Sam Norton (Elizaphanian): My correspondence with J Mark Brewer

I was planning to write this evening about Cease and Desist notices, what they are used for and my opinions about how to assess them and respond. Instead, I have something far more interesting for you; one of J Mark Brewer’s Cease and Desist notices itself.

Sam Norton runs the blog “Elizaphanian“. He is one of the Bloggers in receipt of “Cease and Desist” notices from J Mark Brewer, who runs the Saint Stephen the Great organisation.

On July 26th, Sam noted that he had been sent a “Cease and Desist” notice by Mark Brewer:

For the record, I’ve been ’served’ a cease and desist as well…

Now he has decided to publish the entire correspondence. Below I have reproduced Sam’s article.

I will have some things to say about the content of this notice, but for now have a look yourselves. The only change I have made is that I have changed the quote under point 2 from italic to bold, since italic appears on this blog as red, which would cause confusion with text displayed in red.

From below the heading the words are Sam’s.

Correspondence between Sam Norton and J Mark Brewer

I am publishing this because I believe it is in the public interest for this information to be widely known.

On 25th July I received the following e-mail:

CONFIDENTIAL:

NOT TO BE REDISTRIBUTED TO ANY PERSON

OR PUBLICLY POSTED

Reverend Norton:

I have visited your web page[1] which you brazenly have set up to carry on for the “cartoon church” blog site. As such, you appear to be dedicated to the destruction of my personal reputation and that of Saint Stephen the Great/Saint Stephen the Great Charitable Trust. I am absolutely appalled and devastated that a member of the clergy of the Church of England would engage in such inappropriate and defamatory behavior, by what you have written as well as by what you have posted and by encouraging others to do the same.

I am dumfounded that any Christian, especially a clergyman, honestly believes that this is consistent with his faith. You would know better than I, a layman, how many places defamation is spoken against in the Holy Bible.[2]

Re-publishing the material from “cartoon church” has nothing to do with what you call “free speech.” Instead, you are invading my privacy by putting my name on your webpage, and you are defaming me. You are also interfering with the Charitable Trust’s efforts to salvage what remains of the charitable business of the Christian bookshops with scorn.

Your libel of me and your invasion of my privacy have deeply hurt me. Because of your position as a clergyman, the pain of the words on your web page is greater.

This is not right and you have gone too far.

Your statements are false and I categorically deny them – both for me and SSG/SSGCT. Many of them are defamatory per se (e.g., “. . . incompetence and injustice of the people who have taken over the SPCK chain.”)

I reiterate: am a private individual and I value my privacy. I am not a public figure and you have no right to drag my name through the mire. I do not consent and object to you invading my personal privacy by maintaining web pages about me, SSG, SSGCT, ENC Management, my brother, my wife, or my family. I do not consent to you posting blogs or enabling and encouraging others to blog us on the internet. I do not consent to you defaming me to any other party or person by “sharing” your false allegations. At this point, even were you to remove my name from your web page, my personal identity would still be clear to a majority of readers.

Legal Demands

1. I hereby demand that you cease and desist from doing any of these things any more. I specifically demand that you deactivate your webpages, websites and/or blogsites which mention me, my brother, my family, SSG and/or SSGCT IMMEDIATELY. I also demand that you not post this email, paraphrase it or refer to it in any way.

2. I hereby demand that you issue to me a retraction and apology on your webpage stating substantially the following:

I have removed from my website all of the material about Mr. Mark Brewer and the Saint Stephen the Great Charitable Trust as I have determined that it unfairly violated the personal privacy of Mr. Brewer and because it was defamatory. I acknowledge that I did not have any factual basis for any of these defamatory statements and that this is the reason for this retraction and apology.

I sincerely apologize to Mr. Brewer for the hurt I have caused to him, his family and to Saint Stephen the Great. I urge my readers to refrain from any public postings on the internet about Mr. Brewer in respect of his privacy.

I also request and urge my readers to refrain from writing or saying anything about him, his family or Saint Stephen the Great which is or reasonably could be interpreted as false or defamatory.

3. I hereby demand that you contact all persons with whom you have communicated about me or the charity, sending them the above apology with a blind-copy to myself so that I know you have complied.

If you do meet the terms and conditions set forth above and if you fail to remove the defamatory material from your website by noon GMT July 25, 2008, I will seek an injunction against you and those with whom you have collaborated in your activities. I also will take legal action against you for damages for libel. In that event, I will also subpoena all records relating to the persons whom you have allowed to post defamatory material on your website in order to add them as defendants.

Please acknowledge your receipt of this correspondence and your intent to comply with this demand by reply email.

J. Mark Brewer


[2] Exodus 20:16 – the Ninth Commandment; Psalm 101:5 – “Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.” Jesus also preached against slander; e.g., Saint Mark 7:22.

I replied firstly in this manner:

Dear J Mark Brewer,
I acknowledge receipt of this e-mail. I shall take legal advice and make a substantive response within seven days.

Sam Norton

To which I received the response:

Sir
Thank you for your acknowledgment.
Seven days is too long for me to continue to be the victim of this outrage. You could at least have the Christian decency to take down the offending material pending your ‘legal advice.’ Will you do that or do you require that legal action force you to?
J. Mark Brewer
Houston, Texas 77056

I have this evening replied further:

Dear J Mark Brewer,
Following our earlier correspondence this is now my substantive reply to your original e-mail of 25th July 2008.
I believe that my blog contains only material which is either true or “fair comment” upon truthful matters.
If there are particular aspects of the material published on my blog which you believe to be neither true nor fair comment I am prepared to look again at specific items.
Please be aware that I consider the making public of this correspondence to be in the public interest, and that I shall share, via my blog and other media, both your original “cease and desist” request, and any subsequent correspondence.
I would assure you that I have no personal malice towards you in this regard. My concern is that an innocent man (Mr David Walker) has been victimised by your actions. Should you be willing at any point in the future to make a public apology to him, leading to him reinstating his blogposts concerning SPCK, then I shall certainly cease and desist any further writings on this affair.
You do, of course, have recourse to the secular courts of the United Kingdom if you wish to take this further in that manner. Should you wish to do so, I shall be pleased to explain my position in open court.
Yours sincerely,
Sam Norton
Series Navigation«Hofmeister - Follow the Bear. Mark that Brewer carefully.YOU cease and desist, Mr J Mark Brewer … Cartoon: Asbo Jesus»

About the Author

admin

Matt is an internet consultant, commentator, freelance writer and Project Manager based in the UK. He is available for hire. Matt edits the Wardman Wire, and writes at Poligeeks, Total Politics, and occasionally in several other places.

5 Responses to “Sam Norton (Elizaphanian): My correspondence with J Mark Brewer”

  1. Go, Sam go!

    PS. I’m quite disappointed not to have received a C & D myself!

    Doug Chaplins last blog post..House rules

  2. Well said Sam.

    Presumably Dave did not agree to posting the apology as Mr Brewer directed. I Am Not A Lawyer, but whilst one might have sympathies with Mr Brewer wanting to defend his name and that of his family, I would hope one cannot be held as being libellous for publishing material that are legal documents or comments by disgruntled former staff of an organisation. Otherwise people like the Trades Unions would be illegal or defending libel threats all the time.

    joes last blog post..£3 an hour

  3. Brave, brave man for taking him on…

    graces last blog post..a person who sins

  4. I’ll be interested to read your forthcoming comments, Matt. I’ve offered my own.

    Doug Chaplins last blog post..Supporting Sam Norton

  5. [...] e-mail demand to cease and desist has published the whole ongoing correspondence. Matt Wardman has also published it, and will comment in due course. [Update: The Ministry of Truth has a very detailed analysis of the [...]

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv Enabled