McKenzie & Morris served with injunction

Follow-up to:

Thanks to Lula for hooking us up with this:

Court doc_ HCU - Copy

Injunction against Belinda and Tracey

Eerie silence explained. The demise of the Knight Foundation website explained. Inactivity on the illegal Hampstead Research blog explained.

The gist of it is that Tracey Morris and Belinda McKenzie have been served with an injunction essentially ordering them to shut the f*** up. Why? Because they have yet again been disclosing confidential information, leaking private documents and videos and issuing death threats all over the internet.

This has led in part to the collapse of Ella Draper‘s appeal hearing.


Belinda and Tracey

If only someone had warned them that this might happen. Oh wait – we did. In fact, we’ve been screaming it from the f***ing rooftops for the last 6 months! (It’s one of the reasons we’ve been subjected to a constant stream of slander, abuse and death threats from Bellender’s minions and other assorted fruitcakes.) Oh and then there was that little old High Court judgment from March to ram the point home.


From Mrs. Justice Pauffley’s High Court judgment, released 19th March 2015

And that’s without even mentioning several basic laws (which Belinda surely should have known she was breaching) and common bloody sense.

But in between savouring this opportunity to flip our middle fingers to Belinda, Tracey and the Hoaxtead fruitcake brigade and shout “Told you so!”, let’s not forget that this whole thing is about two vulnerable little children whose lives have been thrown into turmoil by a bunch of conspiracy-spouting loons. And ironically, through their own incompetence, stubbornness, ignorance and stupidity, those same loons have in fact improved the chances of those children being reunited with their loving father (the complete opposite of what they wanted). 🙂

Here’s the injunction notification (pictured above):

The Father seeks injunctive relief in terms as detailed in the draft order attached against the proposed Respondents herein. Belinda McKenzie, a person who has previously identified herself as the Mother’s McKenzie friend within these proceedings and who unsuccessfully sought to represent the Mother at the commencement of the Fact Finding hearing in the Mother’s absence, has been actively involved in a public campaign designed to undermine the Fact Finding Judgment within these proceedings. In so doing she refuses to accept the findings of Her Ladyship Mrs Justice Pauffley and in particular a vindication of the Father, Ricky Dearman. As part of the public campaign there has been an unprecedented disclosure of confidential material filed within care proceedings. It has included these children’s ABE interviews and social media and numerous websites have been used as a vehicle to publicise such material. The Fact Finding judgment which was released publicly severely criticised the disclosure of confidential material from these proceedings but notwithstanding such criticism the disclosure and internet campaign is escalating. As part of this Belinda McKenzie recently participated in yet another video recording about this case, having previously participated in many other previously. On this occasion it was filmed outside the High Court on 23.07.15. She is filmed saying, amongst other things, that the “chief suspect” (who is identified as the Father) “was not examined properly”. She goes on to criticise the police for not having seized his computer and making an allegation that had it been seized they would have found snuff porn movies on it with some of the photos of the children on it being abused too. The allegations made by Belinda McKenzie are perpetuating notwithstanding injunctive relief in similar terms has been granted in these proceedings in January and February both in respect of the Mother, the Intervener and Sabine McNeill, with whom Belinda McKenzie McKenzie has been associated during the course of these proceedings. All three have escaped the jurisdiction and thus are currently beyond sanction. The impact Belinda McKenzie’s behaviour is having on the children’s Father and thus indirectly on the children is catastrophic. He has suffered immense distress, anxiety and fear as well as financial harm in relation to his reputation and this has affected his ability to work. It places him at risk of physical harm from those who maybe persuaded that the allegations are true as well as psychological and emotional harm. As a consequence it places at risk the rehabilitation to him of the children and thus a direct bearing on the welfare of the children.

Tracey Morris, the second proposed Respondent, also participated in the said video recording outside the High Court on 23.07.15. She was filmed saying amongst other things that the Father had brought them (meaning the children) into a cult life. She says that in her eyes the children are still in the cult because they are seeing their Father and that they shouldn’t be anywhere near the Father. She went on to say that “Ricky Dearman gets those kids over my dead body. Will he live any kind of normal life? I don’t care if he skips the country. We will hunt him down.” Tracy Morris has, therefore, publicly undermined the Fact Finding Judgment. She has made untrue public allegations against the Father and threatened violence. The impact of Tracey Morris’ behaviour on the Father and children are the same as those caused by Belinda McKenzie relating to above.

For all these reasons the Father seeks injunctive relief with a penal notice attached.

The damning video which prompted the injunction:

See also:

Click to access gareeva-dearman-2015.pdf


17 thoughts on “McKenzie & Morris served with injunction

  1. It’s all come back to bite them, hasn’t it?

    Can you hear that scrabbling sound? It’s the sound of a bunch of rats, hastily abandoning ship.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Been reading up on this and I don’t even have a ‘legal team’. An injunction has to be served. That’s all. Once it’s been served it’s active.

      If you breach it you are in contempt of Court.

      Tracey should back down because she has children to look after. She wouldn’t want to look as irresponsible as Ella would she?

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Pingback: Tracey Morris breaches injunction | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  3. Pingback: Is Tracey Morris a shill? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  4. Pingback: Let’s count our victories | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  5. Pingback: Belinda tries to drum up the faithful | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  6. Pingback: Harassment against Belinda McKenzie – ONLINE EVIDENCE REVIEW PROJECT

  7. Pingback: Who really cares about the children? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  8. Pingback: There is no honour among Hoaxtead pushers | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  9. Pingback: Angela’s latest allegations true to form | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.