While we wait for news from the RCJ….

/ 25/02/2016

We’ve got some feelers out for results from this morning’s court case at the Royal Courts of Justice, where Sabine McNeill and Belinda McKenzie are looking down the barrel of £2,000 in court costs related to the mishandling of the Melissa Laird case.

Meanwhile, though, a couple of documents have been sent our way, both of which would appear to have some bearing on their case.

First, this important media release by the Judiciary Executive Board, which has “issued a consultation paper proposing reforms to the existing guidance for ‘McKenzie Friends’, non-lawyers who offer assistance and in some cases seek to appear as advocates on behalf of litigants-in-person (LiPs)”. They’re calling for comments from interested parties, to be submitted by 19 May 2016; comments may be sent to mckenzie.friends@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk.

As one of our readers pointed out, one paragraph in particular seems to relate to Sabine and Belinda’s shenanigans:

Code of Conduct – the paper proposes that the standard notice process includes a Code of Conduct for McKenzie Friends that they would be required to agree to comply with. This would ensure that, as with legal representatives, they would acknowledge a duty to the court, and a duty of confidentiality in relation to the litigation.

Fearless Prediction #1:

Belinda and Sabine will link today’s release of this announcement with their own case, and claim that it’s all part of the giant stitch-up that’s meant to shut them up.

The second piece comes to us straight from Hollywood: BBC Macho Culture Blamed in Jimmy Savile Abuse Report.

Released this morning, the report submits that while some BBC execs knew what Savile was up to, senior BBC management was not aware of the abuse. Whether one agrees with this conclusion or not, it leads us to our second Fearless Prediction.

Fearless Prediction #2:

Sabine and Belinda will insist that the release of this report on the very day of their own hearing is part of the larger conspiracy to shut down dissent and stifle whistleblowers.

Wait for it….

now we wait

Related posts

25 thoughts on “While we wait for news from the RCJ….”

  1. Good predictions.

    I infer from human nature that had the court case been a positive outcome then Sabine McNeill and Belinda McKenzie would have been crowing from the rooftops. The silence suggests a massive disaster for them, and I think they will be stung for more than £2000 in costs.

    The publication of a McKenzie Friend consultation shows that Sabine McNeill and Belinda McKenzie have caused a change in the system thanks to their toxic activities poisoning the integrity of the McKenzie Friends system.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I’m hoping that Sabine at least won’t be able to afford a summer holiday this year whereas Belinda no doubt has plenty of cash stashed away

    Liked by 2 people

    • It’s a drop in the Ocean for Belinda, though she obviously won’t like having to pay.

      I hope they are jointly liable for each other, so that Belinda will have to pay Sabine’s “half” or the debt will still exist.

      Adding interest to it daily.

      With a bit of luck, the pair of them will fall out over this and that will end their partnership in all their many scams.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Some reform regarding the guidelines for McKenzie Friends is probably wise. Something very clear and unambiguous so they can have no argument or loop hole in the future.

    If Savile had still been alive he could have claimed to be part of the ‘Freeman’ movement, and that the BBC had framed him for whistleblowing. Sabine and Belinda would have made a donations button for him and declared his innocence.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Lets wait and see the written judgement. Its hard to believe ANYTHING that S or B say.

      Interesting footnote at the bottom of her post:

      “More once we received the judgement in writing. Let’s face it: it’s a bit more ‘too muchness’ when

      we operate voluntarily
      everybody in the Treasury Solicitors Office is on salary
      but hires a private barrister to defend its interests against us
      and expects us to pay for keeping them all in ‘work’…
      For:

      we may have overstepped our mark as ‘McKenzie Friends’: we are NOT permitted to ‘conduct litigation’ – which we didn’t want to anyway;

      we did not have express authority from Melissa at every step of our activities – if barristers and judges only knew how hard it was to get Melissa’s signature and papers together in HMP Holloway!!!”

      Interesting wording – “we did not have express authority from Melissa at every step of our activities”

      Then why did Sabrat publish this as authority? Is it a forgery? What exactly was it supposed to mean.

      From

      A quick look at B’s post in the same blog

      From: http://mckenzie-friends.co.uk/2013/12/06/melissalaird-in-court-18-the-rcj-on-behalf-of-us-mother-deported-whilst-her-only-child-is-kept-for-adoption/

      “Sabine said CLP were no longer in the case having been dismissed by Ms Laird and CLP having emailed the Court to apprise them of the changeover from CLP to AMF. The judge said they were still appointed; solicitors must inform the court of their dismissal via a special form but CLP hadn’t done that, so technically they were still on the record. And anyone wishing to apply to the court to represent a claimant must likewise submit a formal application which AMF hadn’t done. Hence Mr Elleray repeated “it is not safe to dispose of the case today.”

      Sabine asked how/in what form should AMF make the application? But the judge said he was not here to give advice. Basically Ms Laird should write in to the court stating who was representing her.

      BM/AMF 5 December 2013

      Belinda McKenzie”

      Very strange

      Liked by 2 people

    • The picture at the top of the page that was supposedly sent by Mellisa is worrying, I hope those aren’t her new pets. I also hope that there is no chance of her getting her son back -for his sake.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.