BREAKING: Sabine pleads not guilty, narrowly avoids re-arrest

In a move which surprised nobody, Sabine McNeill entered a plea of ‘not guilty’ to charges of witness intimidation and attempting to pervert the course of justice this afternoon at Blackfriars Court.

However, she and her queue of supporters gathered outside Room 3, unaware that the hearing’s location had changed. This led the judge to issue a bench warrant for her arrest, on grounds of failing to appear. Sabine was eventually located and directed to the correct room—an amusing turnabout for the would-be McKenzie friend, who claims to be able to guide her clients through the court system!

Sabine’s trial date has been set for 7 March, and her bail conditions include not contacting Neelu Berry or any of the other witnesses.

We’ll be keeping our eyes peeled, as we’re sure she’ll treat this bail condition with the same careful respect that she has treated all the others.

SABINE-NEELU-2016-02-08

34 thoughts on “BREAKING: Sabine pleads not guilty, narrowly avoids re-arrest

    • Very true. Sadly, those who do contact Sabine and Belinda are usually blinded by desperation. Or (like Ella) they’ve fired all their lawyers and no one else will take them.

      Like

  1. I wonder what Sabine is thinking and feeling now about her future. Does she realise Holloway beckons, was Belinda there today

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Is this what is in store in court?

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/183.html

    Ewing v Crown Court Sitting at Cardiff & Newport & Ors [2016] EWHC 183 (Admin) (08 February 2016)

    Between:
    Terence Patrick Ewing
    Claimant
    – and –

    Crown Court sitting at Cardiff & Newport
    Defendant
    – and –

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    1st Interested Party
    Maurice John Kirk
    2nd Interested Party

    BTW, Mr Kirk won, although maybe not to the extent he wanted!

    “Mr Kirk has been the defendant in many prosecutions in South Wales and has been in conflict with “the authorities” for many years. Pursuing and defending court cases have become a dominant feature of his life. The papers contain many references to his website where (apparently) he details what he sees as his endless struggle against injustice. Mr Kirk’s habit is to appear unrepresented and, unlike a professional advocate who owes duties to the court to conduct proceedings with reasonable dispatch and take only points reasonably arguable, Mr Kirk’s approach is to take as long as possible, to raise endless technical objections and seek to use one set of proceedings to assist him in another. The judgment given by the judge at the end of the appeal suggests that Mr Kirk deliberately fomented the incident which led to this prosecution as he suggested himself “to make a fuss”. He made “many ancillary applications” during the case, in particular futile and time-wasting applications for disclosure. The transcripts provide strong support for the proposition that he was manipulating the process and being deliberately difficult and contrary. He made lengthy and irrelevant submissions about his long-standing disputes with the South Wales Police and a forensic clinical psychologist. He made a hopeless application for the case to be dismissed at half time and followed that with an application for a stay as an abuse of process. The court concluded that he had pursued the appeal, which Mr Kirk himself described as “irrelevant”, as a “means to acquire information for his other long running disputes”. Mr Kirk disputes this analysis.”

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Sabine, if you want to do MLM, there are some better more healthy products to choose. I could even help you, cos i am a born saleswoman, and did some MLM at one time, but, do not dare to continue with your empire of 50 sites that divert traffic from real causes, and fkc so much up, don’t dare to continue with the names of your sites, giving a false impression of help at the end of them, because clearly none of you, not you, not Belinda McKenzie, not Angela Power Disney, have any business being any where near victims or survivors of abuse, let alone the parents losing children to care, that might with the right information and support indeed, be able to keep them, as i have…….. call your sites more truthful names, and get out of our way, now….. please. You have no right to hog the internet with your trickery, you had no right to pretend you were involved in the recent meetings, as Belinda has no right to appear in any meetings or events on the CSA inquiry….her motives are highly suspect, and playing the victim is not going to work either, in fact you have all been demonstrably responsible for immense abuse and betrayal of victims….. vulnerable people have been misused and used to spew whatever they are programmed to say, at their cost, hence why so many cases attached to you fail miserably, and often the victim is incarcerated…..then your donation needs get displayed, you are bleeding victims dry and sucking energy that would be well spent if ddiverted to those that have the integrity and humility and ethics to do it with dignity and boundaries….integrity, In fact you and your cohorts have delayed our progress, and the survivor movement now alerted will not tolerate this, any longer……you will only attract those easy to manipulate, that you then do, is abuse. You have shown no remorse, and your lies don’t work, will not work, you underestimate survivors, indeed your site victims unite is an insult, and that you don’t know this, speaks volumes. Stick to what you can do, and get out of the way of those that can do what is needed on CSA, you have enabled a child abuser to inflame the net and bully, threaten and damage many, and for those two children in the future, who will have to face the online mess you created, well i hope by then, you have realised, and have some reparation plans in place……. but i see no sign of that, from you or Belinda, Angela, or Deborah, you seem relentless in your arrogance and willingness to ignore anyone who doesn’t just follow your lead……….. explain sometime why you need 50 sites and then more, you have created an evil empire, and my use of evil is live back to front. you have caused misery, harm and i find not one shred of evidence that you ever did good for any case or child, nor the campaign, which you nearly took back to the dark ages.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Agree : false ‘advocates’ are everywhere and risk derailing the best efforts of the genuine ones. They are the advocates who seek media glory and seem to revel in what they claim is their own misery (Sabine?)

      I’m thinking of one who has claimed to represent victims in the Oz media and is a lawyer so became a media darling in the current Oz Royal Commission into institutional child abuse and who has relentlessly attacked the top Oz Catholic George Pell. I hear genuine victims he spoke out for are absolutely distraught to discover an important fact he hid from them and the Royal Commission : he himself was jailed in the 1980s (the timeline in question) for abusing a young boy while working at the YMCA one of the institutions under the spotlight.

      While everyone has a right to re-enter society & become successful, disclosure of your past is relevant when you claim to be an advocate due to the sensitive nature of the offenses and rhe effects they have on real victims.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Good to know that Sabine and her cronies have their finger on the pulse of the court system. All making a bee-line for the wrong court is reminiscent of when Belinda and her mob stood outside Aberdeen Sheriff Court shouting “Free Robert Green”, blissfully unaware that Green was already out on parole😀

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Was the great, highly respected legal advocate Patrick Cullinane there to aid Sabine?. Cullinane QC (Queer Coot) had similar disputes as Kirk with a court appointed psychiatrist which resulted in Patrick proclaiming the shrink was suffering from the afflictions he said Pat was suffering from. You can’t keep a good nutter down.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think Sabine may be nutty, but I’m sure she’s wily enough to recognise that being represented by Patrick would be a distinct liability! However, it would be fun to watch, hypothetically.🙂

      Like

  6. I can’t see how Sabine will be found guilty really as the case with the witnesses has been dropped.

    So now there are 0 witnesses, so how can she be guilty of intimidating 0 witnesses or perverting the course of justice.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Pingback: Sabine’s strange self-incrimination compulsion | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  8. Pingback: Neelu trying to get charges dumped | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  9. Pingback: Witness intimidation: What Neelu and Sabine’s charges mean | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  10. Pingback: Belinda’s completely unbiased view of upcoming legal cases | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.