Belinda’s version of this week’s court cases

It’s been a busy week for Hoaxtead watchers, what with Sabine and Belinda’s surprise court win, and Neelu’s not-at-all-surprising court meltdown. So for a change of pace, we thought we’d have a look at Belinda’s latest group email, which she sent out to her friends (and more than a few non-friends, truth be told).

First, her version of how she and Sabine managed to squeak out of paying costs on the Melissa Laird case:

Dear All


As some may already have heard, we/Association of McKenzie Friends won our case against the Home Office/Treasury Solicitor, having been let off the £2000 charge for so-called ‘wasted costs’ in respect of our persistent litigation on behalf of Melissa Laird in 2014. The question was left hanging in the air though, as to whether we might have been using our ‘client’ or protégé as a vehicle for our own campaigning? For which reason, probably, we were not permitted to claim the costs of the excellent Public Law & Costs barrister, Simon Butler whom we had engaged to fight our corner for us.

But as I told Simon, I had all along been fully prepared to pay his fee in the cause of defending our ‘brand’ and the continued right of lay legal advisers or ‘paralegals’ such as McKenzie Friends not to be arbitrarily or summarily (as it previously appeared to us) penalised for defending our ‘clients’/‘protégés’ interests to the best of our ability and within in the parameters of our traditional remit.

Thanks to our very competent barrister and a benign judge, the outcome of these proceedings represents a civilised and somehow reassuringly ‘British’ compromise, the concerns of all sides having been fully advertised as well as satisfactorily met:

a) a clear warning has been spelt out to McKenzie Friends not to try the patience of the court from henceforth;

b) all litigants or participants ‘by proxy’ in litigation, whether lay people or professionals must operate under the same constraints, this is not just about McKenzie Friends;

c) in this case, a clearer warning needed to have been delivered to us/McKenzie Friends in this case that we were ‘overstepping the mark’ and persuading us to desist; this not having been given when it could have been, we should not be made liable on this occasion;

d) but, this judicial warning having now been delivered to McKenzie Friends (and others), the court might be less clement in future.

We must confess that Belinda’s version of events actually makes a great deal more sense than Sabine’s (in which she suggested that her long and whiny email to the Home Secretary might have had an impact on the case…um, no. Nice try, though).

For those who’d like to compare and contrast, here’s how the Law Gazette viewed Sabine and Belinda’s narrow escape: ‘Campaigning’ McKenzie Friends Avoid £2,000 Cost Order

Belinda may be many things, but she’s no fool (unlike the vast majority of those with whom she surrounds herself). Judging by her email, she is well aware that her Association of McKenzie Friends has been sailing  too close to the wind, and it’s time to think about a course correction.

She cannot be unaware of Thursday’s proposed ban on fee-charging McKenzie friends, which would also impose new regulations involving things like confidentiality (i.e. not splatting confidential case material all over the internet…Sabine, we are looking at you) and malpractice insurance. We must admit to smirking a little at the thought of Belinda and Sabine attempting to purchase such a policy. Best of British luck to them on that front!

In any case, the combination of their own case’s judgement and the proposed new regulatory framework might have a dampening effect on Sabine and Belinda’s attempts to use desperate families as hobby-horses for their lunatic campaigns. (Look, we can dream!)

More from Belinda:

Fair enough, and I who am footing the bill (Sabine after a lifetime of good public works and having since her ‘exile’ last summer been deprived of her UK state pension and DLA is destitute!) feel very relieved that we have survived this tussle with the State not too greatly out of pocket (our kind barrister assured us his bill will be modest) as I have to pay off the rest of my mortgage this spring or lose my house!!

All in all, it feels like money well spent, to have achieved this particular outcome yesterday, and that the role of McKenzie Friends in the justice system has been simultaneously confirmed and clarified.

So we can fight on for victims and justice and above all for the children, forever our overriding concern until all of them are properly protected from all harm in UK and throughout this planet.

To all who expressed their support in so many kind messages and to those who joined us in court 64 RCJ yesterday, as I know many more would have done had you been able –THANK YOU! – your moral support is absolutely what counts in all these battles!

Then again, perhaps we’re being over-optimistic.

Having done her obligatory mea culpas, Belinda puts in a word for her and Sabine’s desperate financial straits (cry us a river), and then states her intention to “fight on for victims and justice and above all for the children, forever our overriding concern….”

Oh, please.

Regular HR reader Satanic Views summed up our opinion quite succinctly with his comment:

“So we can fight on for victims and justice and above all for the children, forever our overriding concern….” It is statements like this that are seriously pissing me off about the witch-finder.

The example of an innocent father, RD, who they try to separate from his children, and totally destroy. The untold damage they have done to children P & Q by releasing personal information about them, and orchestrating the constant reproduction of video, names, medical reports, faces and images of those children. Their support of convicted paedophiles and child abusers, and their determination to return abused children to their abusers. There are many more examples.

Their dishonesty, hypocrisy and injustice inflicted upon innocent people, and their consistent rejection of a vast amount of evidence of the innocence of those they harass, accuse and intimidate, plus the adequate evidence they ignore undermining the Hampstead Satanic fantasy narrative pushes me beyond despair. For me, a Satanist, their painting a dishonest narrative against my religion against all my efforts to educate and inform them to the contrary is pushing my tolerance to its limit.

We agree, SV. The hypocrisy is stunning. We really cannot add anything further.

Finally, Belinda turns to the Hampstead case:


In Neelu’s hearing this morning at Blackfriars Crown Court, the judge decided not to deal with the Application to Dismiss the case on this occasion but to join her and Sabine’s cases together, they being more or less identical. So Sabine’s Plea and Case Management Hearing on 7 March has been transmuted into a Plea & Pre-Trial Hearing for both her and Neelu, to be heard + the Application to Dismiss on Friday 8 April, again at Blackfriars Crown Court. This gives more time to both parties to coordinate their defence and gather the evidence needed to disprove the CPS case, that they intended to intimidate the witnesses or that there was any kind of conspiracy between them to do so.

Have a great weekend and onwards we all go!

Belinda x

Hmm. Did Belinda miss all the excitement yesterday, then? The part where Neelu “waved a piece of paper at the judge and shouted that her case had been dismissed and that she did not have to go in the dock….(And then) denied having ever having seen her defence counsel before”?

Belinda’s version sounds so staid, so normal…we have to wonder whether she’s talking about the same case.

In any event, it looks like Sabine and Neelu’s proposed defence is pretty much what we expected: “We didn’t mean to intimidate the witnesses, we just wanted to put everyone’s names and witness statements online because…er…IT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST! LORD ASHTAR TOLD US TO!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!” and so forth.

As for whether they conspired to do so, we will just point out that those witness statements did not post themselves.

Besides, as Sabine points out in her latest:

My third arrest, after midnight on Sunday 10.01.16 ended up in ‘charges’ of ‘witness intimidation‘: four of the six plaintiffs in Neelu’s case felt soo intimidated that they had to withdraw from their case.

Nice stitch-up nine months after I published

  • What If XXXXXXXXXX took a selfie to prove the Whistleblower Kids wrong? His witness statement as part of Neelu’s arrest.

You know, if we were Sabine, we wouldn’t persist in reiterating that we’d posted the witness statements.

Not if we wanted to get out of our next set of criminal charges, that is.



54 thoughts on “Belinda’s version of this week’s court cases

  1. Belinda’s explanation makes much more sense, and it doesn’t reflect well on they way they acted either. I wonder if the judgement will say so in strong terms? Here’s hoping it acts as a warning to them and they leave vulnerable people alone. The government still has to pay for batting away their nonsense before court, in court when they didn’t bother to turn up and all that.

    Their card is marked now. I wonder if it will be case law? If you want to be a McKenzie friend, don’t do what these two did style of thing? Like they end up forever in legal history as an example not to follow and keep your house? Lol

    Screamy Sabine isn’t going to take any notice of a warning in the future I think.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. So if we read the Law Gazette a nominal win for Bellend & Co was actually a damnation of them and the judge- aided by a their barrister – pointed out that indeed this malicious pair had acted incorrectly but put the blame on a previous court for allowing them to do so.

    This was NOT a win for this pair just a reprieve from paying a bill. Note their hapless client is hit with the bill but she is out of the country so the taxpayer gets hit for it because of these 2.

    Melissa Laird has a case to sue these two incompetents but of course, she couldn’t possibly do do so from the USA.

    What a dangerous pair they are and it is right that at least the internet apprise potential clients of these rogues that far from McKenzie Friends- these are McKenzie Enemies.

    It also re-affirms what their barrister said but I guarantee he did not say it the way these liars claim : that the are real problems with rogue McKenzie Friends like Bellend & Co to cause immense damage to their clients. There is obviously real concern within the legal fraternity to this. The judge by dismissing this case – and the law often works this way – is to put the responsibility back onto judges / magistrates to control these dangerous people.

    ## if I were a Hampstead resident affected by Belinda McKenzie and Sabine McNeil’s campaigns I would get a group of fellow sufferers together and sue the pair. They could be tied up for years in court.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. So far, what I can glean of the judgement is not very complimentary toward Sabine and Belinda:

    Giving her judgment yesterday, Simler said: ‘There is a great deal of guidance on what McKenzie friends are and are not entitled to do when they are providing such assistance and provided they don’t step outside their proper remit they should have no fear [of a cost consequence].

    ‘It seems to me there is no principled reason as to why a McKenzie friend should be treated differently than any other party.’

    She added that holding the court responsible was ‘an abdication of responsibility’ and put too a high burden on the court.

    She said: ‘[The McKenzie friends] wasted costs in relation to matters which could have been disposed of as academic in light of the claimant’s removal from the country.

    ‘It seems to be me they did significantly step outside the limits of their role as McKenzie friends. They also appear to have been pursing the case for their own campaigning purposes. They had their own personal interests as members of the Association of McKenzie Friends in the litigation, which was not in the claimant’s own interest.’

    But the judge ruled that the McKenzie friends should not pay costs as they genuinely believed they were helping the claimant. She also noted that, although they were aware they were not entitled to conduct litigation on the claimant’s behalf, no order was made refusing them permission to do so.

    Simler said: ‘Looking at all of the facts in the round, whilst I am quite satisfied that the [McKenzie friends] overstepped the limits of their role and made the [Treasury Solicitor] accrue wasted costs, I step back from the brink of making them liable to pay costs personally and I do that in the regard for the impact such an order would have on them.’

    She said the costs order against the McKenzie friends should be set aside, and said the burden of costs should fall fully on the claimant.

    [from The Law Gazette]


  4. Yes, I notice that neither Sabine nor Belinda makes much mention of the fact that they have just downloaded a £2,000 bill onto their impoverished client.

    Granted, she’s in the U.S. and unlikely to ever be forced to pay, but future clients might do well to consider that this pair is happy to dump their responsibilities onto those they claim to be helping.


  5. A point that jumps out of the Belinda email is the following statement

    “Fair enough, and I who am footing the bill (Sabine after a lifetime of good public works and having since her ‘exile’ last summer been deprived of her UK state pension and DLA is destitute!)”

    It’s hardly surprising that Sabine “lost” her DLA, that’s only paid to someone for 13 weeks after they leave the UK (26 weeks in the case of leaving for medical treatment).

    What is more surprising is that she got DLA – she seems mobile and competent. Travelling frequently around Europe and to various Courts in the UK for example

    The state pension is also surprising. How did she manage to pay enough National insurance payments to qualify?

    Its agreed that she has held various directorships over her 35 years in the UK, but how many of those paid her a salary?

    The other thing Sabine has complained about is a loss of housing benefits, hardly surprising after she ran away from the UK

    Many must wonder what happened to Sabine’s inheritance when her mother died? What is the savings threshold to qualify for housing benefits?

    Did her husband have no savings or pensions to help Sabine in her old age?

    No doubt that will all come out in the wash, perhaps we may see some action against her for benefits fraud?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. The law gazette article is useful in providing me with three powerful points to attack Belinda McKenzie and Sabine McNeill upon:

    1. they acted in their own personal campaigning interests rather than that of their client.
    2. they lumbered their client with the court costs.
    3. they went beyond their authority = ultra vires, claiming powers and authority they did not have.

    These points need to be repeated and highlighted on the internet to warn potential victims against using these charlatans in their legal cases.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Satanic – Totally agree with the points you make, S and B self promote at the cost of the person they pretend to “help”

    Liked by 2 people

  8. As I read it, their barrister’s defence was that the court should not have allowed them to persue the case so far. I can’t think that they would have been very happy with that.

    I agree that some of their victims should get together and sue them. I can understand why they wouldn’t though, given the intimidation some of them have experienced.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. This video demonstrates Sabines mobility – how can she be eligible for DLA? Others much less able than her (my mother for one) had claims turned down.

    (yes – it is 8 years old, but I wonder when she would have claimed?)

    This video was uploaded yesterday and shows Sabine walking with apparent ease(with two poles normally used by ramblers)

    The content of the video is VERY INTERESTING, not only does the video demonstrate Sabines mobility but it also gives her version of what happened in Court on Thursday.

    Guidance for eligibility for DLA From the Gov website:

    You may be eligible (for DLA) if you either:

    need help looking after yourself (the ‘care component’)
    have walking difficulties (the ‘mobility component’)
    If you need help looking after yourself
    You might get the care part of DLA if you:

    need help with things like washing, dressing, eating, using the toilet or communicating your needs
    need supervision to avoid putting yourself or others in danger
    need someone with you when you’re on dialysis
    can’t prepare a cooked main meal
    You can get this part if no-one is actually giving you the care you need, or you live alone.

    If you have walking difficulties
    You might get the mobility part of DLA if, when using your normal aid, you:

    can’t walk
    can only walk a short distance without severe discomfort
    could become very ill if you try to walk
    You might also get it if you:

    have no feet or legs
    are assessed as 100% blind and at least 80% deaf and you need someone with you when outdoors
    are severely mentally impaired with severe behavioural problems and get the highest rate of care for DLA
    need supervision most of the time when walking outdoors
    are certified as severely sight impaired and you were aged between 3 and 64 on 11 April 2011

    Liked by 1 person

  10. “need supervision to avoid putting yourself or others in danger”. Certainly puts others in danger. Needs a spell in Holloway so the general public is safe for a while.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I have to admit to taking some joy from watching Sabine weep. The “hell” she has been through is all of her own making and i’m sure pales in comparison to the hell the children and innocent families have experienced due to Abraham, and her hate campaign.

    I don’t understand why she thinks it’s been worth all over their efforts. What have they accomplished other than losing mothers their children, with Ella on the run and Sabine and co all facing charges?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I honestly think ‘McKenzie Friends’ name is mud now…thanks to Bellend and Sadbint.
    Women would be mad to now seek help from them.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Yes, but there will always be people desperate or foolish enough to think Belinda & Sabine could help them. Despite their dismal track record and terrible reputation.


  14. The comments of the High Court and the result that the client has to pay £4400 costs that Belinda McKenzie and Sabine McNeill caused for her is damning, and can be used to warn people against using their services. McKenzie and McNeill have the useful quality of keeping everyone informed of their activities, so it would be easy and quick to intervene and warn any potential client they seek to represent.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. No, I think she qualifies as having behavioural problems. Certainly her behaviour is a problem to a lot of people.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. It’s not called DLA any more, you have to apply for a new benfit now, they send you as far from your home as possible and make you sit and wait for hours, have an assessment, that you will no doubt fail, even though you may have no arms or legs, that you can’t leave the house, that you are dead. But they say well, if you fail your assessment and they tell you, you are fit for work, you have the opportunity to appeal, as if you havn’t got enough to worry about.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Not only do Sabine and Belinda use cases for their own ends, they have exploited and abused vulnerable people. In the Hampstead case, the campaigning for their own ends perspective may even have been premeditated. Sabine wrote about a case that would be a breakthrough and Belinda about something planned in the future. Both before the Hampstead case. Hmmmm.
    If there is new legislation planned for McKenzie Friends, perhaps they should consider a vetting of these characters with a DBS type clearance requirement. I would also suggest a banning mechanism for those that are unable to understand their role, transgress ethical and legal boundaries, and abuse and exploit for their own amusement and/or gain.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. What is even more frightening is that the assessors who decide whether you get the benefit are allowed to ignore & override medical records and Specialists and GP’s recommendations. The whole system is set up for everyone to fail.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Sherlock,

    I have assumed that occasionally (VERY) Sabine tells the truth (or at least a small part of it). Its obvious that she has claimed to Belinda that her state pension AND DLA has been stopped (now that might just be to lever money out of Belinda.

    Now if she had DLA awarded to her that would have been prior to 2013 – when it was replaced for new claimants over 65 by attendance allowance. Claims from before that date continue to be paid.

    My point is that for DLA, Sabine shows (at least externally) very few things which would have qualified for such an award. Now if that is the case then that would be benefits fraud.

    She has also claimed to have had her housing benefits stopped. That is a means tested benefit. Sabine appears to have had the funds for extensive travel – where did that come from? If Sabine had hidden savings then that would be benefit fraud.

    If you look at Sabines own blogs / linkedin profile there is little evidence of her working in a real job since 1979.

    To have qualified for a full state pension in the UK Sabine would have need to have made 30 years of national insurance contributions. From her own published working chronology that seems very unlikely.

    Her complaining about her own treatment may well be her real downfall. I hope that the Benefits fraud people take a look at her, including any inheritances that she may have received and any bank accounts that she holds outside the UK.

    Hopefully this might help – it was her mothers address (from a website of Sabine’s that has now closed down, but the internet has a good memory

    Buschower Dorfstrasse 16
    14715 Märkisch Luch.

    Sabine Kurjo
    Vor- und Nachname: Sabine Kurjo
    Straße: Buschower Dorfstraße 16
    PLZ: 14715
    Ort: Märkisch Luch
    Region: Landkreis Havelland
    Bundesland: Brandenburg
    Telefonnummer: 03387690166
    Telefonnummer aus dem Ausland: +493387690166

    An exhibition done by Sabine (how did she afford to do that?)

    SPIE Photonics Europe
    13 – 15-April 2010
    Brussels, Belgium
    3D Metrics – Innovation Village


    View Floor Plan
    3D Metrics – Innovation Village
    Buschower Dorfstr 16
    Märkisch Luch – Brandenburg
    Company Description
    Featured Product: “Software lenses” as a new approach to pattern recognition and imaging as a measurement tool. “3D Metrics” was set up to commercialize IP developed by Sabine McNeill, mathematician and former system analyst at CERN. Web services are provided to demonstrate generic software methods: visualizing multi-dimensional data in vertical layers, forecasting time series of any time interval and analyzing images, independent of technology. To become market ready, they need to be tailored to specific applications and customized to address challenges of precision, especially at nano level and below. Contact: Sabine K McNeill, Director,

    After the pain that she has caused to so many then she deserves no less that scrutiny. If it turns out that she is squeaky clean then lets all wish her well.

    Personally I don’t think we will find she stands up to close scrutiny.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. I presume she was given DLA for mobility, probably the lower rate , as she sustained some damage to her hip following a car accident. This is just over £40 a week.
    Is she under 64? Can’t remember. But if so, she would have, at some point, been reassessed and moved onto the benefit that has replaced DLA; personal independence payment (PIP)
    If over 65 then the benefit changes into ‘attendance allowance’ but you can only claim this for care needs if it’s a new claim. Mobility needs would still be covered by DLA/PIP if it was a continuous claim pre-dating the 65th birthday.
    Government guidelines on DLA and PIP are designed to deter people from claiming and make them think that only the most disabled are eligible. Fraud is actually incredibly low in disability benefits (contrary to the hate mongering of certain tabloids)
    As much as I despise Sabine she has complained of pain on a number of occasions.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Sorry didn’t read before posting above. i guess that Sabine had yet to be assessed for PIP, so maybe she was on an indefinite DLA award for low rate mobility.
    I’ve no time for those who scam the system and Sabine is top of the class for being ‘most likely to’ be a benefit fraudster but I’d still be wary about accusing claimants of wrongdoing.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Just to add, I know sabine is an awful human being but the assumptions people make about others’ physical or mental capacity, based on no more than a video or photograph, or heresay makes me very cross.
    If it were possible to assess and diagnose illness and chronic pain just by looking at someone then we would save millions for the NHS.
    Many chronic conditions are ‘invisible’. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
    The Government’s new reforms, including PIP are based on descriptors that make it incredibly difficult for even the most disabled and unwell to get the help they need. They were developed by a discredited insurance company called Unum from the US and their remit is to deny the reality of illness to save money for an ideologically driven neoliberal agenda. If you can press a button you are presumed ‘fit for work’.
    We are living in very dangerous times for the sick and disabled here in the UK.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. I think that’s a pretty succinct assessment, SV. And I agree, the more that message is spread, the less chance they’ll have to continue destroying people’s lives.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. You know, this message really needs to be brought to the committee that’s reworking the regulations for McKenzie friends.

    As for pre-meditation, I can think of 3 things that happened prior to the case ‘breaking’ online in January 2015:

    1. In June 2014, Belinda announces that she has something huge in the works.
    2. In November 2014, Charlotte Ward takes down her Conspirituality blog, changes her online name to Jacqui Farmer, and writes that ridiculous ‘Illuminati Party’ book.
    3. In December 2014, Sabine announces that 2015 will be a ‘breakthrough’ year for their cause.

    Is it beyond the realm of possibility that this was a concerted effort on all 3 of their parts, or am I venturing a bit too close to the edge here? (Go ahead and say so if I am….)


  25. You’re right, if she has a genuine chronic pain condition she probably should have some sort of support, as much as anyone else might receive.


  26. Yes, I’ve read about this.

    It reminds me of what I’ve read about the private insurance companies in the USA, who seem to decide on people’s needs completely independently of their specialists or GPs.

    I’m fortunate enough not to have needed such a thing so far in my life, but the idea of making these benefits punitive for those who need them is just disgusting.


  27. Pingback: Witness intimidation: The issue of ‘intent’ | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  28. Sabine McNeill and Belinda McKenzie has started promoting their McKenzie Friends service, a post appeared on Twitter today, which I promptly put a warning reply to. A good strategy is post all over the internet warnings about Sabine McNeill, Belinda McKenzie and their organisation. I also recommend sites like below to put out consumer warnings against people and organisations that abuse and misuse.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.