Current Page: 77 of 139
Christopher Hansard
Posted by: kath ()
Date: June 30, 2007 06:44PM

Frank Black
Something else that I have to say is that for some time, CH did not allow me to pay for my treatments. This outreaching of generosity I will never forget, and I can certainly say he saved my life. I was very suicidal at the time and over time the treatment allowdd me to live normally and have a balanced mental state. I agree with an earlier poster, that as far as emotional disturbances go, the treatment was very good. After I was more balanced, I am not sure what the subsequent treatments have had. Anyway, this act of generosity and healing is what makes all this harder to try and process and understand.

Hi Frank, just to say that sometimes drug users give people their first few 'hits' of the drug for free, which ensures that they keep coming back after they've got a taste for the drug. Then they start to pay. Perhaps that would explain CH's initial generosity?

Or maybe CH acts nicely at times- he is human after all- but is very abusive at other times.

Sometimes controlling individuals change how they respond to people too- nice for a while, then really evil, then nice again. This pattern of behaviour keeps people insecure and so they remain under the controller's influence.

Anyway I wish you well in your healing journey and finding answers which help you. :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Christopher Hansard
Posted by: pema ()
Date: July 02, 2007 01:03AM

Item below appeared on my Google Alert but when I tried to access the link it came up as an error message. Anyone know anything about it?

Please Help Defend Christopher Hansard - Online Petition
We, the undersigned, have good reason to believe that Christopher Hansard's story of his training is true. We believe, therefore, that he is offering ...

Options: ReplyQuote
Christopher Hansard
Posted by: pema ()
Date: July 02, 2007 01:11AM

Third attempt was it is

Please Help Defend Christopher Hansard 3 Signatures

Created by Anonymous on Jun 29, 2007
Category: Health and Happiness
Region: GLOBAL
Target: Police, local authorities and workshop promotors
Web-site: []
Christopher Hansard was taught Tibetan Dur Bon Medicine in New Zealand from a man named Urgygen gNam Chuk. His teachings were passed down to him as they had been passed down to Urygen and as they have been passed down through generations.

It is difficult for some to understand these things without "proper documentation". We want "evidence", and our own experiences are seemingly no longer valid. We doubt what we feel, what we see, what we have touched, tasted and smelled. We doubt all of our senses, and in doing so we doubt our very selves. It seems times have changed since the days when even if we could not entirely put our trust in others, we could at least acknowledge and respect their experiences, and still trust and honour our own.

It is difficult for us to understand and accept that without material "proof" our experiences are real. But there is no material evidence, nor tangible traces left behind in an oral tradition, aside from the effect they have on our lives, and aside from the effects they have on our senses. This is what we find ourselves struggling with now.

Some time ago a gentleman by the name of Jeffrey Bowes wrote Christopher Hansard a letter questioning the teachings and the manner in which they were passed down to Christopher. Christopher replied to Mr. Bowes, but his explanation was deemed insufficient and ever since then Mr. Bowes has contacted and repeatedly harassed any who have supported, promoted, or benefited from their acquaintance with Christopher Hansard, both in the past, and present, and he will continue to do so in the future.

Christopher has not always walked alongside those teachings that were passed down to him by Urygen Ngam Chuk. He has faltered from time to time that much is true, but now he is being called upon to answer to things that he has not faltered in. Christopher Hansard is taking the lessons from his own failings and he is making change in his life. Real change and like any of us, he should be afforded the grace to do so.

There are 3 sites that have come to our attention as friends, patients and fellow practitioners that we would very much like to acknowledge and draw everyone's attention to. These are the following:,, and

We would like to call on everyone who are and have been friends, and patients, and who have had positive experiences with Christopher Hansard.

People who are trying to relay anything positive are simply being revoked on the Rick Ross site, and while we were trying to just allow, and let some simply go through their pain, and release, they are not relenting, they are not letting up, and we now have to defend ourselves and our experiences in any way we can, and we think we can best do this by bringing light into the situation and giving a voice to those who are being refused.

Due to unrelenting harassment, the sponsors of this petition have good reason to believe that some potential signatories have been made fearful of defending Christopher Hansard, and are being discouraged from coming to his aid, for standing up for what they believe in and for honouring their own experiences. We all have a right to our own experiences and no one has a right to deny us, to make us feel ashamed of, or to belittle what we believe in.

*Please note that you may sign this petition and remain anonymous until it is published. has a strict privacy policy. Email and Street Addresses will never be displayed to the public.
We, the undersigned, have good reason to believe that Christopher Hansard’s story of his training is true. We believe, therefore, that he is offering complimentary and alternative medical treatments, courses and workshops based on a true traditional oral teaching and on real skill.

We have found much benefit from our acquaintance with Christopher Hansard and many of us can attest to the claims of him genuinely assisting people with both acute and chronic conditions, including cancer, but he has always maintained that his help is meant to compliment any form of orthodox medical treatment and our own healing experiences.

Christopher Hansard no longer offers training to others in his system and dismissed all apprentices at the end of 2006 as it was his wish and at his patients request that he return to caring for and being responsible for each patient personally.

We believe that Christopher Hansard understands the responsibilities, ethical and boundary issues and duty of care that patients should expect and this is demonstrated by the changes he continues to implement in his daily practice.

We believe that Christopher Hansard should be allowed and encouraged to continue practicing what he was taught in the way of the Dur Bon Teachings as they have benefited many through out the world.

We, therefore, call on all authorities invested with the responsibility for protecting the public to do just that and investigate the accusations being made presently against Christopher Hansard and invite them to assess his suitability to offer and practice Tibetan Dur Bon healing methods in the hopes that as a member of the public he be left to enjoy his right to practice and continue to serve others.
Sign the petitionThe Please Help Defend Christopher Hansard petition to Police, local authorities and workshop promotors was written by Anonymous and is hosted free of charge at

Tell a friend | Signature list | Contact author | Petition's forum
To link to this petition, copy the following code to your site:

Options: ReplyQuote
Christopher Hansard
Posted by: Dorje ()
Date: July 02, 2007 01:40AM

That petition seems like a very good idea to me. I hope they will take it to the police and local authorities as promised. They might even take it to ‘Witness’. I’m sure all investigations will be dropped now that we know that:

‘Christopher Hansard is taking the lessons from his own failings and he is making change in his life. Real change and like any of us, he should be afforded the grace to do so.’

Oh that all sexual predators, abusers and conmen could turn their lives around so successfully. Perhaps as part of this change he might offer himself to ‘Witness’. Perhaps he will have something to contribute in the healing process of his victims.

The alternative petition is at: []

This petition does afford him the grace to make real change. It suggests however that he stopped from practicing medicine – an area where he has clearly demonstrated inadequate awareness of professional responsibility and ethics.

If you or anybody you know has experienced ANY form of abuse in dealings with Hansard please do take your story to ‘Witness’.


You can email them or call the helpline on 08454 500 300.

Options: ReplyQuote
Christopher Hansard
Posted by: mediatoruk ()
Date: July 03, 2007 07:42PM

Hi all,

I have been following this thread for a couple of weeks, and feel I need to email to make a few things clear regarding the laws of defamation in this country (UK) - something Amethyst bought up in the initial posts I see.

To make it clear firstly, there is nothing wrong with questioning people/businesses, practices, etc etc in a provocative journalistic manner, much like Pema has done. Equally, there is nothing wrong with stating an opinion BUT one has to tread carefully that what one is writing is not potentially damaging and presented as fact. Mr Bowes heads up the very silly few who are very much in the defamation boat. What Pema has initially set up as a fair enquiry, has unfortunately turned into a slinging match. The Internet, nor an alias, does not give one the ability to evade the defamation law that applies to the 'real' world as is very clear in current UK case law and legislation.

So I would like to bring to everyones attention that this blog on this site contains potentially defamatory statements against Mr Hansard, in the form of libel (written defamation, rather than spoken, which is 'slander'). All the classic defamation rules are met, which I do not intend to go into. There is plenty out there available on the net about what constitutes libel. When reading this, you must consider the public figure that Mr Hansard has, the fact he has written widely distributed books, and the nature of the publicised material - i.e. this blog. The nature of the community associated with this and the fact it is very easy to find on Google ensures that dissemination is wide. Bear in mind that UK defamation lawa are some of the toughest in the world.

A libel claimant does not have to prove that the words are false or to prove that he/she has in fact suffered any loss. Damage is presumed. It is up to the writer of the words to prove FACT, the onus is on them. Fact is the only defence for someone who has written defamatory comments. I ask you all to consider this as it is a heavy onus of you were taken to court.

Who is potentially liable here?

1. The writer of the comments - don't think that the courts do not look behind the alias. However Jeffery Bowe, you have made it very easy to target yourself without any effort of obtaining ISP addresses etc. Sending links to third parties, for example, like Jeffrey Bowes blog on Mr Hansard, would also make you potentially liable IF this blog contained potentially damaging written information.

2. Rick Ross site, you are also potentially liable. Yes, you are located in the US, where libel laws are notoriously tough and internet providers and sites afford different protections here in the UK. No, you are not immune. Recent UK case law has established that a company based outside the country may not be immune from litigation in that country if the material can be read by internet users in that country. I suggest you monitor your site properly, like you claim to do so in your disclaimer.

NOTE that by posting on the Rick Ross site, you '... agree that you are fully responsible both legally and financially for all your postings and actions on this forum'. This wording is taken from the 'forum rules' page.

Damages for a sucessful libel claim can be up to £250,000.

I think it is only pertinent to point these facts out to everyone involved. The laws of defamation in the UK equally apply to the internet. I ask you, would you all have written these comments in a local magazine under you own name? What is happening here on this blog is the same as that, in the eyes of the law.

This does not in ANY way absolve any real wrongdoing on the part of Mr Hansard, and I am not here to pass judgment on the actual claims themselves. If you have the hard FACTS to back all these claims up, then obviously you have prudently looked into the legal position and have built a credible case and can afford to make these claims. But you must know what the effect of putting these claims out in the public arena in this way are.

I know the internet can seem like an easy place to vent our anger, but too many people are too reckless these days. The courts are now catching up with this sort of behaviour. Come on, everyone must take responsibility here.

Options: ReplyQuote
Christopher Hansard
Posted by: lorenzetti ()
Date: July 03, 2007 08:05PM

I have just looked at the gopetitions relating to Christopher Hansard.
Unfortunately, three signatures which should be on the 'Stop CH from practicing medicine' petition are on the 'please help defend CH' petition.
I thought I should draw attention to this.

Options: ReplyQuote
Christopher Hansard
Posted by: pema ()
Date: July 03, 2007 08:34PM

No kidding! How could this happen? I tried to view the signatures on the 'defend petition' but without success. I guess someone has to point it out to the petition website managers.

Options: ReplyQuote
Christopher Hansard
Posted by: rrmoderator ()
Date: July 03, 2007 08:49PM


Are you an attorney that specializes specifically in libel/slander law?

If you are an attorney please identify yourself and your firm.

It seems instead that you may be someone associated with Hansard and attempting to intimidate people posting here, which is against the rules.

Excuse me, but having been sued four times for defamation I have some direct experience in this area and there are three lawyers on the Ross Institute Advisory Board, one that specializes specifically in libel/slander law.

The Institute has also been assisted by Public Citizen in the preparation of briefs before the US Supreme Court, Harvard's Berkman Center of Internet Law and large law firms across the US, all pro bono.

The following lawsuits ended not only in defeat for the plaintiffs, but also bad press.

One purported "cult" called "The Church of Immortal Conscisousness" appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court and not only did they lose, but they were ordered to pay costs.

See []

Another group called the "Gentle Wind Project" not only lost, but the press it garnered drew the attention of law enforcement, which eventually shut the group down in Maine. Subsequently many of its assets were liquidated to pay people back regarding false claims linked to health care treatment.

See []

Two groups, "Landmark Education" and "Pure Bride Ministries," wisely chose to dismiss their own lawsuits rather than face further humiliation and expense in the courts.

See []

And also []

In the case of Landmark Education, which is one of the most litigious groups called "cults," this message board was cited regarding its claim of "product disparagement." And Landmark attempted to legally force the Ross Institute to disclose the identity and/or identifying information such as IP addresses etc., concerning people that post anonymously at this board about its large group awareness training programs.

Landmark's attempt to do identify people anonymously posting on this board completely failed and a United States federal judge made it quite clear that no such information would need to be disclosed and/or released by the Ross Institute.

Also, per another federal ruling often called "Donato," a federal court found that the owner of a message board cannot be held vicariously liable for the posts on that board. Nor can anyone be held responsible for links posted to another board, regarding statements made at the linked to site.

Another purported "cult" called NXIVM has sued the Ross Institute in an attempt to remove information from its database, this lawsuit was filed almost four years ago and is still ongoing.

As in all the previous litigation cited the Institute is defended pro bono, and by one of New Jersey's largest and most noted law firms, Lowenstein Sandler, along with other attorneys in Albany, New York and Boston.

An injunction request made by NXIVM to remove material was rejected all the way to the US Supreme Court and recently a federal judge dismissed some of NXIVM's most important claims.

However, the courts have upheld a counterclaim filed by the Ross Institute against NXIVM for $1 million dollars, which is pending.

See []

As you can see threats of litigation are nothing new here. And free speech rights have been vigorously defended and quite successfully by the Ross Institute through numerous law firms and respected free speech advocates.

Again, if you are an attorney identify yourself, your firm and area of practice/expertise.

Otherwise, you are not qualified in any way to render competent legal advice to anyone here.

If Hansard has a claim the proper manner to make that claim would be a legal letter composed and sent by an attorney to the Ross Institute specifically quoting verbatim and citing whatever false statements have been made.

Such a letter will then be reviewed by the Ross Institute and its attorneys.

Please understand that any further attempts to intimidate anyone posting on this board may result in being banned from the board per the rules you agreed to before posting here.

Options: ReplyQuote
Christopher Hansard
Posted by: Dorje ()
Date: July 03, 2007 09:46PM

If you check out the ‘defend Christopher Hansard’ petition you will find three signatories who comments indicate that they are signing the wrong petition.

What is more interesting is that two of them, Professor Sonam Amdongyapa of Vienna and Dorjong Rimpoche of Nepal were previously writing glowing reviews of Hansard’s books on Amazon.

According to Jeffrey Bowe these are fictitious characters anyway. Now that really is strange. Does anybody have a clue as to why someone would invent a character to promote a book and then use that character to sign a petition supporting the author of the book while adding very negative comments?

Christopher, perhaps you can help with this one?

If you have concerns about Christopher Hansard and would like him to stop practicing medicine please go to:


This petition does afford him the grace to make real change. It suggests however that he be stopped from practicing medicine – an area where he has clearly demonstrated inadequate awareness of professional responsibility and ethics.

If you or anybody you know has experienced ANY form of abuse in dealings with Hansard please do take your story to ‘Witness’.


You can email them or call the helpline on 08454 500 300.

Options: ReplyQuote
Christopher Hansard
Posted by: mediatoruk ()
Date: July 03, 2007 10:03PM

Hi Moderator,

Thanks for your quick reply!

Firstly, no, I have no affiliation with Mr Hansard. And no I am not a current practising UK lawyer. I like others have been following this thread, but just out of interest (maybe too much time on my hands). The question of defamation in the UK has come up in an earlier posting if I am not mistaken, so I was merely trying to add some colour to the question. Like others, I have done some of my own research and wanted to present my findings (for example, there has been some people doing detailed Tibetan history investigations on here).

If you read my post most carefully you will see it is impartial, or I hope it was. I am presenting the facts as I saw them. You will also notice that it is from a UK perspective. I humbly concede and have no doubt that Rick Ross would receive very good legal counsel with regards US law, and that the cases you sent me in your reply and very pertinent vis-a-vis US law (they are US court rulings). However, I speak from a UK perspective. You will no doubt be aware that UK libel law is very different to US law (as I said in my earlier post) and this is one of the reasons you are able to provide such a provocative site to the public. This would not be the case here in Britain, and it does pose some interesting cross border implications.

Anyway, I am sorry if I offended anyone or intimidated anyone. That was in no way my intention, nor was my intention to give legal advice! As this is a free speech site I wanted to put forward my findings which I feel were in context of the broader discussion. This information is all very researchable on the internet, so I'll leave anyone that is interested to do there own digging. Either way, and as you can agree from your reaction, it is a very interesting and area and brings some strong feelings!

All the best.

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 77 of 139

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.