Posts Tagged ‘NORML’
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.
A Shyster Lawyer To Defend A Scumbag Drug Dealer? Call Saul!
Saul Goodman Channels Essex Used Car Dealer
When Chris Bovey, Europe’s biggest dealer in highly toxic synthetic cannabinoids, needs a lawyer, who does he turn to?
The sartorial style is almost an exact match. It takes considerable skill to wear an expensive suit so it looks cheap. An oversized shirt collar and a polyester tie is an excellent start.
Such are the dubious talents of Pinder Reaux, Essex-based solicitors more used to prosecuting internet trolls like Bovey than defending them. Now specialising in representing porn stars, knock down prices are offered for legal services with puff pieces on daytime television in true white stilletto style.
Pinder Reaux’s Senior Partner
In an astonishing display of unprofessional conduct and laughable self-congratulation, John ‘Saul’ Spyrou, a partner in Pinder Reaux, wrote about my action against Bovey on his firms’s website.
“… in certain cases, an uber-aggressive application can be made to strike the case out, often on procedural grounds.”
This blathering about his heroics in succeeding (for now) in his strike out application against a litigant in person says a lot about Spyrou. The only person who can claim credit for enabling Bovey (so far) to evade the consequences of his abuse is his delightful and dazzlingly sharp counsel, Yuli Takatsuki.
John Spyrou
‘Call Saul’ is the necessary interloper between a villain and the skill necessary to delay and procrastinate over the truth. “Uber aggressive” is a phrase that reveals everything about its author and the veracity of the defence he pleads.
Chris Bovey Begins His Hate Campaign In March 2012.
In a Facebook discussion, on or about 29th March 2012, with Levent Akbulut, Orson Boon, Sanj Chowdhary, Greg Cure de Hoedt, Des Humphrey and Clark French.
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.
Who Is Secretly Working To Keep Pot Illegal – Big Pharma?
This is an extract from an article by Steven Kotler, a science writer who lives in New Mexico. The full article can be read here.
In 2009, the global pharmaceutical market was worth $837 billion—and it’s on track to top $1 trillion by 2014. This is a lot of money to spread around, so when it comes to lobbying efforts, very few have this group’s clout. Mostly, Big Pharma gets what Big Pharma wants. And one thing it wants is for marijuana to remain illegal.
It’s not hard to figure out why. You can’t patent a plant—and that’s a big problem for pharmaceutical companies when it comes to medical marijuana.
Why?
Imagine a wonder drug able to provide much-needed relief from dozens and dozens of conditions. Imagine it’s cheap, easy to grow, easy to dispense, easy to ingest and, over millennia of “product testing,” has produced no fatalities and few side effects—except for the fact that it “reportedly” makes you feel really, really good. That would be quite a drug. Knowing all this, it’s easy to see why the pharmaceutical industry worries about competition from marijuana.
And besides its palliative prowess, researchers consistently find that patients prefer smoking marijuana to taking prescription drugs. In another study run by Reiman, 66 percent of her patients used cannabis as a substitute for prescription drugs; 68 percent used it instead of prescription drugs to treat a chronic condition and 85 percent reported that cannabis had fewer side effects than other medicines.
Miracle Medicine
Early on, the pharmaceutical industry fought back by spending money on anti-pot efforts, but the same NORML investigation that fingered the alcohol and tobacco industries as heavy backers of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America found that Big Pharma was doing so as well. “They were so embarrassed by that revelation” says MAPS founder Rick Doblin, “that they mostly stopped spending money on anti-marijuana lobbying efforts.”
Since then, the pharmaceutical industry has shifted its focus to developing alternatives to medical cannabis, often taking the traditional reductionist approach. Specifically, these days, if a pharmaceutical company wants to turn a plant into a medicine they isolate the most active ingredient and make what’s known as a “single-compound drug.” Morphine, for example, is really just the chemical core of the poppy plant. This too has been tried with marijuana. Out of the 400 chemicals in marijuana, 80 of them belong to a class called “cannabinoids.” Out of those 80 cannabinoids, a number of pharmaceutical companies have tried reducing marijuana to only one: THC. But the results have been unsatisfactory.
“There are certain cases,” says Doblin, “where the single-compound formula works wonders. But it’s just not true in every case. The pharmaceutical industry keeps claiming they’re not worried about medical marijuana because they make a better product, but when you reduce cannabis to just THC, you lose efficacy and gain side effects.”
Peter Reynolds 