Peter Reynolds and His Lawsuits – Another Short Statement

April 25, 2014

in Personal

As many of you know, I had a court hearing to deal with an application filed by Peter Reynolds on the 11th April. The issue was whether Peter Reynolds had contacted the court on August 2013 when the case was originally struck out to get it reinstated. I turned up and within about five minutes Master Eastman said that he’d looked through the files and was satisfied that the original order had been made in error, so he was reinstating the case. Apparently it was the court admin’s fault. Annoying, but what can you do, really. And that was that. Nothing further has been ordered in terms of actually moving the lawsuit on because they’re going to await the outcome of Peter Reynolds appeal against Chris Bovey before determining directions.

Peter Reynolds naturally responded to this by publishing a blogpost making his usual fabulous interpretation of events. I meant to write up a reply to explain what actually happened, but, ah, I went to a party instead. And then I had a seminary training weekend. And then it was Passover, then 420 and now I have an essay due, so it didn’t happen because, really a blogpost that says “Court case is back on. Peter Reynolds made up some stuff. Nothing else new to report.” is the least important thing I’ve needed to do for the last two weeks. But he’s written another blogpost, so I guess I should get round to writing this one.

Funnily enough, though Peter Reynolds’ various emails, blogposts, and original application stated that I was a perjurer, Peter Reynolds singularly failed to mention this in his argument to the Court and the judge didn’t mention it.  And yet he’s gone back to claiming that I habitually make false statements to the court. Weird how he says that in public but not to the actual judge who could actually do something about it – if it were true.

Peter Reynolds also likes to make out that he’s somehow doing me a favour by repeatedly calling me mentally ill and trying to patronise me over the fact that I have a disability. I’d point out that this isn’t actually cool but I’ve already done that and he’s apparently has all of this compassion and concern and sympathy for my “mental health conditions” that doesn’t extend to not making out that I’m crazy and mentally unstable wherever possible. Stuff like this:

Sympathetic, isn't it?

Generous and conciliatory, isn’t it?

Just to briefly deal with this issue of the police and harrassment and service and things, as he complained about it at the hearing as well: I told Peter Reynolds to contact me by  a particular address. He’s been sending letters everywhere but there. It was stressing me out, so I told the police. They told him to knock it off. He’s been whinging about it ever since.

Anyway, the “five minute discussion” which followed the hearing was the most interesting bit. Master Eastman finished what he was saying with “and I notice you two have never actually gone to mediation – why don’t you just go out into the hallway right now and try to sort it out?” And  he said yes, and I said yes, so we both went outside and had a fascinating discussion in which it became obvious in about 90 seconds that the underlying issues that he sank all this time and money into suing me for aren’t really issues. So now I haven’t any real idea why he’s suing me. I realise that sounds bizarre and I don’t think it appropriate to go into any more detail than that right now, but  it has left me wondering why he couldn’t have had that 90 second conversation with me when I suggested mediation last year instead of having a temper tantrum and breaking off all communication. Which, you know, I was fine with, but it has dragged out this case for more than a year for seemingly no reason.

That conversation, incidentally, lasted five minutes because Peter Reynolds stomped off after that time. His version of events claimed I “shrieked” that he was a bigot after his retreating back, but that’s not quite what happened, was it Peter? I’ve never ‘shrieked’ at anyone on my life. I actually called you a bigot to your face, didn’t I, Peter? I was sitting chilling out on a bench talking to your son and when you said something along the lines that I knew my articles were lies, and I said “Well, I do think you’re a bigot”, didn’t I? And you went red, shouted “That’s just an insult!” and walked off. But who would let the truth get in the way of a good story. I bet his mates down the pub hear all kinds of tall tales about the women Peter’s made ‘shriek’.

By the way, Peter Reynolds also demanded I pay £4,000 in costs for the hearing, but when he brought this up Master Eastman politely told him to get lost. I point this out because Peter Reynolds appears to have forgotten it in his write-up, just in case you want to remind him.

Anyway, Peter’s son, Richard Reynolds, has now picked up the communication ball and appears to be a sane and rational human being, so I have been sent settlement terms that I’m going to respond to in due course. Now if you will excuse me, my essay beckons.

Be Sociable, Share!

Related Posts:

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

Pea Tear Rain Olds April 25, 2014 at 12:14 pm

Funny article, especially stories of making other women shriek, made me lol. Well done again. This scum bag thrives on his victims silence. Tell the world what really happened :)

Reply

Sarah Martin April 25, 2014 at 12:45 pm

Why are desperate men so entertaining? Along with many others, we’re sorry you we’re given so much trouble by the bigot. However, thank you for making the whole experience fun for us! It’s so essential for health. :) He’s sort of a destructive turd for the healing herb.

Reply

Stevie April 25, 2014 at 1:25 pm

Not many really care what happens to you Sarah, your behaviour speaks for itself, the reality is you have been very very complicit in a smear campaign and have done more harm to getting cannabis legalised than good.

Your petty squabble with Peter brought you much more visitors to your blog than before, so blogwise you benefited from the this squabble and perhaps felt more empowered believing your views to be popular.

Nice photo of you with businessman and dealer of death Chris Bovey whom you have no problem with what he does and do not question his motivation in attacking a cannabis movement, he has mad a tidy sum from prohibition and you have aided and abetted in one of the vilest attacks I and many others have witnessed.

I suspect you will settle and then make some sort of victory claim, nonetheless when this is done and dusted your blog will be what it was before this squabble, insignificant.

Reply

Chris April 25, 2014 at 2:38 pm

^ Hi Peter,

you can peddle your lies on the Internet, but since everyone knows you are a proven liar and a pathetic joke, it doesn’t really bother me what lies you say about me. You are the biggest danger to the campaign to legalise cannabis in the UK, which is why so many people think you are an Agent Provocateur, a theory I personally do not buy, I just think you’re simply a twat whose brain has been damaged from years of alcohol and cocaine abuse.

I trust you received the costs bill from my lawyers and I look forward to your response and subsequent payment of the rather large legal fees incurred as a result of the failed defamation writ you issued against me for calling you a racist homophobic antiSemitic bigot.

I’m sure Sarah’s and Greg’s case will go the same way and I hope Greg’s specialist lawyers send you another big bill for your stupidity when that case is ultimately lost, which I’m sure it will be.

Chris.

Reply

MatSouthwell April 25, 2014 at 4:16 pm

Hi Sarah,

Thanks for the update. Sorry to hear that you are still tied up in this PR psychodrama.

Glad to hear that your prioritising what matters and giving PR little consideration.

People who sling round shit about mental health when they can win on the issues.

All power to you.

Mat

Reply

Alistair Myles April 25, 2014 at 5:18 pm

Chris Bovey dealer of death?? I’d be interested to read any reports of his customers dying from any of the products he sells. I strongly suspect I never will get to read any, though. Probably because there aren’t any.
So, is that slander, libel or defamation? I get confused on such matters.

Reply

Chris April 25, 2014 at 5:38 pm

Ali,
Of course not; though it’s a shame, when I had the misfortune to have the repugnant man in my office a few years go and he took away a batch of free samples, which he subsequently repeatedly bugged me for more of, that they didn’t have such an effect.

Perhaps someone could give him some datura stramonium? A legal substance that can induce a three week trip that may leave you never feeling the same again.

Chris.

Reply

Cancel reply

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: