Belinda’s completely unbiased view of upcoming legal cases

The next couple of weeks will be busy ones for Sabine and Belinda, as they’ll be standing together in court this Thursday, 25 February; and Sabine will be in court on Monday, 7 March to enter a plea on charges of witness intimidation.

Not surprisingly, Belinda has a somewhat different view of these events than we do. Here’s her take on Sabine’s 8 February court date:

Belinda-TKF-1 2016-02-21

Right off the bat, Belinda tries to insinuate that the case is being ‘brought by the CPS on behalf of certain parties in the Hampstead SRA (hoax)’…as if this were not a criminal matter of witness intimidation.

Note that she also leaves out the bit where Sabine is nearly arrested—a real high point, in our view!

Belinda-TKF-2 2016-02-21

Yes, Belinda, in a case of witness intimidation, it seems to us that naming the intimidated witnesses might be a bit of a no-no. And in a case where it’s alleged that Sabine and Neelu colluded to publish the witness names and information, it might be standard practice to insist that they refrain from contacting one another. Because, you know, collusion.

Good thing Belinda and Sabine are not involved in anything related to court procedures, right? Oh…wait….

Belinda-TKF-3 2016-02-21

Q. How can you tell when you’re in truly desperate straits?

A. You start relying on renowned fruitloop Maurice Kirk for legal advice.

Belinda-TKF-4 2016-02-21

Two things here: Belinda and Sabine are being charged court costs for having set in motion an extremely ill-advised judicial review during the Melissa Laird case. Belinda seems to be insinuating that this case is somehow related to Hoaxtead. Where she draws this inference, other than via the voices in her head, we really cannot say.

Belinda-TKF-5 2016-02-21

Here’s the bright spot (if indeed it’s true): if justice prevails, Belinda and Sabine could be facing some rather stiff fines, which could potentially put them out of the business of destroying families via their activities as McKenzie friends. Fingers crossed! (Or is that a Masonic reference? So hard to know these days.)

Belinda-TKF-6 2016-02-21

To nobody’s surprise, Belinda and Sabine remain stoutly convinced that they should ‘never be made liable for any costs of the proceedings’…even when they have caused them to be incurred. So who does pay? The client who was foolish and/or desperate enough to hire them in the first place?

This is never clarified, but if we were (heaven forbid) considering hiring them to help us, we might think twice if we knew that no matter what incompetent nonsense they decided to embroil us in, we would be held responsible for paying the courts.

Belinda-TKF-7 2016-02-21

Nothing like whipping up a little paranoia about the legal system…this is how Belinda and Sabine get new clients, it seems.

Make the completely unfounded claim that if they weren’t there, the courts would be hotbeds of dirty dealings and skulduggery. Leave out the bits about how Belinda and Sabine use lies, half-truths, and scare tactics to promote themselves and destroy families’ chances in court.

Belinda-TKF-8 2016-02-21

Oh, is this why Melissa Laird is in prison? We thought it was because of child abduction and immigration issues related to this:

Belinda-TKF-9 2016-02-21

And Belinda’s final argument: “Who would want to be a McKenzie Friend from henceforth if such onerous penalties could be imposed on us?”

Our guess would be “Probably only people who are sufficiently competent to play that role in a way that does not permanently damage their clients and make a mockery of the court system”. But hey, what do we know?


63 thoughts on “Belinda’s completely unbiased view of upcoming legal cases

  1. Gawd, that image of the Felonious Fraus kills me EVERY time !
    I’m distracted by multiple environmental mini-crises at the moment and will have to re-read this later in blissful silence. I hate to annoy you with an obvious question, but when did BM re-enter the UK? Thought she’d fled ‘permanently’ to Inner Mongolia or some similar destination months ago after a tearly farewell speech to her dwindling fan club …was she extradited or sumthin’?

    Liked by 2 people

  2. John Hemming put the judgement up relating to the Judicial Review. As far as I can recollect, someone tried to renew it. Possibly this was without the permission or knowledge of Ms Laird.


    ROFLPML like, lots. Hemming likes casual games, scroll on.


    It is also a criminal offence to give immigration advice unless registered with the OISC or exempt.

    Give em the rope I say.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. It isn’t a fine, they are not being punished as such, they may have to pay the costs the other side incurred by being dragged to court. Melissa Laird had a normal right of appeal anyway.

    Another thing, who would the government use as their lawyers other than government lawyers, either directly employed or instructed for this case? They keep on banging on about the injustice of paying government lawyers as if they have a right to the government’s time and resources no matter how frivolous or misguided the reason, well they don’t. There are plenty of lawyers who act for either side depending on who gets to them first. The most prominent I can think of is Zane Malik.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. ‘those in high places are out to destroy McKenzie friends’ : I think Belinda has misinterpreted this. He probably meant they want to destroy just one particular bunch of loony dangerous ‘Friends’ who cause so much grief for their clients.

    Liked by 2 people

    • If by ‘destroy’ she means ‘put out of business’, then yes. I am quite certain that the courts would be far better off without Belinda, Sabine, Debs, and their ilk mucking up the works.

      Liked by 1 person

      • More importantly to me, vulnerable people, even those vulnerable people who have done bad things, would be better off.

        I find it staggering that she gets taken seriously, and gets people’s time. Like Corbyn. I do worry where the world is going. Sometimes it feels like the world is descending into insanity and conspiraloon politics.

        I think, sometimes, there must be a real conspiracy where certain people or countries are quite happy with that state of affairs. If I read too much about certain things about politics, say Russian activity in the Balkans for example, and not the mainstream stuff or from conspiracy theorists, it isn’t long before I get some interesting job offers in adverts lol.

        Ella Draper’s professed ignorance about child abuse and certainty that if isn’t a problem in Russia is certainly odd in light of people like this

        And also the systematic rape of women and also very young children by advancing Russian forces in WWII.

        Not forgetting the serfs who were essentially slaves and who were sexually exploited.

        I could go on.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Yes, I know what you mean: it seems as though a great deal of this stuff is taken seriously in places where you’d think they’d know better. Conspiraloon politics are becoming the norm in some countries, and it’s very worrying to me.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. Her letter to the Home office where she rightly comments on the presumption of innocence & then goes on to accuse numerous people without proof thus denying them the same right:

    Click to access 16-02-14-to-home-secretary.pdf

    This is amusing:

    “it helps to have spoken with Jeremy Corbyn MP. He said clearly that he is “very interested” and brought in his caseworker who not only knew about the child ‘protection’ racket, but even satanist ritual abuse! ”

    I can image said caseworker saying when she left “don’t touch those loonies with a barge pole”

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Pingback: Belinda’s completely unbiased view of upcoming legal cases | ShevaBurton. Cross of Change Blog

  7. You guys are being very brave putting up all those ‘Hemming magnet’ comments. He watches this blog like a hawk. And as we’ve seen before, once he’s here, he’s like a late night guest that just won’t take the hint and bugger off home when the party’s over and you’re dying to go to bed. So in the event that this happens, I propose a co-ordinated strategy to get rid of him. If we’re each delegated one of the following remarks, we should be fine:

    – “Ooh, is that the time?”
    – “Well, it’s been a fabulous evening, John, but you must be sooo tired.”
    – “Hey, I bet you’re wanting to miss the rush hour traffic.”
    – “Yawwwwn. Blimey, it’s been a long old day, hasn’t it.”
    – “Would you like me to ring you a taxi?”
    – “John, as my MP, can I raise the issue of my local bin collection with you? There are 12 main problems as far as I can tell. Firstly…”
    – “Well, it looks like it’s just you and me now, cheeky boy. I’ll just go and slip into something more comfortable.” (Note: this tactic will not work if you are Amber Hartman.)
    – “Right, who’s up for some folk dancing?”
    – “Fuck off, John.”

    Just stick to the script, everyone, and we should be fine 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  8. An interesting revelation by BM . THey are represented in the proceedings by a barrister on the 25th and Sabine is represented in March

    It seems to show the confidence that they place in their own ability in Court – why not represent themselves, as Litigants in person? Why not have a Mckenzie friend to help them?

    Perhaps they place a higher value on the money that they might loose from their pockets than the cost of the pain and suffering to a parent when its child is removed from them and they have pushed the parent to not bother with lawyers, as they (Sabine and Co) claim to have been able to do a better job than lawyers, usually spouting to anyone in earshot that “all lawyers are corrupt” to seemingly elevate their own ability to do a job in Court.

    Its interesting to see that BM claims the rate being paid for their lawyer is “legal aid rates” That’s interesting, as there would be no legal aid for the costs issue, just as legal aid has gone for many family issues such as divorce.. Sabine has claimed to be getting benefits, so just where is the money coming from?

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Belinda McKenzie and Sabine McNeill are incompetent parasites who have contempt for the legal system. I as a tax payer have no desire to pay for the costs of people who because of their ignorance and arrogance incurred unnecessary costs to the legal system. Belinda McKenzie and Sabine McNeil ruin every case they touch for their clients, and they are a mockery of the McKenzie Friend ideal.

    The charges of witness intimidation was too serious in my opinion to be heard in Magistrates Court and it would have been bumped up to Crown Court as a matter of procedure, even if it was only for the sentencing part of the case.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. I hope they do get hit with a large fine but I also hope they are banned from acting as McKenzie Friends or in anyway advertising themselves as such. They have breached and broken numerous rules and guidelines regarding what McKenzie Friends can and cannot do. They treat the court like a playground and the vulnerable parents who seek their help, like pawns in their game.
    At some point the courts need to send this lot a stern message. Otherwise, they will get the message that what they have done is fine, and get the feeling they are untouchable. That is their constant contradiction. They moan about the harsh treatment of the system and how corrupt it is, but in reality they get off lightly or with no punishment at all.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I think there are people in the legal profession who don’t like McKenzie friends in general. The behaviour of Belinda’s little band gives ammunition to those who would like to ban all non professionals from court – which would be a bad thing.

      Liked by 3 people

    • “They moan about the harsh treatment of the system and how corrupt it is, but in reality they get off lightly or with no punishment at all.”

      Yes, they do get off very lightly. It’s generally the families they represent that must pay the cost of their sub-sub-sub-standard work. This is why I think they need to be banned from court as McKenzie friends, to allow the real, competent MFs to represent those who need them.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I agree, it would be a shame if the concept of McKenzie Friends were to be tarnished or even banned altogether. I guess that concept is another potential victim of their games. They are not just giving out crap advice and abusing the concept with their own ‘clients’, they also risk damaging the entire concept. At the same time as defending sex offenders like Brian Pead, child abusers like Abraham, and accusing Child Line of being some sort of front to identify possible victims for VIP paedophile rings. These people cannot claim they really care about the abuse of children. They are truly vile individuals.

        Liked by 3 people

  11. I think it can be concluded that Sabine has a propensity to be selective with the truth. She seeks self glorification, with no regard for the impact on others.

    Sabine and Belinda share the same style of writing when reading through the blogs, that’s amazing considering they were educated in different Countries

    Its interesting that she has bleated in her blogs about issues with her benefits. One of which was her housing benefit.

    That is on the flat that she has rented since 2nd April 1985 (Three years before she got married).

    The details of her rental are in the public domain:

    Perhaps she sub-let the flat, as the electoral roll shows the following:

    TELEPHONE: Search
    RESIDENCY: 1996 – 2014
    RECENCY 12/06/2014

    No other occupants are listed at this address.


    2014 Electoral Roll 2015

    No other occupants are listed at this address.

    I agree, it would be a great shame to lose McKenzie friends from the Court system. There are some very good ones, who care and look after the person in Court very well – Sadly Sabine is not one of them. The only thing she seems to care about is herself.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sabine is incredibly self-centred. She wallows in treacly self-pity, tinged with hysteria, and she wouldn’t know the truth if it stood up and bit her in her Teutonic bottom. A most unpleasant woman, who has done a great deal of damage to many people, but cannot admit it, even to herself.

      Why no, I’m not overly fond of her. However did you guess?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Looks like a nice area, but I could never afford to live there.

      As a tax payer I have paid for Sabine to live there for the last few decades – do you think we could time share it whilst she is in prison? I always wanted a London pied a terre.

      Liked by 2 people

  12. A little look at the internet reveals a statement by Belinda:

    “Belinda & Iran Aid – Statement of Truth

    Due to negative rumours flying all over Facebook & the internet regarding my involvement with the charity formerly known as Iran Aid, for the sake of people knowing the truth and not swallowing malicious lies and misinformation I make the following Statement of Truth:

    It was always my intention to work full-time for the benefit of humanity once my children were grown up and had left home. This moment for me coincided with my having received a substantial inheritance, £4 million to be precise from my wealthy landowner father on his death in 1996. £I million of this money I used to buy my sons and daughter their first flats, £2 million I put into a Trust for them and their future children and the remaining £1 million I resolved to devote to humanitarian good causes, as and when need presented itself.

    The first case of acute humanitarian need of which I became aware was the crisis suffered by a charity to which I had already been a donor for some years, Iran Aid. Iran Aid, based a couple of miles from my home in North Finchley looked after the remaining family members of dissidents murdered by the Iranian regime of which a large proportion were young children. On coming to power in 1997 Tony Blair set about restoring relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran for the sake of gaining access to Iran’s oil and gas and general business opportunities. In return, the Iranian mullahs demanded that the charity supporting their opponents be closed down.

    Accordingly, in July 1998 the Charity Commission suddenly froze Iran Aid’s funds and three months later sent in the Receiver and Manager to take it over entirely. However by then both the Iranian community and British donors such as myself had massed in the charity’s defence and when the Receiver Manager arrived to lock up the office we would not let him in. He had signalled his intention to send the charity’s records out to Iran for inspection which would instantly place the hidden beneficiaries in severe danger – it would be tantamount to sending details of Anne Frank’s hiding place to the gestapo!”

    So – £4m inheritance, she can certainly afford a lawyer.

    Why argue the toss over a relatively small costs order???? Her legal bills are going to be much more to argue it. Why not just admit when she is wrong.

    Liked by 1 person

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

Comments are closed.