TRULIEVE HAS SUED THE VLOGGER “GANJA LEAKS” FORDEFAMATION OVER STATEMENTS HE MADE ABOUT TRULIEVESELLING MOLDY WEED AND HIRING ILLEGAL ALIENS. WILL THISSUIT FARE BETTER THAN TRULIEVE’S SUIT AGAIN

"Original Piece" By Dale Schafer Esq. Watch today's Episode on YouTube, X, and Rumble.

September 10, 2025

Trulieve, Inc., one of Florida’s largest medical cannabis companies, has

filed a defamation lawsuit against Nathan Jurewicz, aka “Ganja Leaks”, for

making multiple statements on his blog, and X, claiming Trulieve sold

moldy weed and hired illegal aliens. Ganja Leaks has responded by asking

the court to dismiss the suit because Trulieve fails to state a cause of action

for defamation against a public figure, failure to sufficiently state damages,

and that the lawsuit is a SLAPP suit designed to stop the exercise of free

speech rights. This case seems similar to a suit Truleive filed against the

Republican Party of Florida, and several media companies, over

Amendment 3, the recent initiative to legalize recreational cannabis. A

Florida court dismissed that case back in March, effectively telling Trulieve

they had no case and to take their dolls and go home.

During the 2024 political battle over Amendment 3, Ganja Leaks published

statements about how the initiative would create monopolies, lower product

quality, and drive up prices, all with the Truleive logo prominently displayed.

Further, he published statements about Trulieve selling moldy weed,

poisoning its clients, and hiring illegal aliens to work for them. Attorneys for

Trulieve requested retractions of the statements, claiming they were false.

Although Ganja Leaks apparently acknowledged receiving at least one of

the retraction letters, he hid from Truleive.

On April 10, 2025, Truleive filed the instant suit against Jurewicz for

defamation, based upon the published statements he made, and did not

retract. The fun was just beginning though because Ganja Leaks hid from

the process servers. After several months of chasing the blogger, Truleive

used substitute service with the Secretary of State so the case could

proceed. If a person is hiding from service of process, each state has rules

about gaining personal jurisdiction over that person. Florida allows the

Secretary of State to accept service, along with service to the best known

address for the hiding person.

These steps were accomplished and the date for service of the Summons

was July 2, 2025. A defendant has twenty

(20) days after service of a Summons and Complaint, to respond in writing

to the court, and to serve the other party, or a default can be taken. A

default means that you were served, failed to respond, and now the

nondefaulting party gets what it was asking for in the suit.

Trulieve filed a Motion for a Default against Ganja Leaks on August 22,

2025. The Motion outlines the problems encountered when the defendant

hid from service, how service was accomplished, and asks the court to

grant the relief requested. Before a hearing could be held on the Default

Motion, Ganja Leaks, through his attorney, filed a Motion to Dismiss

Truleive’s suit.

This Motion was based upon some of the same arguments

that appeared in the court’s Dismissal of the Trulieve suit against the

Republican Party of Florida. This sets up a showdown between Trulieve

and Ganja Leaks over whether there was actionable defamation, whether

Trulieve is a public figure, and whether the default should be excused.

Defamation under Florida law requires that a false statement be published,

that the published statement caused actual damages, and, if the subject

was a public figure, that the publisher knew the statement was false, or

acted with reckless disregard of its falsity. Ganja Leaks has taken the

position in their Motion to Dismiss that Trulieve is a public figure. However,

Ganja Leaks does not address the default in his Motion to Dismiss.

A defamation lawsuit against a public figure has a different standard of

proof than a defamation lawsuit against a private person. Going back to the

1964 US Supreme Court case of New York Times v Sullivan, public figures

that sue for defamation must plead, and prove, that the published

statement was false, the statement caused actual damages to the plaintiff,

the statement was defamatory, and that there was actual malice in

publishing the statement. Courts require that the public figure claiming to

be defamed prove with clear and convincing evidence that the person

making the statement knew of its falsity or acted with reckless disregard for

the truth of the statement. Effectively, this limits the ability of a public figure

to sue for defamation.

Over the last few decades, many states have enacted laws called

anti-SLAPP, that prevent using the courts to silence people from exercising

their free speech rights. A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

(SLAPP) allows a court to dismiss a lawsuit, such as a defamation suit, if

the suit lacks merit and is primarily brought to silence the defendant. A

court can also award attorney’s fees to the defendant. These anti-SLAPP

laws effectively prevent people with resources and power from harassing

and silencing people because they can’t afford lawyers to defend

themselves.

When a person is served with a lawsuit, and fails to respond in a timely

manner, a default will be granted unless there is a showing of mistake,

surprise, inadvertance, or excusable neglect. A party in default must put

before the court the reason for the failure to respond. As of now, there is

nothing offered to excuse or justify a failure to respond. In fact, there is

plenty of evidence presented that Ganja Leaks hid from service of process

and was playing games with Trulieve. The default creates real problems for

Ganja Leaks because if he does not get beyond it, he will be precluded

from defending against the very real issues presented by the claim of

defamation.

Ganja Leaks has not yet responded to the default and Trulieve has not yet

responded to the Motion to Dismiss. Since the Motion for Default was filed

first, Ganja Leaks will need to get beyond the games he played about being

served with the lawsuit. He, and his attorney, should not assume he will be

excused from a Default. If the court ever gets to the merits involved in the

Motion to Dismiss, the statements from Ganja Leaks about Trulieve selling

moldy weed and hiring illegal aliens could be problematic. If the statements

are factually false, they could be defamatory because they impune the

business of Trulieve. I will follow this case and provide updates when

something of substance occurs.