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:
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!
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….
Q. How can you tell when you’re in truly desperate straits?
A. You start relying on renowned fruitloop Maurice Kirk for legal advice.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Oh, is this why Melissa Laird is in prison? We thought it was because of child abduction and immigration issues related to this: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2012/5.html
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?