought libel proceedings against three defendants.
4. The evidence shows that the Defendant was not responsive or receptive to approaches from the Claimant to seek to get him to desist publishing numerous defamatory allegations on the internet and not prepared to provide an address for service. When the Claimant used the business premises associated with the Defendant and the Defendant’s parent’s address on both occasions the documents were returned. The Defendant states that he had not been given the documents or told about them. This is something I am asked to view askance, suffice to say Master Eastman was prepared on seeing the Sheriff’s documents showing contracts at a particular address to make an Order deeming that an address for service.
5. Default Judgment was granted on 23 February. On 26 February the Claimant notified the Defendant by email. On 14 March the Defendant’s Solicitor went on record. On 26 March about 28 days after the judgment was granted the Application was made to set-aside.
6. The Claimant is seeking damages and an injunction and Master Eastman did not have power to grant an injunction and he directed when entering Judgment that it was for the Claimant to list the application for an injunction before a judge. This is due on 4 June
7. I have not so far gone into the detail of the allegations made and complained of in the Particulars of Claim. I should start by commenting that a considerable amount of what has been said by the Defendant can only be characterised as puerile, as to the publications and the response which has arisen from attempts by the Claimant to be in contact with him. Although the Defendant contends that the Claimant directed tirades at him I have seen no evidence of this. The way the Claimant has expressed himself has been surprisingly temperate given the nature of the allegations published. Without going into any details the substance includes that he has paedophilic tendencies, he has reported cannabis users to the police, a serious allegation for him, that he has been pocketing large sums of money from CLEAR and that he has been given to exposing himself on the internet. I take these as a snapshot and there are other allegations.
8. I am asked to set-aside Default Judgment in circumstances where the Defendant is coming from a place which is less than attractive. Not only has he posted these puerile allegations on the internet, not only has there been apparent attempts to avoid service, as has been seen from what was tweeted by himself there is a certain kind of mockery over the Claimant’s attempt to gain redress. The Defendant produced a Witness Statement. In it he says that the Claimant has regularly subjected him to abuse by email, including making threats to take legal action. Apart from proper and understandable threats about publications I can seen no evidence at all of any regular abuse on the part of the Claimant against the Defendant. Further, although the Defendant says in his Witness Statement that will raise substantive defences he does not seek to do so at all.
9. In all these circumstances, Mr McLean properly in seeking to address me on the set-aside Application has not focused on condition (a) because subject to the pleadings point he acknowledges that the Defendant has not put forward evidence to that effect but that there is another good reason the Defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.
10. I have to bear in mind questions of whether the Application was made promptly…… It does not seem to me that this will be determinative of the matter. It seems that the Defendant within 2 weeks or so of learning of the Judgment had solicitors on record. Within 12 days they filed the Application to set aside the Judgment. I am not prepared to say that this is so tardy as to cause discretion to be exercised against the Defendant.
11. Because of the Defendant’s unattractive behaviour and him making it difficult that I should rely on those as good reason to decline to consider discretion rather than exercise it as he has not come to Court with clean hands. That makes the Defendant’s position unattractive but if there is a good reason to set aside then that ought not to stand in his way although it may stand in costs.
12. The strongest point that Mr McLean makes is his attack on the Particulars of Claim because he says for various reasons they are defective. I have no intention of going into details of criticisms some of which are better than others. Most of the criticisms are directed towards the point that the extent of publication cannot be known, that there is not enough material to assess damages, that sometimes the words used are not sufficiently or properly pleaded or particularised, that the claim for exemplary damages is inappropriate, that pleading malice as freestanding is inappropriate
13. I am told that Master Eastman has struck out a claim against Bovey but that is not a claim in identical form to this and not knowing the basis I am not bound by that. The Claimant acknowledges the force in some observations by the Defendant. His desire is not to seek substantial damages, not least because he recognises the difficulty of enforcement, but rather to get a judgment in his favour and an injunction to support it. He has indicated that he would be satisfied with nominal damages to have this matter dealt with once and for all, a sum of £5.
14. There is force in some of Defendant’s criticism, exemplary damages would not be awarded, malice is inappropriately pleaded but there is a good deal of material in the Particulars of Claim in publications printed off the internet which are attached to it which does meet with sufficient standards to stand up as adequate pleading it may be if matters are to go further pleadings may have to be considered
15. I have to deal with this in a manner which is proportionate and an efficient use of the Court’s resources. In exercise of my discretion, the Defendant cannot complain about the Particulars, given his failure to respond he cannot complain about judgment at £5 and a order for costs against him with the Claimant going for an injunction .
16. In regards to the Particulars of Claim, whatever particulars can stand that up as a matter to which there is no defence, there is no real prospect of successfully defending, on the material, even if pleaded by an expert, there is no good reason why judgment should be set aside or varied … nominal damages are assessed at £5, I am dismissing the application and the Claimant has costs of the Application and the action.
17. Upon hearing the solicitor for the Defendant and the Claimant in person with the assistance of a Mackenzie friend, and upon the Claimant reducing his damages to nominal damages of £5, I order;
1. Application to set aside dismissed
2. Damages assessed at £5
3. Defendant to pay the Claimants’ cost of the Application and of action to date.
COSTS
18. I will assess the litigant in person’s costs now…..Total at £18/hour. There is nothing objectionable in this. This is summarily assessed at £5000.
PERMISSION TO APPEAL
19. I am asked permission to appeal on two grounds:
1. To enlarge the Defendant’s Witness Statement
2. That the claim should be stuck out because of the way in which it is pleaded
20. I do not agree on 1. There is nothing put forward by way of real prospect so this cannot amount to a ground of appeal
21. As far as the 2nd is concerned there is no current application to strike out the claim, merely an Application for setting aside, I have expressed the view for the purposes of a judgment for nominal damages that there is easily sufficient pleadings for it to be inappropriate to set aside, it would be a wasteful use of the Court’s resources and disproportionate. Therefore I refuse permission to appeal
22. Really this is not a seemly way for anyone to conduct a genuine political campaign to be behaving. This is the sort of thing which would give that campaign a bad name… Mr McLean please pass on to your client that he should reflect on this.
23. In the same way it should be understood that it can be inflammatory to crow about a victory. I can understand any step into the right direction affords personal satisfaction. However, it must be in the interest of parties, the legal system, and the cause for this to come to an end. They are not flying the flag in an appropriate manner.
Download Greg De Hoedt’s Witness Statement
Download Peter Reynolds’ Witness Statement
Download Defendant’s Skeleton Argument
Download Claimant’s Skeleton Argument
Greg ‘Cure Ukay’ De Hoedt Ordered To Pay Peter Reynolds £5,000.
Yesterday in the High Court, represented by the top firm of media lawyers, David Price Solicitors and Advocates, Greg De Hoedt’s application to set aside the judgment I had obtained against him was dismissed. He was ordered to pay me £5,000 and refused leave to appeal.
A full transcript of the Judgment will be published here shortly. Suffice to say that the words spoken by the Judge, Master Nicholas Bard, vindicated me far more than I had dared to hope. He also had extremely harsh words to say about Chris Bovey and Sarah McCulloch, the other people I have been forced to sue for defamation.
As far as De Hoedt is concerned, he will have to find £5,000 14 days from now or face enforcement action. There is also a further hearing on 4th June 2014 when I am confident of obtaining an injunction against him restraining him from further defamation. If he breaches this he will go to jail.
Greg was a friend of mine and I put a lot of time, effort and money into helping him, both with his health problems and his campaigning. CLEAR also funded him on one of his trips to the USA. I greatly regret that he turned against me but I count him as a victim in this as well. He was misled and manipulated by Chris Bovey who is the real villain behind all of this. Bovey is a liar and a bully, not to say Europe’s biggest dealer in highly toxic synthetic cannabinoids. He will use and abuse anyone to achieve his own ends. Justice will not be achieved until he too has been called to account.
High Court Orders Judgement Against Greg ‘Cure Ukay’ De Hoedt.
The High Court has granted judgement in my favour in my Claim for defamation against Greg De Hoedt.
A hearing will take place on 11th April 2014 to determine the amount of damages and costs he must pay me. Supported by this judgement I will now apply for an injunction preventing him from any further defamation or harassment.
The Truth Behind The Peter Reynolds Hate Campaign.
I am delighted to announce that a new website is in the process of construction which will set out all the facts and evidence about the hate campaign that I have been subject to since I was elected as leader of CLEAR. Two people have volunteered to run this on my behalf and I am most grateful to them. Stringent security precautions will be taken to protect them as those who run the campaign against me have shown that they are prepared to use abuse, harassment, blackmail, intimidation and all sorts of threats including violence.
Chris Bovey
The principal ringleader, Chris Bovey of Totnes, succeeded in having my claim for defamation struck out in the High Court last month. In essence, he has spent about £50,000 with his lawyers to have my Claim struck out without any of the evidence or issues being heard. Of course, this was his only hope because the evidence against him is impossible to defeat. It is by his own hand and shows unequivocally that he is a liar and was acting out of malice in everything that he published about me and paid others to publish. All the evidence will shortly be published on the new website.
My appeal against the Order striking out my claim is being prepared. The Order is in direct conflict with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998, which states:
“In the determination of [my] civil rights [I am] entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
There has, of course, been no hearing at all on any of the evidence or issues which my Claim concerns.
Sarah McCulloch
Another leader of the hate campaign is Sarah McCulloch, who has written a whole series of defamatory articles about me making all sorts of false and quite ridiculous accusations. I discovered when she filed a defence that she suffers from two diagnosed mental health conditions. I therefore made very generous offers to her to settle which would have avoided her paying me any damages at all. All I asked was that she remove the lies about me that she has published on her website.
However, in response she has perjured herself in an application to the Court which she failed to give me notice of. A hearing will be held shortly at which the Court will consider her perjury and the deception she used in making an application which I knew nothing about. Just yesterday I received a long pleading document from her in which she admits she has made a ‘mistake’. I do not know what the consequences will be for her but my offer of settlement remains open.
Greg De Hoedt
Greg ‘Cure Ukay’ De Hoedt spent six months publishing the disgusting lie that I am a paedophile. He has now spent more than a year hiding from me and trying to evade service of my Claim, using both his mother and Bovey to provide false information to the Court. However, a hearing was held on 5th November 2013 giving him a final opportunity to accept service which he has failed to do. A further hearing is now due at which judgment will be entered against him.
There are of course a few other footsoldiers involved who continue to stalk me and post abuse wherever I or my work with CLEAR are mentioned. Full details of their identities and evidence of their activities will also be published on the new website.
Stuart Wyatt
Probably the most prolific is the severely disabled Stuart Wyatt of Plymouth. He already has a terrible reputation as an internet troll and for violent attacks on people using his wheelchair. Sadly, he has little else to do with his life. He deluges me with emails on at least a weekly basis and has spent years stalking me and trying to stir up hatred against me. All his vile abuse will be published on the new website.
Also there is the hilarious Peter Reynolds Watch website, funded by Bovey and based offshore in Iceland where it is out of reach of the Court. At first this caused me great worry and distress. However, in the last year or so it has descended so far into absurdity that it has become a parody of itself, so ridiculous that it shows very clearly how dishonest and malicious are those responsible for it.
As soon as the new website goes live I will post the link here.
Chris Bovey’s Gang Of Twitter Trolls.
This is the serial abuser Chris Bovey’s latest escapade – as vile, offensive and disgusting as everything else he’s been publishing about me since the end of March 2012. This is the true measure of the man.
I’ve kept quiet about his behaviour and the vast quantity of evidence I have about him but as I wrote last week, I shall not be silent any more. This is the sort of attack that I have been subject to on virtually a daily basis for nearly two years, all at the hands of the gang that Bovey runs and finances out of the profits from the sale of highly toxic, synthetic cannabinoids.
Just recently I’ve become aware of the way that so many women, similarly abused on Twitter, deal with it. They re-tweet. They display their abusers in all their shameful glory. That is what I’m now going to do with Bovey and his gang of trolls. I am going to publish all the disgusting abuse, blackmail, threats and harassment they have been engaged in, not just against me but against my family and my colleagues on the CLEAR executive committee.
This fake Twitter account, as you will see, has been set up in my name a few days ago (my genuine Twitter username is @TweeterReynolds) and has used a photo of me, copied from my Facebook page, which was only taken last Saturday when I was at a rugby match with my two sons. This has been superimposed over a picture of a public toilet and uses a ‘paedophile information exchange’ header which shows an adult having sex with a child. This sums up perfectly the typical behaviour and mindset of Bovey and his gang.
There are also pictures of Derek Williams and Mark Palmer (wearing his ‘dealer’ costume when we were filming a video). Derek and Mark are two of the longest serving and most respected cannabis law reform campaigners in Britain. Shortly I will publish an article detailing the abuse that Bovey and his gang have subjected them to. In particular, disgusting intimidation and threats against Derek and the most dreadful abusive bullying by Bovey in person which will shock any decent person when they read it.
I didn’t know what the NAMbLA logo was until I googled it. It’s the North American Man/Boy Love Association, a paedophile advocacy group. Perhaps Bovey got this idea from Greg ‘Cure Ukay’ de Hoedt. He spent six months posting messages on Facebook that I am a paedophile and posting forged sex profiles of me. I am hopeful of obtaining judgment against him in the High Court very shortly. There must be many people who don’t know the true character of those who set up NORML UK after their hijack of the CLEAR website and theft of our membership list. They have dragged the good name of NORML into the gutter in Britain.
There is a vast quantity of evidence of Bovey’s abuse which I shall be posting over the next few weeks.
The First Victory In The Fight Back Against Hatred And Abuse.
I have now settled my claim for defamation against Dr Gary Potter, London South Bank University and the Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium (GCCRC), consisting of more than a dozen universities and academic institutions across the world.
The claim concerned statements published on the GCCRC website by Chris Bovey, Alun Buffry, Edwin Stratton and Stuart Wyatt. Dr Potter has published an apology on the GCCRC website which describes the statements as “derogatory“, “without evidence” and “defamatory“.
Dr Potter’s apology in full:
“On the 28 November 2012 and 29 November 2012 in response to various third party postings on the discussion forum on the GCCRC website I made certain comments about Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR), Peter Reynolds, UKCIA, and Derek Williams. The third party postings I was responding to were derogatory and provided no evidence in respect of the allegations made against Mr Reynolds, Mr Williams, CLEAR and UKCIA. As such my comments were ill-considered and I unreservedly apologise for making them.
I wish to make it clear that the GCCRC is not affiliated with, nor does it support nor oppose any particular individual or group in the cannabis law reform movement or otherwise. Its purpose is to support the carrying out of important research, and all personal information collected in the course of that research is kept strictly confidential and is never shared with third parties. I would ask that in the future individuals do not use the GCCRC site to make public defamatory comments about any third party, and in the alternative if they have legitimate concerns these should be raised by email to the GCCRC using the email functionality on the GCCRC website.”
Further terms of the settlement are confidential.
This is the first domino to fall and my High Court claims against Bovey, Buffry, Greg ‘Cure Ukay’ De Hoedt and Sarah McCulloch are proceeding apace. Those, including Stratton and Wyatt, who have also been concerned in this campaign of abuse, harassment and defamation can expect to hear from me shortly.
Of course, this abuse has not just affected me. What finally moved me to launch legal action was when the hate campaign started to target my children and my 78 year old mother. Those concerned have already been involved in abusing and blackmailing various CLEAR members. One past member of our executive committee had posted pictures of his grow on a forum and these were sent to his local police using information stolen from the CLEAR website when it was hacked in March of last year. Threats were even made against CLEAR supporters in the USA using the same stolen information. Derek Williams has suffered repeated attempts to blacken his name with his employers. I salute his courage and steadfast support.
Finally, I should make it very clear that I do not associate the estimable and reputable US organisation NORML with those involved in the management of its UK chapter (NUK), nor the NUK members who are innocent pawns in the anti-CLEAR campaign.
WANTED. DEAD OR ALIVE.
For gross violation of all the ethics of friendship.
For deserting his friends and mates and running off to the US of A.
For flagrantly, negligently and with smug aforethought, glorifying in his experience of Colorado’s finest farms, dispensaries and marijuana with no thought whatsoever for the misery and dereliction of his chums…
Left behind…
In Blighty.
THIS MAN MUST BE CAUGHT!
A Tale Of Two Conferences
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair…”
A Tale Of Two Cities, Charles Dickens.
It was at its best as the brave Clark French and Cure Ukay gave their personal testimonies as medicinal cannabis users at the European Student Drug Policy Reform Conference. It was at its worst when Peter Hitchens confronted me and Sir Ian Gilmore at the University of Bedfordshire “A Ceasefire In The War On Drugs?” debate.
The Cannabis Panel
I am so proud to have been associated with both Clark’s and Cure’s contributions at the Manchester conference last weekend. There were tears in the audience as first Clark, who has MS, then Cure, who has Crohn’s, explained the reality of their daily lives and the relief that cannabis provides. The following day, Clark had a relapse and he hobbled to the front to explain, his legs in spasm. He went outside to take his medicine and literally skipped back into the conference hall. It was like watching Christ telling someone to take up his bed and walk. It was intensely moving. It refreshed my enthusiasm. It reignited my rage. They are both warriors for the cause of great courage and dedication. They are my inspiration.
The conference was a worthy and well-organised event. Lembit Opik gave a barnstorming speech which had them whooping and cheering in the aisles. There were fascinating contributions from Sebastian Saville and Niamh Eastwood of Release, Darryl Bickler of the Drug Equality Alliance, Chris Hallam and Tom Lloyd of the International Drug Policy Consortium. There were very practical workshops on campaigning and an engrossing lecture from Chris Rose of Campaign Strategies. I know I’m biased but I think Clark and Cure were the stars of the show!
And so to London on Wednesday evening for the debate at Kings College University, near Waterloo. As I walked into the lecture theatre, there was Peter Hitchens chatting with Sir Ian Gilmore. I marched straight up and introduced myself, explaining to Hitchens that I am responsible for the four Press Complaints Commission complaints that he is currently facing. I enquired after his brother’s health and he gave me a long and detailed explanation about Christopher’s oseophageal cancer. He was extremely courteous to me. I took my seat directly in front of him.
Ceasefire In The War On Drugs?
Hitchens spoke first. He is the arch dissembler, presenting facts in such a way that he draws you towards a false conclusion. To be fair, he is a fine speaker but at the heart of his argument is an intellectual vacuum.
Sir Ian Gilmore, ex-president of the Royal College of Physicians went next. He was quiet and dignified and presented a very scientific approach to harm reduction. Finally, Tim Hollis, Chief Constable of Humberside, stood in for David Blunkett. He was an entertaining speaker. I always rather like intelligent policemen. They have a difficult job to do and I think the good ones are very valuable to society.
So to questions…and I was fidgeting in my seat with impatience! I had my go, talked about the harms of prohibition, about taking the more pragmatic approach with a regulated system and the evil injustice of the denial of medicinal cannabis. Right in front of me Hitchens was visibly seething. When I pointed out that his brother is a passionate advocate of medical marijuana he snapped. He pointed at me, glared and shouted “Leave my brother out of it!”.
Steve Rolles from Transform spoke as did Harry Shapiro from Drugscope. Tom Lloyd, who had also spoken in Manchester contributed and there were many other intelligent observations and comments. Hitchens was clearly unhappy.
We went back to the panel and Hitchens was aggressive in his response, gesturing at me and talking of “idiots” and accusing Sir Ian of talking “drivel”. I heckled him. he promised to “deal with you later” with another Alan Sugar-style stab of the finger. Sir Ian was next and he rather politely suggested that “Peter has his head in the sand” – at which Hitchens exploded!
He grabbed his coat and bag and made as if to leave. It was a very deliberate flounce in high dudgeon. Later it was suggested he did it for dramatic effect but no, it made him look foolish. He was flummoxed by the opposition.
The chairman, ex-BBC presenter John Silverman, skillfully restrained him and persuaded him to stay. In his closing statement Hitchens quoted some statistics from Portugal in an effort to disprove that country’s success with decriminalisation. It would be against the rules for me to accuse him of anything more than dissembling but no one in the room recognised any truth in his figures.
It was an entertaining evening and a good opportunity to raise the profile of CLEAR. I’m back next week for another session entitled “How the World’s View of the Drugs ‘war’ is Changing”.
Peter Reynolds 