Pattaya, 29th May 2014

I recently posted a story about an English expat Ian Charles Tracey, who was released from Nong Palai prison in January 2014.

Ian Charles Tracey - Sentenced to 4 years for child sex charges

I have been accused by journalist and convicted criminal Andrew Drummond of having 'set up' Ian Tracey - which as  will be revealed in this post is utter drivel.

Andrew Drummond is a convicted criminal, having been sentenced to four months jail in February 2014 at Pattaya Provincial Criminal Court in case number 9819/2555.

Andrew Drummond - Journalist and Convicted Criminal

The previous story on this subject is at this link Ian Charles Tracey .

Immediately after I posted I was subjected to a vile attack by Ian Tracey in which he said he would sue me, and called me various names - sticks and stones.

I can however now reveal that sources at the Supreme Court of Thailand have revealed that Ian Tracey has not yet been fully cleared - he has been released on bail pending review of his case by the Supreme Court - his conviction and jail sentence handed down on 14th January 2011 for child sex abuse charges remains in place.

At this time, contrary to reports by Andrew Drummond that he has been 'cleared' or 'falsely accused', Ian Tracey is  at this time a convicted criminal, having been convicted of child sex abuse charges by the Region 2 Court of Appeal on 14th January 2011.

Sources at the Supreme Court today confirmed it could easily be another two years or more before a final judgement is handed down in this case, but in the meantime Ian Tracey is on bail awaiting the outcome of his appeal.

The news that Tracey is merely on bail awaiting appeal is not exactly what was reported by Andrew Drummond.

Following Tracey's threat to sue, it is clearly in the public interest that the true facts of his release are revealed.

Ian Tracey was originally arrested during Operation Naga in May 2008, and was found not guilty at the Court of First Instance.

Ian Charles Tracey pictured at the time of his arrest in May 2008

Tracey's original arrest was reported in the Pattaya Mail in May 2008.

His arrest in 2012 was reported on Pattaya One  and Thai Visa.

On 14th January 2011, the Region 2 Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the lower Court finding :

'The witness and evidences presented by the Defendant lack sufficient weight to disprove the Prosecutor’s evidences.

 Therefore, the Court of Appeals, Region 2 does not agree with the judgment of the Court of First Instant and the Prosecutor’s appeals sound reasonable.

The Court hereby revises the judgment and issues an Order that the Defendant is guilty pursuant to Criminal Code Section 277 first paragraph, Section 283bis, second paragraph, one offense against several provisions of law pursuant to Criminal Code, Section 277, first paragraph, the Section with the severest punishment under the Criminal Code Section 90, and now sentences him to a term of 4 years' .

Note : A copy of the judgement in Thai and an English Translation is reproduced at the foot of this post.

Tracey's arrest in 2012 was reported on Pattaya One  and Thai Visa.

Three separate reports filed by Andrew Drummond appeared in the UK in The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail, with a further report in Thailand in The Chiang Rai Times, and of course a much different version appeared on Drummond's web site, basically blaming me for Tracey's incarceration - utter drivel.

What is important to note in all of these articles is there is no mention that Ian Tracey is merely on bail awaiting a decision of the Supreme Court and that his conviction for child sex abuse currently stands - the quote from Drummond is :

'Ian Charles Tracy, 47, from Godalming, Surrey, was let free from Nong Plalai Prison in the eastern resort of Pattaya, where he spent 14 months of his sentence treated as a child sex abuser.'

It may have been more appropriate to write:

'Ian Charles Tracy, 47, from Godalming, Surrey, was released on bail let free  from Nong Plalai Prison pending review of his case by the Supreme Court of Thailand. 

Tracey is now in the eastern resort of Pattaya, where he spent 14 months of his sentence treated as a child sex abuser.

If Tracey's appeal to the Supreme Court is successful he will be finally cleared, and if not could be returned to Nong Palai Prison to serve the remaining two and a half years of his sentence'.

Prior to Ian Tracey being released on bail from Nong Palai, Drummond previously said of him in two stories :

From Drummond's site on 3rd September 2013 :

'Last week Thai police found a wanted child abuser hiding in a room below Goldie's in the ‘Jaggy Thistle’ – the registered office of Goldie’s firm Alba Law.
Londoner Ian Charles Tracy, 47, had been on the run on for nearly a year on charges of abusing two boys aged 10 and 12, in Pattaya. Not only was Tracy living on the same premises as Goldie but witnesses say he had actually helped Goldie acquire the bar in the first place.
Tracy had little visible means of support in Pattaya, which is as famous for its young ‘boy bars’ as well as its thriving heterosexual sex scene. He earned pocket money making such things as steak and kidney and chicken pies and selling them to British run bars.

Arrest warrant Issued

Ian Tracey - Arrest Warrant

The Region 2 Court of Appeal issued an arrest warrant in July 2011 when Tracey failed to appear at Court - Tracey later filed documents with the Court to show he had not received the documents.

The full decision of the Court of Appeal is published at the bottom of this page (now with English Translation).

The warrant for Tracey's arrest (above) was issued a year before I knew him - some set up!

I helped Ian Tracey find a lawyer for his case and the lawyer lodged the documents with the Court of Appeal - he has been released now. I am not clear on whether or not Ian Tracey's conviction has been quashed, or he remains convicted of child sexual abuse offences and has been released on on bail pending appeal.

The appeal and request for bail was lodged free of charge.

Gregory Miller - sentenced to 38 years in jail for the serial rape of a 9 year old boy.

Comment : 

If Ian Tracey had not launched his personal attack on me I would have assumed that his conviction had been queshed and he was a free man. 

I am at a loss to know why Andrew Drummond has not reported that Tracey is merely on bail pending appeal.

Tracey was arrested as a result of the lawful order of a Thai Court with an arrest warrant properly issued according to Thai law.

It is not for me or Andrew Drummond to comment on the guilt or innocence of Mr Tracey, or to comment on his pending appeal to the Supreme Court.

Ian Tracey had been advised to surrender to the Court, and if he had done so he may have been granted bail - he chose not to do so despite being fully aware of the warrant for his arrest.

At the time he was arrested he was being followed by Thai police and had been under surveillance since the time of the arrest of Tracey's close friend Greg Miller - he had been warned of this by his own 'contact' in the Thai government.

Greg Miller was jailed in November of 2013 at Pattaya Provincial Court after pleading guilty to the serial rape of a nine year old boy.

TRANSLATION

(OFFICIAL EMBLEM)

For Court Use
O (Or.2)

Judgment Black Case No. 739/2552

Red Case No.45/2554

In the Name of His Majesty the King

The Court of Appeals, Region 2

Date: 14 January 2011

Criminal Case

Public Attorney, Office of the Attorney-General - Pattaya……...........................Prosecutor
Between
Mr. John or Tracey Ian Charles ……………….………………………….…… Defendant

Subject: Rape, Sexual Abuse, Sexual Offence

The Prosecutor filed Appeal against the Court’s judgment Pattaya Provincial Court Dated 25 December 2008 Court of Appeals, Region 2 Dated 24 March 2009

The Prosecutor filed charges saying that on 15 May 2008 during night time before midnight, the Defendant had taken Master Ninthawat Chaemchan, about 14 years of age, to commit indecent acts under the damaged person’s consent. The Defendant had abused the damaged person by inserted the Defendant’s sexual organ into the damaged person’s mouth, pushed and pulled for several times and requested the damaged person to hold the Defendant’s sexual organ by hand to slide it back and forth for several times under the damaged person’s consent.

The incident took place in Nong Prue Sub-district, Bang Lamung District, Chon Buri Province, thus may the Court mete out punishment pursuant to Criminal Code, Sections 91, 277, 283bis.

The Defendant denied the charges.

After due consideration, the Court of First Instant dismissed the charges.

The Prosecutor filed appeals.

The Court of Appeals, Region 2 has verified the statements, held meeting for discussions and foundout facts at this stage, without the litigant’s argument, which could be settled about the damaged person.

Master Ninthawat Chaemchan, born on 26 October 1993, about 14 years of age, that on 19 May 2008, Pol.Sen. Sgt. Maj. Sompong Srisunthon together with officers from “Child Protection and Development Center” had brought the said child to file a complaint to the Investigative Officers for legal action against the Defendant. On 26 May 2008, the damaged person testified, before the Investigative Officer and the public attorney including the social officers, according to the Memorandum of Testimony given by the damaged person as per Exhibit Jor.6. Later, Pol. Sgt. Maj. Uthen Srisamut had obtained from the Court the Warrant of Arrest and the Search Warrant according to copy of Warrant of Arrest and Search Warrant as per Exhibits Jor.2 and Jor.3, and headed to arrest the Defendant at House No.44/97, Sap Sombat Village, Nong Prue Sub-district, Bang Lamung District, Chon Buri Province.

The Defendant denied the charges according to the Memorandum of Arrest as per Exhibit Jor.4. This case has problems that need determination as to whether or not the Defendant had committed the offence according to the Prosecutor’s appeals.

The Prosecutor having the damaged person come to testify that before the incidenttook place, the damaged person was residing with his friend at Suni Lane, without any guardian to take care of him. The damaged person was residing with his friend, Master Bang. The damaged person confirmed that the person shown in the photo as per Exhibit Jor.5 is Mr. Ian, called by the damaged person as Mr. Marijuana (Kancha) and confirmed that Mr. Ian was the Defendant who sits in the court’s room. Initially, the damaged person’s friend introduced him to the Defendant and advised the damaged person to ask for money from the Defendant, whereby the Defendant gave the damaged person Baht 100 each time of request. The Defendant has never requested the damaged person to perform oral sex for him. However, if the damaged person provided sexual service, he would receive Baht 500 - 1,000 each time of service. However, the reason why the damaged person testified that he performed oral sex for the Defendant was due to he was instructed by the Tourist Police who threatened to sent him to stay at the Juvenile Observation and Protection Center for 10 years, but thedamaged person did not tell the officer of “Child Protection and Development Center”, who were there at thetime, that he was threatened by the Tourist Police and the damaged person pointed out the Defendant’s housedue to received money from the officer of “Child Protection and Development Center”.

The damaged person knew the Defendant, but had never performed oral sex for him. However, the Police Officer requested the damaged person to testify during the investigation stage that the Defendant asked him to perform oral sex. In fact the Defendant had never requested the damaged person to perform oral sex for the Defendant and now the damaged person has testified as such voluntarily without threat or coerce from any person, at the Office of Attorney General, Pattaya Province, in front of the Investigative Officers and the Officers of “Child Protection and Development Center”. The Social Officer had read out the Memorandum of Testimony as per Exhibit Jor.6 to the damaged person who confirmed it to be true only on the part mentioned that the damaged person was in the Defendant’s house and the damaged person had privately invented the story of sexual abuse by himself. While in the Office of Attorney General, Pattaya Province, the InvestigativeOfficer showed the photocopy of the Defendant’s Passport to the damaged person who confirmed that Mr.John and Mr. Ian are different persons.

On the date that the damaged person was in the Court, he wasaccompanied by a lawyer who was working for the Office of the Defendant’s advocate. Pol. Sen. Sgt. Maj. Somphong testified as a witness that at the time of incident, he was working at the Tourist Police Division of Pattaya City and was assigned by his superior to investigate into the matter of foreigner and child sexual abuse.

On 18 May 2008, the witness met the damaged person who informed him that a foreigner namely, Mr. John whose surname was unknown, had led the damaged person to Sap Sombat Village, Village No.9, Nong Prue Sub-district, Bang Lamung District, Chon Buri Province, and then Mr. John asked the damaged person to perform oral sex for him. Therefore, the witness reported it to his superior who in turn asked him to bring the damaged person to file a complaint to the Investigative Officer at the Pattaya Police Station. The witness set off with officials of “Child Protection and Development Center” to see the damaged person, a child without guardian, residing in area of Suni Lane, inside VC Pattaya Lane, where Pol. Lt. Col. Prachuap Sentha, Investigative Officer, testified that on 19 May 2008, Pol. Sen. Sgt. Maj. Somphong together with officers from “Child Protection and Development Center” has brought the said child tofile a complaint to the Investigative Officer saying that on 15 May 2008 at approx. 20:00 hours, the damagedperson was led by a foreigner, whose actual name was unknown and nickname “John” unknown surname, to hishouse in Sap Sombat Village, Village No.9, Nong Prue Sub-district, Bang Lamung District, Chon Buri Province.

Then, Mr. John asked the damaged person to perform oral sex for him. Hence the witness has compiled theevidences and asked for Warrant of Arrest, from Pattaya Provincial Court, to arrest Mr. John. The witness hadinquired the damaged person and found out that before the damaged person went to see Mr. John, the damagedperson was contacted by Master Bang to provide sexual service for Mr. John - unknown surname, residing in Sap Sombat Village, for sexual service at the wage of 1,500 baht per service. Later, the damaged person wentto Sap Sombat Village and met Mr. John who asked the damaged person to perform oral sex for him.

Subsequently, on 19 May 2008, the Officer of Tourist Police Division, jointly arrested the Defendant and delivered him to the witness, who had inquired the damaged person at Pattaya Office of Attorney General, jointly with the Public Attorney and the Officers of “Child Protection and Development Center”.

During the nterrogation process, the witness showed the Defendant’s photo to the damaged person who confirmed that theperson in the photo, as per Exhibit Jor.5, was Mr. John - unknown surname, who asked the damaged person toperform oral sex for him. It could be seen that the incident that gave rise to such investigation and the arrest ofthe Defendant was based on Pol. Sen. Sgt. Maj. Somphong’s testimonies that the witness hadinquired the damaged person who told him that Mr. John - unknown surname, a foreigner had asked the damaged person to perform oral sex for him at Sap Sombat Village, Village No.9, Nong Prue Sub-district, Bang Lamung District, Chon Buri Province. However, after the witness had inquired the damaged person,later the damaged person replied to the cross-examining questions of the Defendant’s lawyer that it was due to the Police Officer had arrested the damaged person for urine test to find out narcotic substances and he was asked by the Police Officer as to whether or not he had been sexually abused by any foreigner, hence the damaged person informed the Police Officer about the said incident. After that, the Police Officer had conducted investigations and asked for the Court’s Warrant of Arrest to arrest the Defendant on 19 May 2008.

Later, on 26 May 2008, after the Defendant was being arrested for 7 days, the Investigative Officer had inquired the damaged person in front of the public attorney and the social officer, whereby the  damaged person testified at the interrogation stage about the occurrence of the incidents in sequence order which sounds reasonable.

It began with Mr. Bang persuasion to provide sexual services to foreigner, until achieve orgasm either orally or manually, in exchange for wages. Later, the damaged person and Master Bang visited House No.44/97, Sap Sombat Village, Nong Prue Sub-district, Bang Lamung District, Chon Buri Province, and met a foreign man with tall and thin figure, sharp eyes and prominent nose, white complex and blond hair. Master Bang called him briefly as “John”, who was then mixing marijuana with cigarette for smoking. Later, Mr. Johngave money to Master Bang to buy marijuana and Mr. John led the damaged person to his bedroom on the 2nd floor, turned on the Video, showing to the damaged person, the intercourse between a man and a woman.

Later, Mr. John took off his Jean pants and shirt and lay on his back on a bed and asked the damaged person to take off his own clothes. Mr. John, who did not wear any condom to cover his sexual organ, asked the damaged person to perform oral sex and used his hand to hold Mr. John’s sexual organ. During this time, Mr. John would like to use a chain to link the boy arms, but the boy refused.

The damaged person performed oral sex for Mr. John, push and pull for several time alternately with using his hand to hold Mr. John’s sexual organ to slide up and down for several times, total 1 hour until reached orgasm, and Mr. John gave 1,500 Baht to the damaged person. After Master Bang returned, the damaged person together with Master Bang left the house. This is sound reasonable without conflict against natural facts and it was told while the damaged person was unprepared and had no chance to alter the facts to assist or blame anyone. Furthermore, the said fact was privately known by the person in actions and difficult to invent such story by himself, thus it can be believed that at the Investigation stage, the damaged person had testified in front of the Investigative Officers, public attorney and social officers, in truth according to the experiences he really gone through. At the time of the Defendant’s arrest, the damaged person looked at Mr. Tracy’s photo and confirmed that the man and Mr. John is the same person.

However, later during the hearing process, when the Prosecutor asked the damaged person to look at the Defendant’s photo as per Exhibit Jor.5, but the damaged person testified that the man in the photo was Mr. “Ian” or the person called by the damaged person as Mr. Marijuana (Kancha) was the Defendant. Even though his later testified that Mr. John and Mr. Ian are different person and the damaged person did not perform oral sex for the Defendant and he had to testify in the beginning according the Tourist Police’s advice, or else he would be sent to the Juvenile Protection Center for 10 years, which deemed as unreasonable testimonies given to deviate the facts. The damaged person’s testimony during the investigation stages was truer to the facts than during the Court’s hearing. Even though the damaged person had claimed that the foreigner’s name “John” was not his actual name, but this is a normal since majority of child sexual offenders often concealed their actual names and surnames to prevent lawsuits. The fact is when the house of incident, that the damaged person had testified and confirmed to the Investigation Official, was visited by the Police Officers with Warrant of Arrest and Search Warrant, it was found out that the Defendant was the only one foreign man living in the house, therefore, it can be truly believed that Mr. John who abused the damaged person on the date of incident and at the house of incident, was Mr. Tracey Ian Charles - the Defendant. It is deemed that the evidences presented by the Prosecutor were linking more reasonably to the facts, thus the weight thereof is sufficient to believe without doubt that on the date and at the place of incident as sued, the Defendant had asked the damaged person to perform oral sex for the Defendant, which was a sexual abuse against the damaged person, hence the Defendant’s act was an offence against law as charged.

Regarding the Defendant’s evidence that on the date of incident he was teaching English at Pattaya Operate Foundation from 17:00 until 18:00 hours, and from 18:10 hours, the Defendant took his rented motorbike to return to the shop where it was rented according to the copy of Motorbike Lease Contract as per Exhibit No. Lor.1. Later, the Defendant went to Outback Bear Bar and sat there until about 22:00 hours and then traveled to stay at Thap Thongkham Hotel in Ayanyaprathet District, Sra Kaeo Province, according to the copy of documents issued by Aranyaprathet Border Checkpoint as per Exhibit Lor.2. However, the Defendant has no witness or evidences to clearly and accurately identify that on the date of incident, the Defendant was teaching English at the said foundation and his Motorbike Lease Contract was only for 4 days commencing from 31 March 2008 and valid until 4 April 2008, that was about 1 month before the date of incident while the evidence of motorbike return showed that it was returned and accepted on 28 May 2008, which was after the date of incident, not on the incident date as claimed by the Defendant. Furthermore, Miss Chanida Chompattana had testified as the Defendant’s witness that on the incident date, about 18:00 hours, the Defendant was sitting in her bar, where the witness was working and supervising the bar. The Defendant was sitting there until 24:00 hours. Before leaving the bar, the Defendant said he was going to renew his Visa at Aranyaprathet, but the Defendant brought no suitcase and carried no extra clothes for changes while staying at the said hotel. This is contradicted against reasons because if the Defendant was leaving for the said hotel in Sra Kaeo Province, a long distance away, the Defendant should not come to sit at the bar from 18:00 until 24:00 hours and then traveled after midnight, this also contracted against proper reasons.

The witness and evidences presented by the Defendant lack sufficient weight to disprove the Prosecutor’s evidences.

Therefore, the Court of Appeals, Region 2 does not agree with the judgment of the Court of First Instant and the Prosecutor’s appeals sound reasonable.

The Court hereby revises the judgment and issues an Order that the Defendant is guilty pursuant to Criminal Code Section 277 first paragraph, Section 283bis, second paragraph, one offense against several provisions of law pursuant to Criminal Code, Section 277, first paragraph, the Section with the severest punishment under the Criminal Code Section 90, and now sentences him to a term of 4 years.

Mr. Wichian Boranwat                   -Signature-
Mr. Rakkiat Watthanaphong       -Signature-                                        (Court Seal Affixed)
Mr. Thanakhom Limphakdi          -Signature

Brian Goudie - The trolls are back.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back on Blogger!

The low life scumbag trolls are back, and the comments are coming thick and fast!

Many thanks today to +Spinosa +knutsa01 +Ally +samthai +theweapon +jules +tommyweapon +tommythruthsearcher + Spinosaj without whom my case against Google would not be possible.

All the same old rubbish, photoshop photos, fake profiles and anonymous comments.

The internet tough guys are back!

As reported here my friend David Hanks and I have instructed lawyers to file court proceedings against Google - Google are being sued as a 'service provider', for allowing third parties to post unlawful material, and failing to remove it when notified - this is a criminal offence in Thailand under Thailand's tough Computer Crimes Act - in fact internet harassment  is a criminal offence in most countries.

I have read a lot about internet harassment, and there is only one area that I disagree with most of the material I have read - whilst I agree that most trolls are either mentally ill or just evil malicious retards, if it ever comes to real physical comfrontation, dont be too concerned. I have been threatened a number of times, and have been told they will see me when I go to a particular place - I have been threatened with this several times - a particularly nasty troll was +samthai, but his threats all turned out to be hot air.

I actually cornered one of my troll enemies last week after Court, and when I went after him, he locked himself in his car and would not come out - a hero on the internet, but a coward when cornered - and he aint seen nothing yet. This strategy worked for me, but obviously others should carry out a clear risk assessment first.

In the last few days, since  I started posting about trolls, it seems I have created a feeding frenzy, and they are back in force.

Well, not in force, there are we estimate 3 or 4 people with about 3 fake profiles each, and I am getting 4 or 5 comments a day.

 And yes, they are still pathetic.

L

Brian Goudie - The Psychology of Internet Trolls

Brian Goudie

My name is Brian Goudie, I work in Thailand, and I have decided to break my silence and start a 'name and shame' campaign - and I hope the people that I name will try to sue me, as I have a carefully documented dossier of evidence that has been painstakingly assembled to record every, post, comment and email - the file is massive!

You may ask, all of this data has been recorded for what purpose?  The answer is simple - criminal actions under Thailand's tough Computer Crimes Act, and potentially future proceedings in the UK under the Prevention of Harassment Act.

The main site at the centre of the campaign has a whois address in the UK, and UK law requires us to show there was a 'course of conduct' involving more than two instances of harassment - in my case therenare hundreds.

Internet harassment has been around for many years, but as use of the internet has grown, the number of people affected has grown considerably.

In 2007, The International Journal on Cyber Crimes published a report on  internet harassment.

Theories of why internet harassment range from trolls suffering from mental illnesses, to outright malice - every case is different.

I am not alone in being harassed, the same trolls are subjecting my good friend David Hanks to the same treatment.

David  and I have had articles posted on the internet by a journalist, Andrew Drummond,  then swathes of disgraceful comments are made by anonymous posters.

These anonymous posters hide behind internet profiles with made up names such as Tommy Truthsearcher, Jules, Sam Kane, Ally, Sam Thai, The Weapon, Knutsa01 - all spend all their time making comments and threats from the comfort of their anonymous internet connections.

Fake Facebook profiles, fake Wordpress blogs, fake Blogger sites, fake Google Plus profiles - we have seen it all.

It comes under the umbrella name of 'internet harrassment' or 'cyber harrassment'.
It is a criminal offence in most countries, but difficult to identify offenders.

Now ask the question - why do they use fake untraceable accounts with fake photoshopped profile photos?

There are two reasons, firstly they in my view pathetic are low life cowardly scum bags who would never challenge face to face, and secondly they know if they can be identified we will prosecute them under Thailand's Computer Crimes Act.

Mow taking on an internet giant like Google will never be easy, but we have instructed our lawyers to do just that - the first hearing in the case will be in July 2014.

There are a number of people who now bave  cases against Google, and there is a great wealth of tips out there on strategies for suing Google.

People like Michael Roberts of Rexxfield and Dr. Janice Duffy have already filed cases against Google and Yahoo.

Dr. Duffy's case and Michael Robert's case was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald. Roberts court filings claimthat venomous accusations that appeared on the website, which he claims were made by his ex-wife, destroyed his business and have caused years of emotional distress. The claims — ranging from domestic abuse and tax evasion to extortion, blackmail and fraud — are still littered across the net for anyone to see.

David and I are suing for Google search results, and also a number of posts on Blogger.

Blogger

I dont know why, but claims of fraud, extortion, blackmail, tax evasion, raceketeering, money laundering, mafia connections, domestic abuse, paedophilia, sexual deviance, rape, drug abuse, and the use of words such as rapist, thief, liar, deviant, parasite, pimp, enforcer, mafia, mobster, snitch, rat, etc all seem to feature large in the vocabulary of your average internet troll.

But David and I have decided to fight back - we have instructed our lawyers to file dozens of criminal charges against Google Inc and Google Thailand, as the owners of Blogger. The case will be filed in Bangkok Central Criminal Court.

Google are to be prosecuted as a 'service provider' for a wide range of criminal offences, including providing internet services to third parties posting defamation, harassment, threats and use of fake photoshopped images.

Under Thai law, a 'service provider' can be held criminally liable for allowing third parties to post unlawful material, and failing to remove it when notified - this is a criminal offence in Thailand under T section 15 of Thailand's tough Computer Crimes Act - in fact it is a criminal offence in most countries.

Larry Page of Google

We have also instructed our lawyers to file charges against Google founders and directors Larry Page and Sergey Binn personally.

Sergey Binn of Google

One of the main issues in the case is the ease with which Google allows fake profiles to be used to set up hate blogs.

Google and Blogger are protected to some degree in the US from defamation suits, but there is no protection from internet harassment, 47 U.S. Code § 223, makes it justiciable if a service provider allows internet harassment to continue.

Google have already lose defamation cases in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, France and Germany - and just last week in the European Court of Justice in the 'right to be forgotten case'.

David and I are realistic, and we know that we are taking on Google, an internet behemoth, but we have no choice - we must fight back.

We are extremely fortunate to have been offered assistance by a well know 'internet consultant' who has had running battles with Google for some time, and his involvement will be announced later in the month as the proceedings start to move.

The proceedings in Thailand are just the start, tandem proceedings are expected in the US, UK and Australia - we are going to be busy.

Incidentally, the journalist has made a comment that I am using the images of Sergey Binn and Larry Page in breach of copyright laws - pot calling the kettle black as he copies images from Facebook, Google Plus and Flickr and uses them without permission.

David and I of course would love Larry Page and Sergey Binn to file a DMCA copyright complaint to remove their images from this blog - but they may well then have a hard time explaining why they did not remove our images when asked.

Brian Goudie - Internet Harassment and 'trolls' - and making Google take notice!

Brian Goudie - taking on Google

Over the past 18 months I have been the subject of a calculated and coordinated campaign of internet harassment.

My name is Brian Goudie, I work in Thailand, and I have decided to break my silence and start a 'name and shame' campaign - and I hope the people that I name will try to sue me, as I have a carefully documented dossier of evidence that has been painstakingly assembled to record every, post, comment and email - the file is massive!

You may ask, all of this data has been recorded for what purpose?  The answer is simple - criminal actions under Thailand's tough Computer Crimes Act, and potentially future proceedings in the UK under the Prevention of Harassment Act.

The main site at the centre of the campaign has a whois address in the UK, and UK law requires us to show there was a 'course of conduct' involving more than two instances of harassment - in my case there are hundreds.

I know exactly where it started, and where the epicentre of the campaign lies - a 'news' site where the administrator/owner has allowed about a dozen internet 'trolls' to post comments on his site, and then those trolls have posted elsewhere using fake profiles, and the material has gradually spread throughout other social media.

The owner of the 'news' site is a convicted criminal having in February of this year being sentenced to 4 months in jail (Suspended for one year) for similar behaviour against two of my friends. Following that conviction he has recently been ordered by Pattaya Court to post bail in another case, with another half dozen or so cases in the pipeline.

The seemingly never ending campaign of harassment has resulted in over two hundred 'news stories' written about just three individuals with hundreds of comments on the central site and other social media such as Google Plus, Facebook, Twitter and other more obscure sites.

The comments from the trolls utilise just about every insulting word in the English language!

The burning question - why just three singled out when there are many others on the site - well easy answer, the three of us decided what wss going on was just not right, and filed Court cases - as soon as the first case was filed, the 'news stories' increased, often misreporting decades old stories.

Recent allegations result in the journalist and his trolls taking on the role of judge, jury and executioner - even before there is a real issue to be reported -more on that later.

More recently, my friends, family, ex-girlfriend and current girlfriend have been receiving comments, messages and emails from the journalist and the trolls telling them how terrible it all is, and how terrible their future will be.

The 'news' is of course not real news, it is a mixture of scarce facts held together by ourright lies, half truths and insults. It has included invasions into my private life.

Any journalism expert will tell you a journalist would never alter a news photograph ie use photoshop to electronically alter the photo - but using electronically alteredmimages is the particular specialty of this 'journalist', now with dozens of altered photographs appearing on his ' news' site.

And yes, before you ask, I am taking him to Court for the photographs, and all that did was make him post more fake 'photoshop' images and post them repeatedly.

A credible journalist, abiding by true journalism standards, would never allow a photoshopped image to be posted - the UK Editors Code of Practice specifically forbids this (our journalist is from the UK).

David Hanks - victim of internet harassment.

Late last week, my colleague (David Hanks) and I decided we had had enough of the trolls and instructed our lawyers to file proceedings against internet giant Google - the 'news' site is hosted on Blogger. That case is expected to first come to Court in Bangkok in July 2014.

We are not however suing Google for the 'news' site, but instead for search results, and also for allowing trolls to set up fake profiles with no certification of ID. Our friend the journalist gets a mention of course, as he had previously written an article referring to the use of SEO to 'manipulate Google'.

Under Thailand's tough Computer Crimes Act, if I cant find the troll, I can sue the service provider - in this case mainly Google, but we are also now looking at Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, Bing, Youtube, etc.

And now to internet trolls, what and who are they, and what motivates them?

I really like this image, as in my opinion the trolls truly are pathetic, and if you see some of the things I post about them you will see I dont agree with traditional theory of suffering in silence. I have found that hitting back and calling them for what they are has dampened their enthusiasm.

Morevover, we have now identified one of the trolls, and he will face Court on June 2nd 2014.

Recently, a study found that some internet trolls my actually be mentally ill.

A troll called 'Ben' who was interviewed by news.com.au is recorded as saying:

"It just makes me happy when I can make someone angry. It sounds weird but I kind of feed off the Internet trolling—the act of writing deliberately provocative or hurtful things on message boards and social media—seems to be everywhere these days, ...............The angrier I can get them, the better I feel," he told news.com.aU

'Ben' said the worst thing he ever did was vandalise the Facebook memorial page of a young girl who had committed suicide. "I wrote, 'How's it hanging guys'."

'Ben' doesn't feel any remorse, and strangely doesn't consider his actions bullying despite claiming he probably wouldn't have started trolling if he had not been bullied at school.

The whole campaign of internet harassment in my case centred around the 'news' site, and all the posters on the 'news' site would also post on my Blogger and Facebook and various other social media sites.

Initially, I stayed quiet and took the advice of many to try to ignore it and report it to Google - and it got worse, and the number of fake profiles increased and the number of posts mushroomed - some days as many as 10 to 20 posts would drop in my inbox!

And what did Google do when I reported all of this - nothing!

I filed many reports with Google, and recently filed a 20 page detailed complaint and received the same standard response from Google every time - Google is not a mediator of content and is protected by the Communications Decency Act Code 220 (defamation) - although our US based legal team says it is not likely to be protected in the current case.

If you make a report to Google they are likely to tell you they are not responsible for the content, but a number of Court cases around the world have shaken that presumption.

 Recent examples of Google's worsening Court woes are cases in the UK such as  Tamiz v Google and in Trijulka v Google in Australia.  The recent case in Spain in the European Court of Justice dealing with the 'right to be forgotten' only adds to Google's woes.

Because internet harassment is a new area of law, many jurisdictions are ill equipped to deal with it, although in the jurisdictions I am interested in, the UK, Thailand and Australia news laws such as amendments to the Prevention of Harassment Act (UK) and the Computer Crimes Act (Thailand) are starting to address the issue.

In the US, the Communications Decency Act makes much of the conduct I will write about is a US Federal Offence.

And today many thanks to +Spinosa +knutsa01 +Ally +samthai +theweapon +jules +tommyweapon +tommythruthsearcher + Spinosaj without whom my case against Google would not be possible.

Brian Goudie - Understanding Internet Harassment

Brian Goudie

Over the next few months I will be posting on this blog and documenting my experience with what can only be described as an ongoing coordinated campaign of internet harassment, and I intend to document my own personal experiences, as well as my now ongoing battle with Google,

Firstly, what is internet harassment? There is no clear definition, but according to Wiki Cyber Stallking and Internet Harassment has a wide range of different ways of manifesting.

In my case, it all started off when a journalist wrote a story about me in September 2012 - the journalist in question is now a convicted criminal and in the next few weeks is facing dozens of criminal charges.

My case is not unique, I have two close friends who have also been attacked. My good friend David Hanks was also attacked.

David Hanks

In my case, dozens of fake photos have been posted all over the internet along with dozens of allegations that my friend refers to as a 'myriad of lies'.

Initially it was very embarassing, especially the fake photos,  and did a great deal of damage to my life and business - now the harassment continues, but I have learned how to deal with it - criminal prosecution of the people involved.

For many months, I was subjected to a vicious campaign of harassment and intimidation, with death threats, threats of physical violence, fake profiles being set up in my name on Facebook, Wordpress, Google Plus, Blogger - everywhere!

Then these 'trolls' started sending messages and emails to my friends and family - at the same time the 'journalist' wrote over 100 articles witten on a 'news' website.

I took the owner of the 'news' site to Court, and the harassment increased, with the fake profiles commenting on the 'news'  site also leaving comments on my Facebook, Google Plus and Blogger posts. Many of the comments can only be described as disgusting.

Then, all the fake profiles started using the fake photos in their profiles, and postimg them in Google Plus albums, with backlinks and tags to my profile - this is still going on, but the trolls are now much more careful masking their locations and IP addresses.

The whole campaign of internet harassment centred around the 'news' site, and all the posters on the 'news' site would also post on my Blogger and Facebook.

I stayed quiet and took the advice of many to try to ignore it and report it to Google - and it got worse!

The accusations and names and threats I wont repeat here, but in months to come the details will be reported as the Court proceedings progress.

And what did Google do when I reported all of this - nothing! I received the same standard response every time - Google is not a mediator of content.

But what of Google? Google will try to tell you they are not responsible for the content, but a number of Court cases around the world have shaken that presumption, a recent example of which in the UK is Tamiz v Google and in Trijulka v Google in Australia.

Because internet harassment is a new area of law, many jurisdictions are ill equipped to deal with it, although in jurisdictions I am interested in, the UK, Thailand and Australia news laws such as amendments to the Prevention of Harassment Act (UK) and the Computer Crimes Act (Thailand) are starting to address the issue.

In the US, the Communications Decency Act makes much of the conduct I will write about is now a US Federal Offence.

And today many thanks to +Spinosa +knutsa01 +Ally +samthai +theweapon +jules without whom my case against Google would not be possible.

To be continued.

Brian Goudie.
25th May 2014

Internet Harassment - Taking on Google

Most readers of this blog know that I am involved in extensive litigation with Andrew Drummond, a journalist resident in Bangkok.

Andrew Drummond is a convicted criminal, after being convicted of the criminal defamation of  Drew Noyes and David Hanks in Pattaya earlier this year. Drummond was sentenced to four months in jail (suspended for one year).

Drummond has a number of criminal cases pending (and I have it on good advice another one was filed today in Pattaya Court).

Drummond operates a site hosted by Google on Blogger using a custom URL.

Over the past few weeks, my friends David Hanks, Drew Noyes and I have been subjected to an incredible campaign of internet harassment, and we have decided to take decisive action to put a stop to it.

David, Drew and I have had articles posted on the internet, then swathes of disgraceful comments are made by anonymous posters. These posters hide behind internet profiles with made up names such as Tommy Truthsearcher, Jules, Sam Kane, Ally, Sam Thai, The Weapon, Knutsa01 - all spend all their time making comments and threats from the comfort of their anonymous internet connections.

Fake Facebook profiles, fake Wordpress blogs, fake Blogger sites, fake Google Plus profiles - the lot!

It comes under the umbrella name of 'internet harrassment' or 'cyber harrassment'. It is a criminal offence in most countries, but difficult to identify offenders.

Now ask the question - why do they use fake untraceable accounts with fake photoshopped profile photos?

There are two reasons, firstly they are low life cowardly scum bags who would never challenge face to face, and secondly they know if they can be identified we will prosecute them under Thailand's Computer Crimes Act, or the UK Prevention of Harassment Act, or the Defamation Act in Australia.

People subjected to internet harassment are normally advised to document all the emails, messages, threats and posts and for weeks on end that is what David and I have been doing - the reason?

The reason is that David Hanks and I this morning instructed our lawyers to file dozens of criminal charges against Google Inc and Google Thailand, as the owners of Blogger,  in Central Bangkok Criminal Court.

Google are to be prosecuted for a wide range of criminal offences, including providing internet services to third parties posting defamation, harassment, threats and use of fake photoshopped images.

Blogger

Google are being sued as a 'service provider', for allowing third parties to post unlawful material, and failing to remove it when notified - this is a criminal offence in Thailand under Thailand's tough Computer Crimes Act in fact it is a criminal offence in most countries.

We have also instructed our lawyers to file charges against Larry Page and Sergey Binn personally.

Sergey Binn

Larry Page

One of the main issues in the case is the ease with which Google allows fake profiles to be used to set up hate blogs.

Google and Blogger are protected to some degree in the US from defamation suits, but there is no protection from internet harassment, 47 U.S. Code § 223, makes it justiciable if a service provider allows internet harassment to continue.

Google have already lose defamation cases in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, France and Germany - and just last week in the European Court of Justice in the 'right to be forgotten case'.

We three are all realistic, and we know that we are taking on Google, an internet behemoth, but we have no choice - we must fight back.

We are extremely fortunate to have been offered assistance by a well know 'internet consultant' who has had running battles with Google for some time, and his involvement will be announced later in the month as the proceedings start to move.

The proceedings in Thailand are just the start, tandem proceedings are expected in the US, UK and Australia - we are going to be busy.

And before Drummond and his supporters start screaming and cackling - yes we know what we are doing, and who we are taking on, and how much money they have.

In fact, one of the lawyers laughed this morning and said this will be a real David (Hanks) and Goliath battle.

David and Goliath

Exposing Andrew Drummond's Lies - Ian Tracey

Most readers of this blog know that I am involved in extensive litigation with Andrew Drummond, a journalist resident in Bangkok.

Andrew Drummond is a convicted criminal, after being convicted of the criminal defamation of  Drew Noyes and David Hanks in Pattaya earlier this year. Drummond was sentenced to four months in jail (suspended for one year).

Andrew Drummond - A convicted Criminal

I have been reading Drummond's blog and copying URL's for the last three days (the reason will become clear to the entire world on Monday May 26th).

I have noted many inaccuracies, as well as outright lies. I intend to address the inaccuracies and outright lies in this blog.

Every time I expose Drummond as a liar, he writes about me again - he cant do any more damage and as far as I am concerned can now write as many times as he wants - there is however a very nasty surprise in store for him and a number of other individuals who comment on his site, and use Google profiles to do so.

Earlier this year Drummond reported on his site that I 'set up' a man called Ian Charles Tracey.

Ian Tracey - Jailed for Child Sex Abuse by Appeal Court then released by Supreme Court

Ian Charles Tracey was convicted of child sexual abuse offences by Rayong Court of Appeal in approximately September of 2010,  and was arrested as a result of a warrant issued by Rayong Court of Appeal.

Ian Tracey's Arrest Warrant - issued 14th September 2011

The Court of Appeal issued the warrant when Tracey failed to appear at Court - Tracey later told the Court he had not received the documents.

The full decision of the Court of Appeal is published at the bottom of this page.

The warrant for Tracey's arrest was issued a year before I knew him - some set up!

I helped Ian Tracey find a lawyer for his case and the lawyer lodged the documents with the Court of Appeal - he has been released now. I am not clear on whether or not Ian Tracey's conviction has been quashed, or he remains convicted of child sexual abuse offences and has been released on on bail pending appeal.

The appeal and request for bail was lodged free of charge.

Drummond previously said of Tracey in two stories :

From Drummond's site on 3rd September 2013 :

'Last week Thai police found a wanted child abuser hiding in a room below Goldie's in the ‘Jaggy Thistle’ – the registered office of Goldie’s firm Alba Law.

Londoner Ian Charles Tracy, 47, had been on the run on for nearly a year on charges of abusing two boys aged 10 and 12, in Pattaya. Not only was Tracy living on the same premises as Goldie but witnesses say he had actually helped Goldie acquire the bar in the first place.

Tracy had little visible means of support in Pattaya, which is as famous for its young ‘boy bars’ as well as its thriving heterosexual sex scene. He earned pocket money making such things as steak and kidney and chicken pies and selling them to British run bars.

But he also had a voluntary role visiting foreigners in the local prison at Nong Plalai just outside Pattaya and reported back to Consulates – including the British one – on their condition and complaints.

He said he worked for a local children's charity ‘The Mercy Centre’, a fact that is unlikely to be confirmed'

Tracey has now gone from 'wanted child abuser' and 'on the run' to 'victim' - unbeleievable!

Comment : 

Tracey was jailed as a result of the lawful order of a Thai Court with an arrest warrant properly issued according to Thai law.

It is not for me or Andrew Drummond to comment on the guilt or innocence of Mr Tracey.

He had been advised to surrender to the Court, and if he had done so he may have been granted bail - he chose not to do so despite being fully aware of the warrant for his arrest.

At the time he was arrested he was being followed by Thai police and had been under surveillance since the time of the arrest of Tracey's close friend Greg Miller - he had been warned of this by his own 'contact' in the Thai government.

Greg Miller was jailed in November of 2013 at Pattaya Provincial Court after pleading guilty to the serial rape of a nine year old boy.