Belinda & Sabine stay mum on own case

On Tuesday, 1st December, Belinda McKenzie and Sabine McNeill were slated to appear in the High Court/Admin Court, to face the consequences of their astonishingly inept handling of the Melissa Laird case.

Our understanding is that they were to be assessed a hefty fine, and Belinda expressed concern that her ‘Association of McKenzie Friends’ could be prohibited from operating (can we hear ‘amen!’?).

Usually when this sort of thing happens to Belinda and Sabine, you can rely on them to publish some sort of ‘oh dear, they’re persecuting us again’ diatribe, whether on their multitudinous blogs, or as private emails to their remaining dupes…er, followers.

This time, though, we’ve heard nary a word from either of them. Despite polite queries on Twitter and other social media, they have maintained radio silence since their court date.

What can this mean?

Our hunch—and it’s only a hunch, based on observing past behaviour—is that the court experience was not a pleasant one for Belinda and Sabine. We suspect that things did not move in their favour, else they would have been up online all night, banging on about how the ‘cult’ tried and failed to silence them, the courts can’t touch them, and even the evil and nefarious Mrs Justice P, whom Belinda appears to regard as a personal enemy, couldn’t force the issue, etc., etc., etc.

You know how they are.

Members of our team have been searching through reams of cases, and as soon as we have anything definitive we’ll let you know. For now, we think it’s safe to say that the outcome was unfavourable. At least, for Belinda and Sabine.

While you wait for confirmation on that, you might like to take a look at this video, where they lay out their version of events around the Melissa Laird case.

As always, Belinda is hilarious (note her use of the term ‘pastoral care’—what a card that woman is!), and Sabine looks as though she’s doing a pantomime of herself, complete with exaggerated shrugs, vocal squeaks, and a very odd-looking smirk that she just cannot seem to suppress:

No, no, not staged at all. For reals.


25 thoughts on “Belinda & Sabine stay mum on own case

  1. The hearing was a judicial review in the Administrative Court, not a case in the secret Family Court, so it was heard in public, and the outcome of the case will also be public information. If you want to know what happened, just phone the court office and ask.

    Liked by 1 person

      • I posted this link the other day, it gives the outcome as far as Sabinda are concerned

        Click to access 14-04-08-order.pdf

        I don’t really understand what this recent case can be about in relation to the above. If it is in relation to the above costs, then at a guess I would think it was a hearing to ‘Tax’ the costs, but that would have been applied for by Sabinda. The other possibility is it was some sort of enforcement hearing brought by the other side because they have not paid.

        I don’t get why the terms ‘fine’ and ‘disenfranchisement’ come from, unless the above is just a bit too boring, so Sabinda need to add a bit of drama to it.

        I did try to find a case listed but could not see anything.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yes, we had the same problem–no case listed, ergo no ability to find an outcome. Thank you again for that link. As for the ‘fine’, Belinda did mention that it might include interest, which would suggest that they neglected to pay it first time round. A mere oversight, we’re sure.


    • Here’s the original Judicial Review posted by John Hemming


      I hope Sabine and and Belinda were not providing any form of immigration advice. Doing that can be a criminal offence.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I just watched their video and they sounded pretty desperate to get some money coming in. Hopefully they did get the £2000 fine each.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. In the interests of transparency they should let the world know what happened. After all they don’t like secrecy do they!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Pingback: Neelu Watch: Terminally confused | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  5. opening line : “all our cases are pretty heart wrenching aren’t they?”. Answer – yes because you have lost every one of them and created misery for all involved.

    Liked by 1 person

    “Our court case was adjourned for six weeks. We were supposed to pay for the barrister that the Government hired to tell us off from acting as McKenzie Friend on behalf of Melissa Laird. She was deported from HMP Holloway to the US, even though her oral hearing had been scheduled! That dreadful case is on

    “Belinda McKenzie says she’s willing to go to prison to set a sign for the inappropriateness of us being financially penalised for doing pro bono work.”
    ~ Sabine McNeill

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.