Monthly Archives: August, 2019

Hollie Greig 19 Years and still fighting for Justice

the hollie greig case

The Hollie Greig case is so complicated that I believe it is worthwhile to recap the key facts.

In 2000, Hollie, a twenty year old woman with Downs Syndrome, told her mother, Anne, that she had been abused over many years by a paedophile ring in her home town of Aberdeen.

These allegations were reported to Grampian Police but their “investigation” was extremely limited. They only interviewed 2 members of the alleged ring on one occasion each and failed to interview any of the other 6 children named by Hollie as fellow-victims. There were no searches made at any of the properties where the abuse was alleged to have taken place and no medical experts were asked to assist.

Shortly after the allegations were made, Anne was forcibly sectioned against her will in Cornhill Psychiatric Hospital in Aberdeen where she was held for 3 days. It is a matter of public record that this sectioning was initiated by Grampian Police. Anne has no history of mental illness and, within a few weeks of her release from Cornhill, she was assessed by an independent psychiatrist who pronounced her perfectly sane.

Hollie Greig: Child Abuse by the Aberdeen Establishment

In 2005, Hollie was awarded £13,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, in spite of the fact that no-one had ever been charged with any offence. The CICA based it’s award on evidence from medical experts, including the eminent psychologist Dr Eva Harding who stated unequivocally that Hollie had been sexually abused.

Anne and Hollie did not regard this payout as a satisfactory conclusion and were determined to see the abusers brought to justice. However they were continually frustrated in their attempts by officialdom and felt as if they were banging their heads against a brick wall.

The Evidence, Mr. Robert Green on UK Column Nov 8 2012

In 2009, I began to assist Anne and Hollie and, after encountering the same type of problems when trying to achieve justice through the official channels, I was encouraged when I was approached by the BBC who asked if they could produce a documentary about the case. However this proved to be another disappointment as, after two months working on the programme, the BBC abruptly decided to halt production.

In October 2009, in an attempt to break the impasse, I named the members of the alleged paedophile ring at a public meeting in Edinburgh. This prompted some limited media coverage in publications including “The Firm” and “UK Column”. In December 2009, Scotland’s most senior legal official, the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, issued a warning letter to various media outlets via the Glasgow legal firm Levy & MacRae, asking them not to publicise the case. Mrs Angiolini has declined to answer a Freedom of Information request asking whether she used public funds to pay for this action.

Early in 2010, I announced my intention to stand as a General Election candidate in an Aberdeen constituency. On February 12th 2010 I visited Aberdeen with the intention of distributing leaflets to launch my campaign. Before I could do this however, I was arrested by plain clothes police officers and charged with Breach of the Peace. I was released subject to bail conditions which prohibited me from entering Aberdeenshire or using the internet and required me to report to my local police station thrice weekly. Such is the complexity of the case that I have been awarded Legal Aid to fund a high calibre legal team led by Frances McMenamin QC. My trial is scheduled to commence on November 14th 2011 and is expected to last for two weeks.

Source: Reoert Green’s Blog Summary Of The Hollie Greig Case


by Robert Green

This is already a huge international story, with hundreds of pages on the web, but I will summarize this exceedingly complex story into as brief a commentary as I can.

It is important to note that whilst Hollie Greig has Down`s Syndrome, expert documentary opinion states that she is both a competent and entirely truthful and credible witness. Due to her condition, Hollie does not bring out all memories of the background at once, with the result that we are still learning about new atrocities. Much of this is not yet in the public domain, but is of a most significantly horrifying and sickening nature, going way beyond the bounds of sexual gratification. These incidents took place in the city of Aberdeen, Scotland.


Hollie has testified that she has been sexually abused by 22 named individuals, including her father, who first raped her at the age of six, then her brother, followed by her systematic and continuous ordeals at the hands of a paedophile rape gang, which included a member of the judiciary, a senior police officer, her own head teacher, her carer and other professionals. Hollie also named seven other children she had witnessed as victims of sexual abuse by the gang.

Hollie`s uncle, Roy Greig, was found dead in a stationary burnt-out car on 17th November 1997. Hollie did not tell her mother Anne of the sexual abuses until 2000, when Hollie was twenty. The following year, 2001, Hollie told her mother that her Uncle Roy had walked in one day and found her father abusing her sexually. The father threatened to have Roy killed. Shortly afterward Roy was found dead.

Eleven days after Hollie had named the gang members to the police, a raid was made on her home and without a warrant, her mother Anne was kidnapped, assaulted publicly and thrown into a mental institution, despite having no history of mental illness whatsoever. Hollie was handed back by Aberdeen`s Social Services Department, which had instigated Anne`s abduction, to her abuser father. Anne subsequently managed to get away from the institution and through her solicitor, an eminent specialist pronounced her perfectly sane.


After the sex crimes were reported, the Chief Prosecutor for Aberdeen, a friend of the abuser judge, blocked any meaningful investigation. According to the police report, no crime was committed. Nonetheless, Hollie was awarded £13,500 from public funds to compensate her for a crime that, according to the authorities, did not exist. By all accounts, this is unprecedented in British legal history.

Anne appealed to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, who carried out what they described as a thorough investigation. One of the leading officers who was supposed to investigate the crimes against Hollie and the other children, Detective Sergeant Innes Walker admitted that he had never even spoken to the named abusers or victims. The IPCC did not appear to find this odd in the least. It was discovered subsequently that Walker was personally associated at the time with Hollie`s female carer, one of the abusers. It was also discovered during my own investigations that four medical reports from three medical experts, all acting independently at different times and locations, provided conclusive evidence of the assaults on Hollie, supporting her allegations completely. We have those documents now. They were all deliberately withheld by the police from the official inquiry.

Also withheld was the autopsy on Roy Greig, which we only acquired a year ago. This clearly indicates that he was the victim of a vicious physical assault leading up to his death. The police indicated merely that he had died of smoke inhalation. I am aware of the identity of Roy`s likely killer and stated his name to the police when I was interviewed after being arrested on 12th February 2010. We have just received a copy of the official transcript, allegedly copied from the taped interview. This whole section is missing. Tampering with evidence is a criminal offense.

Following my introduction to the case in 2009, I challenged the Lord Advocate of Scotland, who is head of the entire legal criminal system in Scotland. Her name is Elish Angiolini. She is the same person who in her previous role in Aberdeen as Prosecutor, covered up the case in 2000.

Mrs Angiolini claimed that she knew nothing about Hollie`s case. However, we held three documents, including one from her to Hollie`s solicitor, showing that she was lying. in the summer of 2009, the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond and Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill (also controversially involved in the Lockerbie case) were informed of the Lord Advocate`s blatant dishonesty. They failed to take any action.

In December 2009, the Lord Advocate blocked the second police investigation,despite compelling and overwhelming evidence that many serious crimes had committed. I was actually present when Hollie detailed the abuses and the names of the abusers and locations in a three and a half hour interview with the police on 8th September 2009.

The mainstream media, including the BBC, were warned off any coverage of these terrible events. I later discovered that Mrs Angiolini was using a private law firm, Levy and McRae (Lockerbie again) to threaten the mainstream media over publicizing any possible linkage between her and the Hollie Greig case. It has subsequently been highlighted that she was misappropriating public money to fund a private action. Angiolini and Levy & McRae are now actively obstructing efforts to conclusively discover who paid – I think we already know.


In February I decided to stand in the British General Election, due to take place on 6th May. I traveled to Aberdeen, where I intended to stand, and was grabbed immediately by two detectives and placed in solitary confinement for four days. Whilst being held, four police officers traveled on a 700 mile round-trip to raid my home in England and remove my computer and all other confidential records belonging my clients and me. No search warrant has yet been produced, despite the police stating one was issued. I was banned from entering Aberdeen to conduct my election campaign, the only time such a thing has occurred in 300 years of British Parliamentary history.

Just before the election, on the 14th April, two officers traveled again to England to re-arrest me, in an attempt to prevent me completing documentation necessary for my election candidature. I was still standing, despite the unprecedented restrictions placed upon me. Thanks to a massive public outcry, I was released the following day.

More attempts to stop the campaign continued in England,where Hollie and Anne Greig had fled to in order to escape the rape gang, when the local council in England ludicrously decided that Hollie was a “missing person”, raiding the ladies` home on 3rd June whilst they were on holiday and seizing the computer and personal documents. Again there is no sign of a warrant.


Due to our relentless pressure, Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini was forced to announce her unexpected resignation on 1st October. The person responsible for my own arrest and persecution, Prosecutor Stephen MacGowan was removed from Aberdeen on 22nd October, after making provably false statements about both Hollie and me. One of the individuals in England who was largely responsible for the attack on Hollie and Anne`s home, Councilor Aggie Caesar -Homden resigned her local council post just prior to me confronting her on 1st November.

The campaign continues, going from strength to strength, thanks to the commitment of our many loyal supporters and the amazing courage of a few brave individuals who are mainly working in the rogue police state of Scotland.


We are making sustained attacks on a wide range of fronts, although clearly support from anyone in the mainstream media would blow the case wide open. I have absolutely no doubt that this is the biggest story in Britain today, such is the scope of it.

However, one of our positive aims at present is for a large petition demanding a full, open and independent public inquiry into the Hollie Greig case and those connected with,i.e. the murder of her uncle and the kidnapping and assault on her mother. We are in the strong position of being able to prove that there has been a massive cover-up with documentary evidence. Had the mainstream media had the guts to publish, the Scottish government would have fallen some time ago in the most dreadfully disgraced way.

I shall be in Shrewsbury, in England, on Thursday morning to challenge those from the local council who have even chosen to persecute Hollie and Anne in their place of refuge. Government support for high-level paedophile crime in the United Kingdom extends beyond the borders of Scotland.

It is understood that Hollie`s story may well have been dealt with publicly almost eighteen months ago. However, the Scottish government, fronted by Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, was faced with two scandals simultaneously that would have destroyed the SNP government. The major one, in the eyes of the government, was the El-Megrahi one. Due to the massive international interests, publicity and ramifications, the government could not avoid taking a severe hit on this one, amplified now that the Libyan is still alive, nearly a year after he was expected to have died, according to MacAskill.

The Hollie Greig case, in contrast, at the time involved just two women, one of whom had Down`s Syndrome, supported by some guy in England who no-one had ever heard of. Surely the Scottish government didn`t need to worry about that.

It was a failed political gamble.

Source: Hollie Greig for Dummies

Why Does The Royal Family Hire Child Rapists

Why Does The Royal Family Hire Child Rapists

The British are hypnotized by their Royal family addiction and too cowardly to spend time with the real life reporters who can piece together why the Royal Family connection to child abuse is real.

Update: The Queen has previously been implicated by Kevin Annett over at ITCCS where indigenous native children went missing after a visit by Philip and Elizabeth but this second video (now removed) is even further testimony that the Queen is part of the Paedophile and snuff movie elite. As Bill explains. It’s not sexual.

It’s Satanic.

Robert Green Remembered

By David Scott | Friday, 12th April 2019
Robert Green, tireless campaigner against child abuse, corruption and injustice, died on 11th April 2019 after a short illness.

An inspiration to many, he suffered at the hands of the Scottish State for his defence of Hollie Grieg and her mother Ann.

One of Robert’s supporters, when told of the news, summed it up as follows:

“He was a noble man, a good man, and a fearless man”.

The following is a letter I wrote to The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission on Robert’s behalf, it details why he was innocent of any crime. It was rejected by the the commissioner. Today is a good day for it to be made public.

One name, that of the Sheriff accused by Hollie Greig of being part of the paedophile and satanic rape gang, has been redacted.

27th April 2018

Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

Portland House

17 Renfield Street


G2 5AH


Dear Sirs,


Application on behalf of George Robert Green esq.

Case reference SH10000189


Based on the evidence before me, which is outlined below, I believe that Mr. George Robert Green has suffered a miscarriage of justice warranting reference of his whole case to the High Court. Further, I argue in the following text; that it is strongly in the interest of justice that a reference should be made.


Mr. Green, a man of hitherto unblemished character, was arrested on 12th February 2010 in Aberdeen. At the time, Mr. Green (then aged 63) was a prospective candidate for the parliamentary general election of 2010 in the constituency of Aberdeen South. On the same day he was charged with breach of the peace. Upon summary trial at Stonehaven Sheriff Court, Mr. Green was convicted (on 24th January 2012) of breach of the peace and breach of bail conditions and sentenced (on 17th February 2012) to a total of 12 months’ imprisonment. He served three months at HMP Aberdeen (formerly known as Craiginches) followed by three months on license.

Flawed from the outset, this process commenced with the arrest of Mr. Green on entirely different grounds. When arrested, just off Union Street, by DS Drummond and DC Crowder of Grampian Police, Mr. Green was informed that he had breached an interlocutor. Being a resident of a foreign jurisdiction, that of England, Mr. Green was unfamiliar with this terminology and the officers concerned did not explain the arrest in terms Mr. Green could understand. Handcuffed, he was removed to the cells at Aberdeen police station in Queen Street, where he was held for a total of four days in solitary confinement.

When Mr. Green was questioned by the officers, he was asked when he had arrived in Aberdeen. He replied that he had arrived by train from Warrington, via Edinburgh, at 19:00 hrs. the previous evening, the 11th February. This response caused some consternation on the part of the two aforenamed police officers. Several hours later, an agent from the Crown Office arrived from Edinburgh with documentation alleging breach of the peace, an entirely different charge. It was not until Mr. Green returned home to Warrington on the 15th February to find an interlocutor document at his home that the events started to reveal themselves. This order prohibited Mr. Green from traveling to Aberdeen. It had been delivered to Mr. Green’s home at 21:00 hrs. on 11th February, two hours after he had arrived in Aberdeen. Naturally, Mr. Green was totally unaware of the existence of this document. Therefore Mr. Green’s arrest was entirely fraudulent, being for non-compliance with an interlocutor that was never properly served, and, of which he could have had no knowledge. All the following narrative flows from this false arrest and is thus fruit of this poisonous tree. Had the order been properly served, Mr. Green would have remained in Warrington and sought professional legal advice, and none of the following would have occurred.

This situation is all the more grievous given the clear understanding of the police officers concerned that the arrest was false and specious as soon as Mr. Green confirmed his recent movements. To have the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service then collude with Grampian Police to bring separate and unrelated charges is, in itself, an admission that these parties already knew that Mr. Green had been unlawfully detained but had decided to conceal this information from him.

During his arrest, questioning and charge, Mr. Green was denied access to legal representation despite asking specifically and repeatedly to see a lawyer. “This is Scotland” he was told “we decide when you see a lawyer”. This indeed was the common practice in Scotland at the time, practice subsequently found to be unlawful by the Supreme Court in the landmark Peter Cadder case. It seems probable, even certain, that competent legal advice would have seen Mr. Green released when the reason for his arrest was discovered to be without merit. Thus the original offense against Mr. Green’s human rights was compounded by the later denial of legal representation and advice.

The absence of good faith on the part of the Crown Office and Grampian Police is confirmed by the subsequent falsification of the records of the arrest which read that Mr. Green was “cautioned and detained in connection with terms of Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in relation to a beach of the peace”. This is false.

It is worthy of note that the charge eventually brought was the oft criticised one of breach of the peace. The professional concerns which exist over the frequent abuse of this charge are examined in the Scots Criminal Law and Practice text Breach of the Peace (1990) by M. G. A. Christie, Solicitor and Lecturer in Private Law at the University of Aberdeen. He states, “But regrettably, the crime has been allowed to extend itself to eccentric and trivial behaviours (which happen to be disapproved of by some persons – very often the police) and to become an almost limitless instrument of social control. It is difficult to ascribe blame to any single source for these undesirable developments. But it is thought that these extensions will hardly be constrained without the active cooperation of the accused persons themselves and their agents. In short, too may are persuaded, or persuade themselves, that the charges against them are not worth disputing – even when those charges are of the most dubious colour.” “Charges of the most dubious colour” seems a most apt phrase in this case.


As this juncture, it is necessary to review some of the background to these particular events if a full understanding is to be achieved. Mr. Green was at the time coordinating and leading a mass public campaign on behalf of Anne and Hollie Greig. Hollie, a young woman with Down Syndrome, had been subject to sexual abuse and had been compensated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority with a cash payment of £13,500. This was made on the basis of substantial expert witness testimony, including that of Dr. Jack Boyle and Dr. Eva Harding, and of the investigatory work of Grampian Police who considered her “a reliable and credible witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim”. One of the alleged perpetrators of sexual abuse named by Hollie was Aberdeen Sheriff xxxxxxxx. The aforementioned interlocutor was issued on behalf of Sheriff xxxxxxxx in order that Mr. Green’s campaign could not proceed with his election candidature.

Thus it is necessary to consider the central role of Sheriff xxxxxxxx with respect to two issues: firstly, his privileged position in the criminal justice system in Aberdeen, and secondly, his pretension of a right to interfere with the political process by which parliament is elected. Viewed in its own right, this constitutes a usurpation of the sovereign rights of the people to choose their representatives and make their laws.

To look first at the relationship between Sheriff xxxxxxxx and Grampian Police, it is germane that the agent of Sheriff xxxxxxxx was covertly filming Mr. Green in Union Street and communicating with the two arresting police officers. This raises several concerns. Firstly, to what extent may a sheriff, or similar established figure in the criminal justice system, use his privilege and connections in order to secure special treatment by police officers? What checks and balances must exist to maintain equality before the law and avoid those in high legal positions being above the law or a law unto themselves? Secondly, it seems certain, given their actions, that the police officers, at the time of Mr. Green’s arrest, believed the interlocutor to have been properly served and flagrantly breached. I can see no reasonable conclusion other than that this was how the matter had been represented to the police by Sheriff xxxxxxxx or his agents. What I do not know, and have no reasonable expectation of being able to discover, is whether Sherriff xxxxxxxx knew of the true situation or not. There seems at least a possibility that Grampian Police were willfully misled in order to induce them to make the arrest.

Next, looking at the larger question of democratic freedom, I would suggest that the situation which has here arisen, i.e. the exclusion of a parliamentary candidate, and the effective termination of his campaign, by a well-connected local law officer, has obvious and unacceptable implications for parliamentary democracy. As the people are sovereign in a common law jurisdiction such as Scotland, and thus have the right to determine their laws, and since this right is generally interpreted as a right to elect representatives to a legislating parliament, the interruption of this process by an officer of the court seems to evince such fundamental conflicts and erosion of safeguards as to be completely beyond the scope of lawful behaviour.

As much of the foregoing is based on the fact that the interlocutor was never served on Mr. Green, it is worthy of note that this fact has been accepted by The Court of Session. Mr. Green appealed against the taxation charges levied against him by Sheriff xxxxxxxx, in particular the charges for serving the interlocutor. These charges were duly removed by the Court as it was accepted that the documents concerned had never been served.

Turning now to the period between Mr. Green’s arrest and trial, several matters are worthy of note. This first is that while the case was originally a solemn procedure, it was reduced to a summary process by the Aberdeen Procurator Fiscal. This was against the wishes of Mr. Green and was also contrary to his best interests, as determined by his legal advisor, who concluded that no jury would ever convict him on the basis of the evidence presentable in this case. Mr. Green formally complained about this change, as being denied a jury would be to his serious disadvantage. It is noteworthy that, despite the decrease in maximum custodial sentence which this procedural reduction entailed (from five years to one), Mr. Green, so convinced of his innocence, sought the solemn procedure and the judgment of a jury of his peers nevertheless. Against the background of official collusion described above, the decision of the Procurator Fiscal to opt for a summary procedure in front of a single sheriff is, at the very least, concerning. As will become clear in the subsequent narrative, Mr. Green’s concerns over this unwanted change proved prescient.

A further consequence of the change from solemn to summary was the loss of legal aid support for Mr. Green. This removed Mr. Green’s legal defence team, led by Donald Findlay QC, and resulted in Mr. Green briefly having to defend himself. On 13th April 2011, Mr. Green appeared in Stonehaven Sheriff Court, facing PF Anne Currie. Ms. Currie’s response was to seek an accelerated process and an early trial date commencing on 5th June 2011. This remarkable position, on the face of it completely indefensible in terms of natural justice was defended by Ms. Currie on the basis of an assertion that fifty people had been distressed by Mr. Green’s campaign and of those, she stated, half were suffering from trauma as a result. When, subsequently, legal aid was restored, Mr. Green’s legal team challenged the PF (then Mr. McGowan) to produce medical evidence of trauma in the twenty-five people ostensibly severely affected. Mr. McGowan conceded that no such evidence existed. It therefore seems undeniable that Ms. Currie had attempted to mislead the court as to the condition of the alleged victims in order to place Mr. Green’s defence at yet further disadvantage.

In an extraordinary twist, legal aid was only restored after Mr. Green discovered that the Head of Legal Services in the Scottish Legal Aid Board, Mr. Douglas Haggarty was in fact a convicted sex offender. Mr Green, considering that this fact may occasioned the sudden denial of legal aid, protested publicly about this situation. Once public attention was drawn to this situation, Mr. Green’s legal aid was restored, as suddenly as it had been removed.


Mr. Green’s trial was originally set for November 2011 and his senior counsel was Frances McMenamin QC. During the months leading up to the trial, Ms. McMenamin worked with Mr. Green on his defence, which was predicated on a plea of “not guilty”. During this period Mr. Green’s defence took robust form, and this included the unusual step of citing Procurator Fiscal Stephen McGowan as a chief witness for the defence (more detail on the reasons for this follows below). Within hours of this move, Ms. McMenamin asked to meet with Mr. Green in the presence of junior counsel John McLoughlin and solicitor Gerry Sweeney.

At this meeting, she immediately told Mr. Green that she was only prepared to represent him on the basis that he change his plea to guilty. The reason for this sudden volte-face was a meeting she had had with the trial judge, Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen, following the citation of PF McGowan. She stated that the Sheriff had “thrown down” all of Mr. Green’s evidence, including expert witness statements and the document which formed the basis of PF McGowan’s having been cited. “Thrown down”, she explained, was a literal description of what the Sheriff had done: he had thrown the stack of documents constituting the defence across his desk to illustrate his pertinent refusal to consider the defence documentation. As all of the documents that Ms. McMenamin (and her client Mr. Green) had relied upon for the defence were to be excluded by the Sheriff, Ms. McMenamin concluded that she could only proceed if Mr. Green were to plead guilty. Mr. Green questioned this decision and Ms. McMenamin appeared extremely uncomfortable; she could not explain this sequence of events further or give a rational explanation for the arbitrary nature of the sudden decision by the Sheriff. Mr. Green, considering himself entirely innocent, and thus refusing to plead guilty, was left with no option other than to dismiss Ms. McMenamin from his defence team. Mr. Sweeney continued to offer his support as an amicus curiae until Mr. Green could assemble a replacement legal defence team.

I have spoken to a member of the public gallery, Mr. Neil McKechnie of Dunblane, who was present at a procedural hearing (which Mr. Green was not required to attend). The Sheriff stated in this hearing that he had issued an ultimatum to Ms. McMenamin. The exact nature of this ultimatum is not known to me, but the entire sequence of events would seem to call into question the fairness of the trial and impartiality of the Sheriff.

It is of course a fact that Ms. Frances McMenamin QC is now a member of your board and, thus, measures must be in place to prevent any conflict of interest between her role as SCCRC board member and her role in this case, where she is likely to be called to give evidence of the pressures that she faced in defending Mr. Green and the decisions that she made in the immediate aftermath of citing PF McGowan.

At this juncture, it is necessary to understand Mr. Green’s reasons for citing PF McGowan as defence witness number one. The main reason was a letter dated 4th December 2009 to Anne Greig in which Mr. McGowan stated that the former Procurator Fiscal in Aberdeen (and later Lord Advocate) Elish Angiolini was not involved in the case concerning Hollie Grieg, and was thus not responsible for the failure to carry out a thorough investigation into the abuse suffered by Hollie. Mr. Green was (and is) in possession of official correspondence which refutes this position and shows Ms. Angiolini to have had direct involvement with the case in 2000 and 2001. This was key to the defence because Mr. Green’s subsequent actions were prompted by the failure of the Crown Office, then under the direction of Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, to take appropriate action over the abuse of Hollie Greig. The correspondence shows that when the initial investigation failed to progress in 2000/2001, this was also under the direction of then-Fiscal Elish Angiolini.

This should have been significant in the court’s deliberations when deciding whether Mr. Green’s actions were those of a reasonable and law-abiding concerned member of the public or were in some way criminal. It was Mr. Green’s position that the failure of the authorities (under Elish Angiolini’s direction) was so egregious and left the risk posed to the public at such a severe level, that his campaign was necessary to protect vulnerable children. Furthermore he considered it his Christian duty, given the information at his disposal, to act to prevent other children being similarly abused.  All of this relevant correspondence was included in the bundle of defence evidence cast aside by Sheriff Bowen. Even in breach of the peace cases, it is necessary to demonstrate mens rea, or evil intent. Mr. Green’s actual intent does not appear to have been considered.

Since the trial, further information has come to light and Mr. Kenny MacAskill, former Justice Secretary, and the Justice Directorate have both confirmed Elish Angiolini’s key role in the 2009 decision not to proceed on the Hollie Greig case. This blatantly contradicts correspondence from the Crown Office concerning the handling of the case. These events reinforce Mr Green’s contention that he was acting correctly, dutifully and honorably in the face of official deceit, dissembling and cover-up.

Sheriff Bowen, shortly after the events leading up to Frances McMenamin being dismissed from Mr. Green’s defence team, decided to refuse the defence permission to have Mr. McGowan as a witness.

Ms. McMenanin’s replacement as senior counsel was Gary Allan QC. Mr. Green met with his legal team consisting of Mr. Allan QC, Mr. Macleod (junior counsel) and his new solicitor Frances McCartney in Glasgow in late 2011. At this meeting he insisted that Elish Angiolini should now be called as the primary witness for the defence and should be cited accordingly. Mr. Allan refused to take Mr. Green’s instructions on this matter, claiming that Ms. Angiolini would simply refuse to answer any question that might incriminate her. Mr. Green’s view – that the former Lord Advocate refusing to answer questions concerning a child rape case, on oath, in open court, on the grounds that she may incriminate herself – would be devastating for the prosecution case, was not shared by Mr. Allan. Mr. Allan further disclosed that he had known Ms. Angiolini well for thirty years. As an impasse had been reached, Mr. Green dismissed Mr. Allan immediately for failing to take his instructions.

The next replacement senior counsel was Andrew Lamb QC, who was prepared to take Mr. Green’s instructions and who agreed that the best interests of the defence would be served by citing Elish Angiolini. This was done at the next court hearing and Sheriff Bowen decided to consider the matter. At the subsequent hearing, it was announced that Elish Angiolini had refused to appear before the court. This refusal was supported by Sheriff Bowen and thus the defence was deprived of a second key witness.


The trial commenced on 16th January 2012 at Stonehaven before Sheriff Principal Edward Farquhar Bowen. The prosecution cited 36 witnesses, none of whom was refused by Sheriff Bowen. The defence cited three witnesses, two of whom were refused. The single witness allowed was a journalist who had reported on the Hollie Greig case.

Cross examination of DC Lisa Evans of Grampian Police, the investigating officer who had taken the evidence from Hollie Greig on 8th September 2009, revealed that the police had not interviewed any of the persons named by Hollie as responsible for her abuse and rape following the September interview. Moreover, nine of the persons named by Hollie as her abusers were prosecution witnesses; all were asked whether they had been questioned by the police; all confirmed that they had not been interviewed.

Two further points are worthy of note concerning the trial. Firstly, it became known sometime after the hearing that Grampian Police had in their possession an intelligence report concerning two of the persons accused by Hollie Greig of rape and molestation. This report stated that the two individuals were “believed to have a predilection for very young girls”. This document was not provided to the defence. Secondly, some documents seized by the police were never returned to Mr. Green, hampering his defence; most notable among these was the blue notebook in which he made a record of Hollie’s long interview in which she consistently and clearly named and described her abusers. This document has never been returned to Mr. Green; it has simply vanished.

On 24th January, Sheriff Bowen found Mr. Green guilty of breach of the peace and breach of bail conditions. The sentencing hearing was set for 17th February 2012.

In the interim period, between the conviction and the sentencing hearing, Mr. Green discovered that Sheriff Bowen had failed to disclose his ten-year acquaintanceship with Elish Angiolini from serving on the Northern Lighthouse Board. It transpired that they had both attended at least three meetings of the Northern Lighthouse Board during the period between Mr. Green’s arrest and their resignations from the Board which were tendered on 5th and 6th May 2011 respectively. On the day of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Green challenged Sheriff Bowen concerning his relationship with Ms. Angiolini and his concealment of this association when deciding on the defence motion citing her as a witness. Mr. Green stated that this undisclosed relationship must be reasonably considered to represent a conflict of interest. He asked the Sheriff to recuse himself. He also made it clear that, had the situation been known earlier, he would have called for a recusal at the outset of the proceedings. Sheriff Bowen proceeded with the sentencing regardless.

Mr. Green’s counsel also handed over more than two hundred letters of support from concerned members of the public, many of them professionals. After a fifteen minute recess, the Sheriff proceeded to hand down the sentence which was the maximum permitted for a summary trial – one year imprisonment.

A point to note concerning Mr. Green’s request for recusal of the Sheriffis that this was subsequently considered by the independent Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Moi Ali, who found fifteen errors in the proceedings, all to Mr. Green’s disadvantage. Specifically concerning the undisclosed association between Sheriff Bowen and Elish Angiolini, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer stated; “I believe that the Judicial Office should have referred this aspect of your complaint to the Disciplinary Judge for consideration under rule 10.”.

In his sentencing comments, Sheriff Bowen made statements of a racially or ethnically discriminatory nature concerning Mr. Green. These were witnessed by those present in court, several of whom I have spoken to. The court transcript, however, entirely omits the critical phrases, which, if recorded would show sufficient bias for an appeal to be almost certainly successful. This situation I explored in detail in an 18th December 2014 letter to Lord President Gill, a copy of which is attached, along with the inaccurate official record of the sentencing statements. This matter was the subject of a separate complaint by Mr. Green, ordered by Lord Eassie and heard by Lady Smith. There is in existence an audio recording of the trial which would either prove the transcript to be in error or, even more worrying, would provide forensic evidence of tampering. However, the tape of trial was withheld from Mr. Green by Lady Smith and subsequent requests by Mr. Green’s former MP (and minister of the Crown) David Mowat (Conservative) and Mr. Green’s current  MP, Faisal Rashid (Labour) for a copy of the recording have likewise been rejected by Lady Smith.

In his short and intemperate sentencing statement, Sheriff Bowen had but one criticism for the Crown, ironically one shared by Mr. Green. Sheriff Bowen said, “If the Crown are to be criticised for anything in this matter it is not bringing the case on indictment where you could have been subject to further penalties.”. Had the Sheriff and Mr. Green been granted their wish for the case to be heard on indictment, before a jury, we would not, I am convinced, be where we are today.

One final comment of Sheriff Bowen’s is worthy of note. He said to Mr. Green, “By your campaign you have sought to undermine the criminal justice system and the Government of Scotland as a whole.”. As none of this was in evidence, this is, on surface of it, a strange statement. For reasons I will explain in the conclusion to this letter, the Sheriff was here addressing matters not patently evident but nevertheless underpinning this case, which is so much more than a simple, summary breach of the peace trial.

Post Trial

Immediately following the conviction, Mr. Green’s solicitor, Patrick Campbell and Co, applied for leave to appeal. This application was rejected by Lord Bonomy.

In this regard the timescale is significant because of the overlapping events and decisions arising from the Supreme Court ruling in Cadder v. HM Advocate. The Supreme Court ruled in October 2010 and the Scottish Government was forced to bring in emergency legislation to cope with the fallout. The Scotsman reported (20th June 2013) that “By February the following year, almost 900 suspected criminals, including alleged rapists, had walked free, after prosecutors were forced to drop charges against them because of the Cadder ruling. Charges of sexual assault, robbery and possession of firearms were also among 867 dropped in just three months.” . Had leave for appeal been granted, the question of Mr. Green’s detention without access to a lawyer in the hours before he was charged on solemn indictment (as it was then) would have been open to examination; for, as the Supreme Court ruled:

“convictions that have become final because they were not appealed timeously, and appeals that have been finally disposed of by the High Court of Justiciary, must be treated as incapable of being brought under review on the ground that there was a miscarriage of justice because the accused did not have access to a solicitor while he was detained prior to the police interview. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission must make up its own mind, if it is asked to do so, as to whether it would be in the public interest for those cases to be referred to the High Court. It will be for the appeal court to decide what course it ought to take if a reference were to be made to it on those grounds by the Commission.” (UK Supreme Court 2010, para 62)

It also must be noted that the two police officers who interviewed Mr. Green, and who repeatedly denied his request for legal representation on the grounds that “this is Scotland” , both gave evidence for the prosecution at Mr. Green’s trial. This evidence included statements obtained from the interview conducted in the absence of legal representation. As this interview took place in February 2010, before the Cadder ruling, it was normal practice at the time. However, by the time they gave evidence in January 2012, the Supreme Court had long since ruled this practice unlawful and a breach of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. Why the court allowed this to proceed is unknown and unexplained.

The sentencing of Mr. Green included the imposition of a non-harassment order, which later formed the basis of a further action against him. There are many aspects of the later action that are of concern, but for the moment I will leave the narrative at this point with leave to appeal denied, since, in the event that this conviction is overturned, the non-harassment order and related actions would surely fall as a consequence.


To summarise, Mr. Green was arrested on entirely spurious grounds, held for days and denied legal representation during his questioning. The sequence of events has the colour of a most odious conspiracy to silence Mr. Green and end his campaign for a proper investigation into the Hollie Greig case. He was subsequently denied legal aid at critical times in his defence and had a trial before a judge of such bias as would shame a nation with a history of jurisprudence much inferior to that of Scotland. He was then denied leave to appeal. It seems clear that Mr. Green has suffered a miscarriage of justice, that his conviction is unsafe and that his record should be expunged.

Although a summary breach of the peace trial may seem a small matter for an appeal to the High Court, the issues on display here are of the greatest importance to our nation and our justice system. To what extent are insiders, well connected to police and courts, permitted to wield that influence to protect their own private interests? What separation of powers is present to ensure that judges, and similar men and women of influence, are not above the law? Mr. Green’s case has attracted, and will continue to, attract, support both from the public and at the highest political levels (for example a UK parliamentarian nominated Mr. Green for the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize) because of the importance of the issues it raises. When institutions fail to protect the innocent, and ordinary men and women speak out against the injustice, are they themselves to be protected from the state apparatus, or are they to be victims in their turn?

In short, this case is not, as Sheriff Bowen stated, about an attempt by Mr. Green to “undermine the criminal justice system and the Government of Scotland as a whole”. Nevertheless, it does as a case raise questions about the fitness of that criminal justice system and the legitimacy of that government. For we, as a sovereign people, must be served by the institutions we create, not oppressed by them. As a Scot and resident of this land, I find this question is of the greatest import.

I therefore request that you undertake a full review and inquiry into this case and refer the matter to the High Court as outlined in clause 194(c) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

Mr. Green is fully aware of the contents of this letter and consents to my writing on his behalf. He will fully cooperate with your work, offer any assistance you require and furnish you with any evidence in his possession.

Yours faithfully


David Scott BEng, CEng, MIStructE, MICE, MIES

Cc: Secretary of State for Scotland


This appeal was to no avail. But before a higher judge, Robert Green will get justice. I read the following to him a few hours before his death:

Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people.

My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust.

Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.

For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, and my salvation from generation to generation.

Isaiah 51; 4-8


Robert Green: 17th March 1946 — 11th April 2019.

Rest in peace

1840 – 1937  The Golden Age of Medical Cannabis

From Antique Cannabis

While western doctors had made use of Cannabis for a variety of minor ailments ever since the days of Galen.   It wasn’t until O’Shaughnessy (an Irish doctor, who while in India learned about Cannabis from local Mohammedan and Hindu physicians), returned from the Bengal (1839) and published his findings, that the western world begin to take notice.   At a time when western medicine had few if any reliable drugs, here was an analgesic (painkiller), a sedative and antispasmodic agent all in one.   And best of all, it had a very low toxicity rate (to this day no one has died from its use) and could be grown almost anywhere in commercial quantities.

For obvious reasons, Cannabis Indica or Medical Marihuana soon became an indispensable part of western medicine.   In fact, it spread throughout the western world like wildfire, and within a few years would be as common a medical ingredient in medicines as aspirin is today.


What Was The First (known) Antique Cannabis Medicine?
What Year Was It Made In?
What Firm Manufactured It? 

The following is a short article, taken from the June 1890 (page 104) issue of the American Druggist.

Extract of Cannabis Indica
Dr. Cripps Lawrence warns prescribers to be careful regarding the use of this extract, which is well known to be of exceedingly variable activity, owing to the crude drug being sometimes inert and sometimes active. He mentions that five years ago Messers, Squire & sons informed him that from the time Dr. O’Shaughnessy first introduced cannabis indica into England, and gave some to the late Mr. Peter Squire in order to make it into an extract, up to the present day, they have been continuously supplied by the original collectors of the plant, and each sample has proved good, yielding efficient preparations; but they have found that the active principles vary in different specimens of the plant from year to year, so that they cannot predicate the actual degree of potency to be attributed to an extract or tincture prepared under identical conditions, until the preparation has been adequately tested for any given year. In this connection we may recall the advice of Dr. George Watt contained in a communication to the Chemist and Druggist (Feb. 19th, 1887), in which he recommends “chemists desirous of making the very best extracts of Indian hemp to pay the full price for Bengal ‘Ganja,’ and to import the article from Calcutta instead of from Bombay, when there would be every chance that the defects complained of in the extract as now prepared would disappear completely.” The reason of this recommendation is that the greatest care is taken in Bengal to insure that the female plants are not fertilized by the male, so that the full narcotic power of the drug may be retained. This it loses after fertilization.

Thus it can be stated that the very first (known) Antique Cannabis Medicine was bottled in London England (1840).

NOTE: This museum only deals with Brand or Trade name products manufactured by established firms, not with generic products.   Thus in terms of Western Medicine, 1840 is our starting date.   However, it is still very much possible that some (let us say), Indian medical products could pre-date the above product, but at least for now, none that we know of.


QUESTION:   On a Brand or Trade Name Basis; How Many (legal) pre-1937 Medical Cannabis Medicines were there?

ANSWER:   World-Wide, somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 — That’s not a joke, that’s the answer.   In case this is a little hard to swallow, maybe an explanation, by way of a fictional story, is in order.

It was a public forum . . . the city council was debating whether or not to impose a ban on all medical cannabis dispensaries in the city.   Darla Dare sat patiently as one speaker after another spoke out on the ordinance.   One narcotics official stated:

    • “Medical Cannabis has

no medical uses

    ” and . . . “those who thought that way were in denial, YES there’re in denial.”
Darla Dare pointed to various posters showing old Cannabis Medicines. 
Darla Dare pointed to various posters showing old Cannabis Medicines. 

Darla Dare pointed to various posters showing old Cannabis Medicines. 

Darla Dare pointed to various posters showing old Cannabis Medicines. 

Darla Dare pointed to various posters showing old Cannabis Medicines. 

Darla Dare pointed to various posters showing old Cannabis Medicines. 

Another said that, “Proper medicines come in pill form and you buy them in a drug store.”   Therefore he was not in support of anyone using Medical Cannabis.

Yet another spoke about a conspiracy of the un-washed hippy.   That he deliberately got Cancer, just so he would have an excuse to use Medical Cannabis ; But that we were going to stop him. . . . . And on and on the speakers went on, until it was Darla Dare’s turn to speak.

“My name is Darla Dare, I am with a pro-Medical Cannabis museum.   Our museum has documented well over 600 pre-1937 (meaning legal) medical cannabis medicines; ALL of which incidentally were sold in drugstores on a brand or trade name bases.”

Darla Dare now pointed to various posters she had brought with her showing pictures of old Antique Cannabis Medicines and went on.   “Here are examples of some of these pre-1937 pharmaceutical medicines.”

At this point, there was now an obvious tension in the meeting room, just a few speakers earlier a narcotics police spokeswoman had stated that, Medical Marihuana had NO MEDICAL uses.   “That it never had and never would.”   Yet here was actual proof, that this just wasn’t the case.   The tension was so high that one of the city council members had to interrupt Darla Dare and ask a question.   “Young woman, you stated well over 600 such medicines?   I find that a little hard to believe.”

“Well actually our museum has probably documented over 2,000 by now, there were just so many that we stopped counting some ten years or so ago at six hundred.”   “WHAT,” said the council member, obviously taken aback, “How can there have been so many and what do you mean by document?”

Darla Dare politely looked about her, it was obvious that after so many negative speakers that some were doubting her statements.   But she politely replied, “By documentation, I mean something that will stand up in court.   As example:

  • An old medical patent application specifically mentioning the use of Medical Cannabis.
  • Corporate sales leaflets, or magazine advertisements, specifically mentioning the use of Medical Cannabis in their products.
  • A reputable Trade or Medical magazine article — specifically mentioning the medical product and the fact that Medical Cannabis in used.
  • Old Pharmaceutical Price and Product Catalogs etc.“All of which make excellent sources of documentation.   For example,” and here Darla Dare, reached into a backpack and pulled out an old ‘Eli Lilly’ Price and Product catalog from the year 1920.   “This old catalog documents that in 1920 the Eli Lilly Co., was making and selling around 20 medicines that in one form or another made use of Medical Cannabis.”

    What?   Said the city council member again, exactly how many ways of smoking this stuff did they have?

    Darla Dare replied, “Well they didn’t, in fact of all the brand or trade name medicines that we have been able to document so far, only ‘one’ is smokable.   All the rest are either external lotions or oral medications.   As you can see by the pictures, before being outlawed, Medical Cannabis came in pill form and you bought it in a drug store.   However, many of these medicines were what we now call, ‘compound medicines’ ; Meaning that there was more then one ingredient in them.   Are you able to follow?”

    Yes, I guess I can, but please go on — you were saying.

    “I was merely going to point out that this old catalog (year 1920) predates the Reefer Madness dis-information campaign by about a decade or so.   That means that there are no stories yet about scanty clad girls (jumping out of windows), no boys (under the influence of Medical Cannabis) grabbing axes and killing whole families, etc.   That at this time Medical Cannabis was just another ho-hum but legal medicine and thus no reason not to include it in one’s corporate sales catalogs.   I believe that another firm, Parke-Davies, holds the record with over 74 Cannabis medicines in just one of their catalogs.”   The audience at the city council meeting was now silent; no one had ever brought up these facts before.

    “But”, interrupted yet another council member, isn’t that figure 2,000 medicines, especially as you stated on a Brand or Trade name bases, a little on the high side?

    “Actually NO,” said Darla Dare.   “These are the ones that we have been able to fully document, we know for a fact that they existed.   But please don’t take my word for it.   Our museum has collected over a hundred of these old pharmaceutical price and product catalogs, and religiously computer scanned selected pages.   I’m not trying to hock anything here, but we do make this documentation available to the public in CD-rom format at cost.”

    But to specifically answer your question, we believe that in total there were probably between 20,000 and 30,000 of these legal pre-1937 medicines.   Again, all being sold under a specific brand or trade name.

    What, now wait a minute”, screamed one of the city council women.   Already the room was in an uproar, some saying that this had to be a lie, others that it was the drug police had been lying to them for years.   But it was obvious that some who had spoken earlier were somewhat uncomfortable with the situation.

    “Young woman, this is not very funny,” stated the councilwomen.   “I feel you should provide some level of proof to your statements or apologize to everyone in this room.”

    “Gladly” said Darla Dare.   “I stated earlier that our museum has been able to obtain over a hundred of these old pre-1937 pharmaceutical price and product catalogs.   The problem is that between 1850 and 1937 (the years most Antique Cannabis Medicines come from), there were probably over one-thousand [B] pharmaceutical manufacturers in the New York City area alone.   And I can assure you that N.Y. was not the only pharmaceutical hub that we had back then.   In effect, this means that we have only skimmed the surface of what’s out there to document.   And please understand that it’s not for lack of will but lack of finances that prevent us from obtaining yet more.“ [C]

    “But be that as it may, we must also take into account that our museum mostly deals with English language North American pharmaceutical antiques.   The devil only knows how many German, Swedish, Italian . . . etc., antique Cannabis medicines were out there.   But between twenty and thirty thousand world-wide is about right.”

    “But young woman” said the city council member.   “I’m still having a little trouble believing you.   How could Medical Cannabis have been used in so many medicines?”

    “Please forgive me,” said Darla Dare, “I’ll speak in terms that you can understand.”   “Back in 1840 a Dr. O’Shaughnessy, documented that Cannabis had three major uses, those being:

  • As a sedative
  • As a pain killer
  • As an anti-spasmodicAt a time when even aspirin had not yet been invented and western medicine had few reliable drugs ; anyone of the above uses made Medical Cannabis a wonder drug.   But soon doctors found numerous other medical uses, as well as numerous sub-uses for Cannabis.”

    “Uses, Sub-uses, what’s the difference?,” asked a councilwomen.

    “Oh, I guess that could be confusing,” said Darla Dare.   “Let me give you a couple of examples.   When used as a sedative, Medical Cannabis is great, but if a doctor recommends a stronger dosage, it than acts as a safe sleeping agent.   That’s an example of a sub-use.   On the other hand, a good example of a major medical use occured some forty years after O’Shaughnessy. That was when drug manufacturers discovered that Cannabis could also be used in cough syrups, etc.   Our website has a good list of it uses – [].”

    Your words certainly contradict what our narcotics police are saying”
    “Yes they certainly do” said Darla Dare.   “But then the axis of Evil, always seems to have an axe to grind.”   To which a bit of laughter broke out in the room.

    “I protest,” said one of the narcotics officials who had spoken earlier claiming no medical uses.   Many of these drugs she was speaking about are repeats, the same drug simply made by two different manufacturers.

    “That is true” said Darla Dare, “Back in the 19th Century, most manufacturers produced what were essentially the same drugs, with extremely small modifications between them.   No one is denying that, in fact our museum website even has a whole sub-section dealing with this factor.”

    “What section is this?”, asked the narc.   “The section on Chlorodyne” answered Darla Dare.

    “Now wait a minute”, broke in one of the City Council members.   “Isn’t that a bit like cheating?   I mean some of these medicines are being counted twice, aren’t they?”

    “More than twice, I would think,” said Darla Dare, “At this point, I believe we’ve found about 20 manufacturers that made Chlorodyne alone.   Would you like me to expand on the subject?”
    “Please do”, said the narc, as did the City Council member.

    “Well as I’ve already said, many of the drugs sold before 1937 were generic in nature, meaning that more than one pharmaceutical company was manufacturing it.   However, as they were sold under different brand or trade names (as a museum, we do count them multiple times.   And additionally, if I may add, it is also possible for one manufacturer to package (essentially the same drug) in pill as well as tablet form, and our museum would also count this twice.

    “But” Darla Dare went on, “Allow me to ask all of you a trick question: How many legal makers of pre-1937 Cannabis medicines were there in this country? “

    After waiting for a few seconds, she went on, “The answer is probably somewhere between two hundred and three hundred thousand.”   At this point there was almost dead silence in the meeting room.   “How could this be?” everyone was thinking.

    “Maybe an explanation is in order. To most people the very concept behind home-brew medicines, (the art of making batches of one’s own medicines at home), must seem a little bit odd at best.   And not without good reason, as the practice must have been a haphazard one at best.   Yet at one time, home brewed medicines were very common.   In fact, from an ideological viewpoint, they were part of the Jeffersonian ideals.   Perhaps the following quote best describes this viewpoint:

    ‘It bestowed upon everyone the alleged ability to heal themselves apart from the pretensions of the allopathic physician.   Such a therapeutic system resonated with a Jacksonian democracy attempting to divest itself of what it viewed as elitist European notions that skill and knowledge are reserved only for those of rank and privilege. —‘John Uri Lloyd’ by Michael Flannery – pp30

    “For good or for bad, Jeffersonian ideals lead at least in part to the creation of the public school systems and with the ability to read and write, lots and lots of ‘How To Do It’ books.   One didn’t have to go far during this era to locate a book of recipes on medicines for various ailments.   I guess one could say, everyone was encouraged to be his or her own doctor.

    However, I think you can all see how this situation could led to a little over counting.”   Some laughter broke out among the audience. . . “Which is why we only count them if they were sold under a specific Brand or Trade name; Essentially to eliminate this problem.   We also have adopted a couple of other restrictions:

    • Manufacturing had to have taken place in an area specifically set up for pharmaceutical manufacturing — not in someone’s back yard.
    • The manufacturing firm in question had to have had the proper business licensing for the given era.

    We’ve found that these restrictions pretty much prevent grannies hooch as well as the fly-by-nights, but we do devote a whole subsection on our website to Quack medicines, — of which there weren’t very many.”   At this time, it was becoming obvious that public opinion was now shifting away from the narc’s and their anti-Cannabis dispensatory ordinance.

    “But Ms. (ah) Dare”, said one of the anti-Medical Cannabis City Council Members.   “We still have the fact that many of these thousands of pre-1937 (ah) Antique Cannabis Medicines are duplicate counts.   Isn’t that cheating?”

    Darla Dare replied, “I guess so, if you wish to view it as such — after all this was an era of generic drugs.   However, IF WE WANTED TO CHEAT as you say, we would simply start counting the 500 tablet bottle, as opposed to the 50 or 100 tablet bottles, multiple times.   That would make for a really big count real fast.”

    Laughter once more broke out among the audience, with even some of the City council members joining in.

    “Please forgive me” said Darla Dare.   “I was only trying to show that, before the passage of the anti-Medical Marihuana laws and contrary to what some of the previous speakers would have you think, Cannabis was in widespread medical use.   And as you see by the fact that so many Medical Cannabis dispensaries exist (where legal), it still is to this very day.”

    “I think you made your point,” said another member of the city council.   It was now obvious, even to the narc’s that their anti-medical Cannabis dispensary law wasn’t going to pass.   The public had lost all support for it, . . .

    Darla Dare herself is a fictional character modeled after Earle Rowell’s (author of Marihuana the weed of madness 1939) own fictional character David Dare. However all incidents actually have happened in real life.
    [B]- This figure comes to us via (what we would now term) old phone books, city directories, trade magazines etc.
    [C]- If anyone out there has an extra $1,000, this museum curator knows where to go and document yet another 500 more Medical Cannabis Antiques. It’s not the lack of will but the lack of $$$ that is holding things back. 


%d bloggers like this: