Belinda tries to drum up the faithful

How can you tell Belinda’s got a potentially very expensive court case coming up?

She gets out there and tries to start drumming up the faithful, that’s how.

This tear-jerking missive was in our in-box this morning, via Sabine’s Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy blog:

Dear All


Just to let you know, in case any within orbit might be interested to come along, that Sabine and I/the Association of McKenzie Friends are up in front of Mrs Justice Simler in the ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE, ADMIN COURT, THURSDAY 25 FEBRUARY. 2 hours have been allocated to the hearing but we don’t as yet know the time (the usual ploy to minimise the number of supporters in the courtroom, no doubt).

Here’s where you can check after 1pm on Wednesday: 

Thanks for the tip, Belinda. We’ll be sure to send along a few observers.

As for this being ‘the usual ploy to minimise the number of supporters in the courtroom’, we would suggest that as someone who claims to have extensive experience with legal matters, you might have noticed that this is in fact standard procedure, not some strange punitive ploy directed against Belinda and her ragtag band of loonies.

The issue basically is whether McKenzie Friends should be charged costs for assisting in litigants’ cases. The Treasury Solicitor is trying to get £2000 out of us for helping Melissa Laird, our US mum marooned in HMP Holloway alongside Gloria Musa in 2011-13, pursue a Judicial Review and avoid deportation back to the US while her then 5 year-old boy remained in the care of Barnet Council. (Yes, that Council and that judge yet again…).

She/we were unsuccessful and she was summarily put on a Virgin Atlantic flight on the morning of 12 September 2013 and dumped in Washington Dulles Airport in her wheelchair (she’d been roughed up in Holloway) without money or documents. The $200 I rushed over to Heathrow for her on the morning of her flight of course hardly went anywhere and had to be topped up several times over the following weeks. She was still living in the airport in by now freezing temperatures in December…

Terrible story, but Melissa is a great fighter (she sent the above image) and has long since rehabilitated herself; she got herself back onto her legs (by painful persistence), found a job as a long-distance truck-driver and now has a small house somewhere in the Virginia backwoods. She remains determined to return to the UK to retrieve her son and this is where we are now at – the final chapter in Melissa’s case has to be a happy one, reunion of mother and son, nothing less will do.

Interesting that Belinda leaves so much of this story untold. She conveniently leaves out Ms Laird’s bizarre behaviour, her adoption of multiple false identities, her neglect of her son’s special needs, her complete inability to tell the truth…all detailed in this judgement, which makes for some fascinating if disturbing reading.

Nor does Belinda bother getting into the pesky details of exactly how she and Sabine blundered their way into paying £2,000 in court costs…but that’s classic Belinda for you. If her lips are moving, you can be quite certain that she’s lying.

Hold onto your hats, here comes a whiny bit:

It would be massively unfair for us to be made to pay up, especially as we have always worked for free/as a public service and of course it would set a very dangerous precedent for all McKenzie Friends from henceforth. Therefore, we’ve engaged the best ‘costs’ barrister in London to fight for us on Thursday. He says it’s going to be a ‘fun day in court’ and could make legal history!

At the same time he has prudently warned us that in the worst-case scenario, that we lose, we/I could be stung for massive costs, enough to lose me my house… (Sabine is OK because she’s penniless). He well knows that there are many in high places who would like to clear us pesky McKenzies out of the court system altogether – we may not/cannot win cases but we can be witness to all the skulduggery going on and report that outwards to the world, which is exactly what we in the Association of McKenzie Friends have been doing, as ‘voluntary public interest advocates’, as we call ourselves.

Belinda’s proposed defence—that because she f*cks up other people’s lives for free, she shouldn’t be made to pay costs arising from her own incompetence—should prove fascinating.

Also her lawyer sounds like a most peculiar fellow: “Don’t worry, Belinda, we could be about to make history here, but if it all goes south, you’ll lose your house and your best friend will be out on the street! But it’ll be a fun day in court! Tally-ho the fox!” Please remind us never to hire him.

What goes on in ‘Gulag UK’ particularly involving families and children is now well-known in the EU and across the world, thanks to Sabine’s marvellous reporting and networking skills – see the pic of her latest mailing to various parties in Brussels & London:

If you’re thinking to join us on Thursday PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL and I’ll let you know the time & court as soon as we have it, or, please check the listings tomorrow.

We think it could be just a tiny exaggeration to state that the UK’s treatment of families and children (which is admittedly problematic, but that’s a post for another day) is now known worldwide due to Sabine. In fact, if you look at the stats on the left sidebars of her various blogs, you’ll see that her readership is minuscule.


Another story beginning to come good? As hopefully everyone has heard by now, the 2 children have still not yet been handed to their father, as originally planned for August last summer then again for February this year; I firmly believe we the public can take some of the credit for helping avert this ultimate disaster. But, there is still a long way to go with the case as a whole; the chief suspect is still at large, over 60 children are still in care/at risk, there has been no proper investigation and what of all those other children and very likely babies also still in terrible danger??

Hang on just a tick…isn’t Belinda under an injunction not to discuss this case online?

And we do wonder where she’s getting her info’: even if it’s true that the children have not been handed back to their father (a fact that is not in evidence), the courts are not governed by public pressure. That would be called ‘mob rule’, and a quick skim back through history will confirm that it’s almost never been a good idea.

In the meantime proceedings designed to put Neelu and Sabine in prison over their prominent part in the affair grind on in the courts. The latest charges, ever-changing according to what will ‘stick’ in court, are now in both cases ‘Intimidation of Witnesses’, the witnesses being a group of 4 out of the original 6 from Christchurch Hampstead (the [person] named by the children as a key abuser failed to turn up to court in October and now resides in Spain…).

In Neelu’s case a trial date has tentatively been set, 11 & 12 July but on FRIDAY 26 FEBRUARY she goes back to BLACKFRIARS CROWN COURT on an application for DISMISSAL of the case, please check the listings for the time.

More lies. Neelu has been facing the charge of witness intimidation since early September; and Sabine was charged with the same offence in late December/early January. The charges are certainly not ‘ever-changing according to what will stick in court’, but are the result of an ongoing investigation into their activities online.

We have no doubt that Belinda is well aware of this, but prefers to attempt to stir up public outrage with her false statements.

Sabine having only just ‘graduated’ from the Magistrates Court at Highbury has her first Plea & Case Management hearing at BLACKFRIARS CROWN COURT on MONDAY 7 MARCH at 9.30am – but – if Neelu’s case is dismissed on Friday Sabine will also apply for a DISMISSAL on 7 March.

(Sabine’s bail conditions are that she must not communicate either with the witnesses or with Neelu – certain types are clearly worried!!)

We pointed out just the other day that in a case where two people are charged with colluding to commit the same crime, it’s hardly surprising that the courts would order them not to communicate with one another. Ah well…far be it from Belinda to know anything about the law.

The rest of Belinda’s post is taken up with reminders of public meetings, and this post has already gone on too long by half.

We should just add that while we won’t be able to attend Sabine and Belinda’s ‘history-making’ court date on Thursday, if any of our readers has time to spare, we’d be most interested to hear your impressions.

We fervently hope that Sabine and Belinda won’t just make history, their Association of McKenzie Friends will become history.



43 thoughts on “Belinda tries to drum up the faithful

  1. I can only hope that the contents of Belinda’s latest email will one day be used to demonstrate that she is quite complicit in the intimidation of witnesses.

    Mellisa Laird (or what ever name she has stolen at the moment) would like to share her favourite song:

    Liked by 1 person

    • LOL…touching! 🙂

      And yes, let’s hope the police eventually recognise Belinda’s role in the witness intimidation aspect of this case.


  2. Gloria Musa, Fake African Vicar! And was found guilty of child abuse! Some of it quite horrific! If you want a SRA case then that is it! If you look for it and also look for the person whom was forced to report it aka actress Michelle Collins then you will get a lot more detail then what Belinda et al are attempting to put out!

    As for RD not getting the kids! Not to worry! I would be more worried if the kids (whom I am careful not to put the names off obviously) were handed to them 2 (aka Arabella) whom are the real child abusers!

    RD will get the kids back one day because he has done nothing wrong and has not ran away unlike certain other parties I could mention 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

    • Yes, the Musa case is a chilling example of where Sabine and Belinda’s sympathies really lie. It was described as one of the worst cases of child abuse in Britain at the time. Even so, all Sabinda were concerned about was that the parents should not lose custody of the children they had starved, whipped with electrical cords, broomsticks, and hoovers. The parents’ rationale might be germane here: they believed the children to have been possessed by evil spirits. Given Sabinda’s firm belief in SRA, it’s probably not a stretch to imagine that they sympathised with the Musa parents and believed their assumption to be true.

      I agree, it would be a tragedy if RD’s children were to be handed back to Abrella, but I think it’s safe to say that that will not happen. As you say, RD has stayed put despite everything, facing the most awful campaign of slander and harassment, in order to ensure that his children are safe. The same cannot be said for Ella.

      Liked by 3 people

        • That’s a really good question. I don’t think they have. The other ‘famous’ one was Vicky Haigh, found to have emotionally abused her child.

          It makes it all the more interesting to speculate what actually motivates these people. The parents they champion have all been found to have done really quite horrible things to children.

          Unless of course anyone can point me to anything different…

          Liked by 2 people

  3. I thought the social workers and court were part of the cult, why would they not give the children to the cult leader?
    Unless of course they are working in the best interests of the children, didn’t force retractions and Abraham really is a child abusing little shit who coerced them to lie.

    Liked by 2 people

    • What a concept. And yet, according to the troofers, it’s perfectly plausible to claim both that the police, social workers, courts, etc. are in the cult, AND that they haven’t given the kids to their father. Strange.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. “Sabine is OK because she’s penniless”

    Yet she managed to skip the country at short notice and live abroad. She manages to get around a lot too.

    It would be a shame if Blundina lost her house…honest….it would be terrible….

    As for the court cases, I was under the impression that the August one was a right to appeal the initial case and that Ella lost with the February one never existing in the first place?

    Liked by 2 people

    • She did lose the appeal in August; apparently she appealed again, and was rejected again, but somehow neglected to let anyone know that the projected 1st February date wouldn’t be happening.

      Liked by 1 person

    • There was a hearing trying to get an appeal against the decision against the fact finding. I have the judgement which JF aka CW posted. It’s anonymised.

      A few days later there was another hearing which as far as I am aware was about the children’s future. No one has ever posted that judgement and Ella is keeping quiet about the decision.

      People have said that the children were to remain in foster care with another hearing in February. How do they know this? What was the February hearing going to be about? Has it been postponed? It crossed my mind that the children are back with their father and so there is no need for a further hearing at all. It is possible?

      Anyway, has anyone read Sabine’s “defence statement”. Deborah Mahmoudieh was going to be her McKenzie Friend. Still listed on it as an EU Law Specialist. It is a whine fest and not much mention of the real issues. It’s 40 pages so haven’t read it all. I’m not sure how much should be posted or blogged about.

      I do recall lots of posting of emails from the “legal team” about getting the full transcript of the fact finding hearing, the local authority redacting stuff, that Ricky Dearman’s psychiatric assessment was going to prove he is a psychopath, perverting the course of justice, since then, pretty much nothing. I know Ella Draper and Abraham Christie got the transcript because they posted snippets, or Drifloud did. What was the court’s actual decision?

      Liked by 1 person

      • All excellent questions, worthy of a post in itself. You’re right that the outcome of the hearing about the children’s future has never been made public. This is for obvious reasons: to protect the children and their father from harassment by vigilantes.

        As far as I’m aware, the February hearing was to have been a rehash of the August custody hearing, but some time in the late fall Abrella stopped making any reference to that, which makes me believe the leave to appeal was denied.

        I did read Sabine’s ‘defence statement’, but decided it didn’t really deserve any publicity, as it opened no new avenues for discussion, but basically just rehashed her various grievances.

        My understanding of the redacted version of the full transcript of the fact-finding hearing is that the decision was made to redact any material which might find its way onto the internet. I haven’t heard of any court decision about this, but cannot imagine that anyone would think it wise to allow Abrella access to any more personal information about Hampstead residents or Barnet police officers than they already have.


        • Whatever the outcomes have been, Ella has been quite tight lipped about it. They apparently have an e-book though. Shows where their priorities lie I suppose. Legal campaign or masodomite cult nonsense?

          Liked by 1 person

  5. So someone had posted something by Sabine where she names the witnesses she says that it is claimed she intimidated. That may not be wise. I’m no expert, but that’s what I think.

    Liked by 1 person

    Thursday 25 February, 2016
    At half past 10
    CO/9385/2013 The Queen on the application of Laird v Secretary Of State For The Home Department

    The case is listed now.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I would like to go to see the hearing, but I am actually worried about being threatened. Her supporters do record in corridors and audio in court because they’ve uploaded it. As I’m not one of the 70 or so I’ve not had death threats bar some nasty words on social media. It says something about how they value people seeing justice being done that I feel like that. I am actually fearful of going to the court and sitting in the gallery. These aren’t even gangsters we are talking about. 😦

    Sabine and Belinda may have a technical legal point that is in their favour as to why they shouldn’t pay any costs, or maybe they don’t. I’m a interested anyway about the outcome rather than it just being about them.

    Hopefully someone will go! If not, we’ll just have Belinda and Sabine’s totally unbiased and totally balanced account :p

    Sorry for being a bit of a wuss. I can’t imagine how people who have been dealing with this in real life feel if this is how I feel.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t think that’s being a wuss at all. I think it’s very sensible, considering the way this thing has grabbed people by their emotions and allowed them to drop their common sense and moral compasses by the wayside.

      Unfortunately I can’t get to London either, but I’m hoping to get info from a couple of people I know who will be attending ‘under cover’. You’re right, it says a great deal about this case that people with a legitimate interest in the law feel constrained from attending an open court session due to safety concerns.


    • This document just shows how disorganised Belinda and Sabine are! Not informing the court of problems until the last minute, not checking their emails whilst in the middle of an important case, not turning up. Basically buggering about in an ineffectual way and costing the tax payer a lot of money. Another “toxic combination”, self-righteousness and incompetence.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. The hearing tomorrow has a strange listing – can anyone explain? Is Laird back in the Country?

    COURT 64
    Thursday 25 February, 2016
    At half past 10
    CO/9385/2013 The Queen on the application of Laird v Secretary Of State For The Home Department

    Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks – that’s clearer now.

        Wonder what their latest argument is? No doubt by this time tomorrow it will be clearer

        Liked by 1 person

          • I suspect that is where the argument will be made. They were McKenzie Friends-they can’t act for client so they can’t be made a party or the definition of exceptional circumstances.

            They claim to have a barrister so there must be some grounds, unless they have got confused and are being represented by a coffee expert.

            Liked by 1 person

  9. An interesting thought – from the Legal services consumer document

    Click to access 2014%2004%2017%20MKF_Final.pdf

    “Not understanding the limitations of
    the McKenzie Friend role – again,
    while many websites clearly explain
    the role of a McKenzie Friend, some
    fail to do this or even exaggerate the
    assistance they can provide. There
    have been cases (detailed later in
    this paper) where the courts have
    decided a McKenzie Friend has
    overstepped their boundaries, for
    example by conducting litigation as
    an unauthorised and non-exempt
    person. McKenzie Friends who
    conduct litigation when unauthorised
    are conducting a criminal offence”

    It also says in the same document

    Case studies: bad behaviour
    In January 2014, the High Court issued an Interim Civil Restraint Order which prevented
    the individual concerned from acting or holding himself out to act as a McKenzie Friend in
    any family proceedings without court permission. The order followed an earlier general
    restraint order issued in April 2012 by a County Court on the grounds that the person had
    issued on his own behalf eleven sets of proceedings described by the court as being
    totally without merit and were struck out. Evidence concerning a hearing in January 2013
    described him as having been abusive and aggressive in a court building before and after
    a hearing in which he attempted to act as a McKenzie Friend. In a separate case, his
    client, a mother, made a statement alleging that he insisted on being her single point of
    contact and that he acted in a grossly abusive manner towards her and her colleagues.
    At the hearing for the case, in December 2013, the father‟s counsel alleged that when he
    approached the mother for discussions before the hearing, the McKenzie Friend
    responded in an aggressive and frightening manner, leading him to fear for his safety.
    There is evidence after the hearing that the McKenzie Friend made intimidating phone
    calls to the father‟s counsel and solicitor. The McKenzie Friend disputed this account and
    published his version of events on Facebook. He notified the solicitors that he would be
    taking civil action against them and counsel and that his wife, who is his business
    partner, would now act as McKenzie Friend for the mother.
    The High Court ruled that a judge had been entitled to refuse an application for a
    particular person to act as a McKenzie Friend within care proceedings despite that
    individual not being present in court at the time of the application. The Court of Appeal
    upheld that decision. The applicant‟s two children had been taken into care and findings
    had been made that one of them had suffered a non-accidental injury inflicted by the
    applicant. Thereafter, a final care order was made and the Local Authority applied for
    adoption and to terminate contact. The applicant then sought publicity for her case, which
    was prohibited by the court. The applicant applied for permission to appeal against the
    care order and was assisted in this application by her McKenzie Friend as, by then, she
    was not entitled to public funding and had no legal representation. Within the appeal, the
    applicant produced a statement supported by a number of documents which raised
    concerns with the Local Authority regarding the McKenzie Friend acting for the applicant.
    They opposed the application for her to act as a McKenzie Friend. The judge had seen
    the statement produced by the proposed McKenzie Friend, made clear she had
    embarked on a campaign concerning the family justice system and the conduct of the
    local authority; that she did not respect the confidentiality of the family justice system in
    other cases and in the instant case; and that she did not understand the role of a
    McKenzie Friend, which was to assist with presentation of the case in court in a neutral
    manner. It was clear that the McKenzie Friend had a personal interest in the instant case
    and expected to give evidence to make good her contentions. The judge ruled that her
    ability to be a McKenzie Friend had been compromised by the statement. She claimed
    that she had the permission of those involved to disclose details of other cases, but it
    was ruled that the confidentiality of family proceedings was a matter for the court.
    Although the applicant was entitled to a McKenzie Friend, her current choice was not
    suitable for that role. The High Court ruled that the judge had acted within the ambit of his
    discretion on the basis that the McKenzie Friend might not respect the confidentiality of
    the proceedings.

    A little more information about the Legal Services Consumer Panel

    “About us

    The Legal Services Consumer Panel was created by the Legal Services Act 2007 and started work on 1 November 2009. The Panel is an independent arm of the Legal Services Board and is made up of eight lay members whose appointments were approved by the Lord Chancellor.

    We provide high quality, evidenced-based advice to the Legal Services Board, in order to help them make decisions that are shaped around the needs of users. The Panel has a remit to represent the interests of the many different consumers of legal services, including small businesses and charities. Within this we have committed one of our work strands to prioritising the needs of more vulnerable groups of consumers. The Panel has legal powers to publish its advice and the Legal Services Board has a legal duty to explain its reasons when it disagrees with the advice that we publish.

    Our vision is for a market where everyone can access high quality and affordable legal services that meet their needs:
    A competitive legal services market where consumers are empowered and have easy access to high quality legal advice at a fair price;
    All consumers have an equal access to legal services regardless of their personal circumstances;
    Regulatory bodies have processes enabling them to take decisions which are in the consumer interest;
    Consumers receive legal advice from a diverse and competent workforce;
    Consumer complaints are resolved fairly, quickly and cost-effectively.”

    Sadly Sabine and Belinda were not competent and should restrict their activities to tree hugging and peace camps – not families future.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Pingback: McKenzie friends in court today: Why Sabine and Belinda should pay | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.