Is Belinda McKenzie out to destroy the McKenzie friend?

Observing Belinda McKenzie’s behaviour over the past few years, one could be forgiven for thinking that she has been deliberately setting out to discredit the real, skilled, and often very helpful McKenzie friends who accompany litigants in person to court hearings and assist them by taking notes, help to organise documents, and quietly make suggestions.

For people who are unable to afford lawyers, a real McKenzie friend can be an invaluable asset. Those who fall under the umbrella of Belinda’s deceptively named ‘Association of McKenzie Friends’ (AMF), however, are anything but real.

Belinda and her crew seem to seek out clients whose cases may be used as part of the AMF’s multi-tentacled campaigns, which at least partially consist of seeking proof that Satanic ritual abuse is endemic, and that some monstrous unseen cult is secretly in charge of the halls of power.

As a commentator on this blog stated yesterday,

“It strikes me that Belinda McKenzie’s vision for McKenzie friends is quite toxic. Where Lord Donaldson merely wanted to see an end to them having any weight in public perception as ‘unqualified legal assistants’ – Belinda of that ilk seems to be working hard towards the point where the law moves to ban unqualified assistance of any kind from the court; and thus ensure that the obscurity of McKenzie Friends is something quite indecent!”

(Source: http://hampsteadresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/3-association-of-mckenzie-fiends.html)

The case law quoted in the above-cited piece is quite correct as is the author’s interpretation of the legal position. And that comment is really quite insightful given what has recently happened. McKenzie has played no small part in the authorities making moves that will mainly impact on LEGITIMATE McKenzie friends who do very often do a good job, do have some legal training (and sometimes qualifications) and do carry the requisite insurances etc. And, one suspects, little or nothing to call HER to book.

With the effective destruction of legal aid under way, her actions do have a certain apparent design about them which seems determined to pull the last threads of the rug from beneath the feet of those who are most at risk of injustice. And this is yet another of McKenzie’s scams that cause one to wonder how the heck she gets away with it, and has done for decades.

Indeed, last week, on the same day when Sabine and Belinda were gloating about having downloaded their court costs onto their client, Melissa Laird, the Judicial Executive Board issued a consultation paper which proposes to update, and in many ways seriously restrict, the practice guidelines for McKenzie friends.

In reading over some of the proposed updates, it’s difficult to imagine that the JEB did not have Belinda and company in mind:

2) Developing rules of court – the paper discusses whether the existing Practice Guidance should be replaced with formal rules of court. The courts’ approach to this issue is grounded in case law, and codification into rules would enable reforms to be made, and allow differences for different types of proceedings (for example, between civil and family cases). Codification would also provide greater clarity and consistency in the approach courts take to McKenzie Friends.

3) Providing notice – the paper suggests reforms to help LiPs understand what roles McKenzie Friends can play and any limitations on what they can do. LiPs would need to inform courts in advance if they intended to use a McKenzie Friend, and would give the courts information on that lay supporter.

4) 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.

Read from the perspective of the AMF, this would mean that instead of being able to choose whether to adhere to the existing Practice Guidance (which the AMF generally tends to ignore in favour of its own strange agenda), McKenzie friends would be forced to adhere to formal rules of court.

Rather than accepting Belinda and Sabine’s explanation of their role, their potential clients would need to be fully informed as to what a real McKenzie friend may do; and they would need to inform the courts in advance of the role they expected that lay supporter to play.

And all McKenzie friends would be required to comply with a Code of Conduct, which would acknowledge their duty to the court, as well as the need for confidentiality: in other words, Sabine would not be allowed to share her clients’ confidential court documents on the internet. As for ‘duty to the court’, Sabine has stated in this post about the consultation paper that she acknowledges only that “LITIGANTS need support, not the courts!” We assume that this reflects the views of her puppet-mistress Belinda.

Ironically, the most publicised section in the JEB’s working paper is the proposed prohibition on fee recovery:

6) Prohibition on fee recovery – the paper proposes that there should be a prohibition on fee recovery by paid McKenzie Friends in line with the practice adopted in Scotland, where lay supporters may only provide assistance, representation or the conduct of litigation if they are not in direct or indirect receipt of remuneration. The JEB’s intention is to protect the public interest and vulnerable litigants from unregulated and uninsured individuals seeking to carry out reserved legal activities. This approach is also in line with Parliament’s intention that rights of audience (the ability to appear and present a case in court) and to conduct litigation should be strictly regulated.

The AMF is explicitly a voluntary organisation, offering its ‘services’ for free, so in fact this section would have no effect on their operation (whereas the above sections regarding ethics in practice would put them out of business almost immediately). However, we wonder what the JEB might have to say about the proliferation of ‘Donate’ buttons on both Belinda’s and Sabine’s many blogs? Does this fall under the rubric of ‘fee recovery’?

Meanwhile, genuine McKenzie friends, who offer genuinely valuable assistance to litigants in person, and who already behave in accordance with the rules of court, will conceivably have their incomes restricted by the new rules of practice, and may no longer be able to offer their clients a service that is truly beneficial.

We wonder whether Belinda is sitting in her charming home in Highgate, chuckling at the thought.

McKenzie friends help

83 thoughts on “Is Belinda McKenzie out to destroy the McKenzie friend?

  1. I’ve always found it outrageous that Bellender uses the name McKenzie Friends for her, ahem, “charity”, just because of her surname. ‘Association of McKenzie Friends’ is deliberately worded to sound like an official body. It’s so misleading.

    Liked by 2 people

    • McKenzie has ‘form’ for this. Her latest scam The Knight Foundation for instance is named very similarly to an (as far as I can tell legitimate) American charity. Until very recently ( weeks ago) its website carried wording that was clearly designed to mislead the unaware into believing it to be a registered charity. – She has been running scams of this nature and misleading the public for decades;that is her trade or profession – scammer.

      Quoting again from the piece I linked-to yesterday:

      ” The subject of McKenzie friends reared its ugly head again in R v Leicester City Justices, ex p. Barrow [1991] 2 QB 260 (CA) where it was said:

      “If a party arms himself with assistance in order the better himself to present his case, it is not a question of seeking the leave of the court. It is a question of the court objecting and restricting him in the use of this assistance, if it is clearly unreasonable in nature or degree or if it becomes apparent that the ‘assistance’ is not being provided bona fide, but for an improper purpose or is being provided in a way which is inimical to the proper and efficient administration of justice by, for example, causing the party to waste time, advising the introduction of irrelevant issues or the asking of irrelevant or repetitious questions.”

      These comments are interesting in that they make it clear that a McKenzie Friend can be readily excluded from (or simply ignored by) the court should it emerge that they are acting to misdirect or otherwise hamper proceedings… ”

      Given that statement – which you will find to be quite correct – what is surprising is that the courts would appear to have given McKenzie and her friends so much of an audience as to have facilitated them doing the damage (both to individuals and the concept of lay legal assistance generally) that they have. And that this might precipitate the erosion of yet another layer of access to justice for the less-than-wealthy.

      Here in Scotland our civil courts are more or less of a kangaroo nature. Unless one is wealthy enough to afford lawyers’ fees you are in many cases unlikely to even be able to access advice and assistance. ‘Lay advisors’ are limited to a few surgeries run by the lawschools and staffed by students. That, and the odd community law centre or the comically-incompetent CAB. I personally have seen averments presented to the courts which are quite clearly incoherent nonsense – and people are forced to leave such nonsense undefended because they have not the funds to even enter a defence let alone have someone assist with the complex matter of process.

      I do not doubt for a moment that McKenzie’s motives are primarily financial and that her numerous scams over the yeara are simply that. But I am concerned by the wider agenda that seems to be being served here – that of ensuring justice is something available only to those well-heeled enough to afford it! In a world where it seems most of us might have the book thrown at us for re-using an unfranked postage stamp one really does have to question how the heck McKenzie and her like get away with it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes I’ve noticed this thing of using names that sound like existing charities before. I think she found someone called Knight to be a director of her “Knight Foundation”. Belinda’s website uses the definite article in the web address. I seem to remember Iran Aid’s literature used graphics very similar to Amnesty International’s. These things aren’t an accident. I wonder what she has lined up to catch the unwary donor next? “Shave the Children”? “Green Peas”?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Last summer, we ran this story: https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2015/07/24/breaking-news-belinda-busted/ quoting the Ham&High’s investigation into the Knight Foundation.

          “…(T)he organisation is not registered with the government watchdog the Charity Commission and that almost all the donations received are being sent to Sabine McNeill – a fugitive wanted for questioning by UK police.

          “Her colleague Belinda McKenzie, one of the directors of The Knight Foundation, has been leading the donation drive from her home in Priory Gardens, Highgate.

          “The 69-year-old told the Ham & High: ‘We are aiming to become a charity and are at the early stages of the organisation.

          “’I see our work as charitable as it’s helping others, including my friend Sabine who had to leave the UK or face arrest. She needs financial support for her work, speaking to MEPs about child abuse in the UK. But I will consider amending the wording on our website.”’

          In other words, the so-called ‘charity’ was (and may still be) a pass-through for funding Sabine.

          Like

  2. Good post and I’m thinking that Bellender has been lurking in the shadows recently, upstaged by more vocal fruitcakes and scammers. But it’s important that we keep our claws in and don’t let this woman get away with the damage she’s done and continues to do. Here’s a timely reminder of one reason why I personally loathe and detest her:

    https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/belinda-demonstrates-why-she-is-so-reviled

    Liked by 3 people

    • Of all those behind the Hampstead Satanic hoax, Belinda McKenzie is the most dangerous and needs to be challenged at every opportunity. Looking at the larger picture and context of all the past activities or campaigns that Belinda McKenzie has been involved in, I am constantly questioning what her overall game plan is, a question I still have no answer.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. And lest we forget – her Association of McKenzie Friends is not and never has been a registered charity. This is from the Charity Commission website:

    https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/knight-foundation-and-association-of-mckenzie-friends-not-registered-charities

    Besides, Bellender was struck off by the Charity Commission over her Iran Aid scam:

    https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2015/07/26/mckenzies-5-million-black-hole

    Liked by 3 people

  4. If they want Lawyers privileges then they need to qualify as lawyers…

    From their web page (Published by Sabine McNeill)

    http://mckenzie-friends.co.uk/about/

    “About
    An Association of McKenzie Friends became necessary on a number of occasions that resulted in frustration and similar unpleasant feelings, especially when helping Litigants in Person who are in prison – on remand, i.e. unconvicted:

    After having been allowed ‘legal visits’ in HMP Holloway twice, one McKenzie Friend was ‘downgraded’ to social visits, i.e. no papers could be taken in by either the inmate or the McKenzie Friend
    this made it impossible to prepare the response to an Order, let alone an appeal in time
    McKenzie Friends were not allowed to speak to the prisoners who were waiting in the court cells
    instead, they were given 20 minutes by a judge during a family court hearing.
    Our Aims and Objectives are therefore:

    to raise awareness of the value that McKenzie Friends bring to Litigants in Person – as an alternative to lawyers
    to play the role of advocacy on behalf of victims of white collar crimes and child snatching
    to lobby those responsible for making change possible
    to publish relevant findings and experiences in the public interest.
    Our immediate campaigning goals are:

    allow McKenzie Friends the rights for legal visits in prisons
    allow McKenzie Friends to instruct barristers
    the recognition of ‘public interest advocacy’, when McKenzie Friends present their observations in courts or represent cases at meetings with MPs and MEPs.”

    From the Melissa Laird website (of Sabines)

    Liked by 2 people

  5. It’s difficult to determine whether she has deliberately set out to destroy the concept of McKenzie Friends, but it’s a real possibility.She is certainly damaging the concept and dragging down the name of all the good and decent McKenzie Friends. I believe she is smart enough to understand the damage she is doing, which begs the question of why she continues.
    I think she probably just doesn’t care about the damage she is causing, whether it be to McKenzie Friends or to her own clients. She cares only about her agenda

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Melissaa Laird still had solicitors when she was in prison. Are Sabine and Belinda saying that they also want the right to act at cross purposes with a solicitor, deceiving them about what is going on by not letting the solicitor know what work they are doing with the client, not letting the court know and also trying to blatantly “poach” clients who already have solicitors, as anyone can call themselves a McKenzie Friend they must want all the murderers to be able to easily conspire by having easy access to say, a criminal gang member, who then must be allowed easy access to the prison and also to be able to bring things in and out without the prison being able to easily scrutinise the papers because they are supposedly legally privileged papers? They are talking out of their arses again. Engage brain before writing I suggest.

    I get the idea that if Sabine and Belinda had trouble getting paper clips, they would add something like McKenzie Friends must be able to use as much stationery as they like from wherever they want.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. There is currently an official consultation on the role of McKenzie friends in the courts. One of the main proposals is to change the name to something other than “McKenzie friend”. (At the moment, “Court supporter” is proposed, but no-one likes that.) Many people think that this is not unconnected with the damage that Belinda & Sabine have done to the concept of the McKenzie friend.

    https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/mf-consultation-paper-feb2016.pdf

    Like

    • As I understand it the connection between McKenzie’s antics and the damage done to the concept of lay assistance is beyond any reasonable doubt.

      Personally I feel the title ‘Lay Assistant’ might be suitable. And that rather than exclude paid assistance the condition should be set that such an individual must study law to at least HND level, acquire appropriate indemnity insurance and operate under the oversight of a fully qualified lawyer. – Effectively a form of Paralegal (although that term is in itself problematic).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Perhaps this isn’t really the right forum for a discussion of the merits of the McKenzie proposals; Justice for Families will be submitting a full response.

        Like

        • Will you be commenting on how John Hemming until January 2015 was a patron of Belinda’s association – and that his response when I challenged him was that he didn’t know what they were up to any earlier.

          Presumably Mr Hemming would then welcome the establishment of a central register of those fit to operate as McKenzie Friends/Court Supporters whatever so he doesn’t run the risk of being so horribly duped in the future?

          Liked by 2 people

          • Sarah, You well know that John formally disassociated himself with Sabine and Belinda before Hoaxstead ever started. Neither Belinda nor Sabine, nor anyone else related to the ‘Association of McKenzie Friends’ has ever acted with or for Justice for Families, and most especially not as a McKenzie friend. As a barrister, can you honestly tell me that you have never backed a loser?

            Like

          • One reason, why i really think John Hemming needs to make a strong statement is that even very recently, Sabine posted videos of herself, with John Hemming, and for new, uninformed people, and for those who think he deserves their loyalty, respect for his work, then he is still enabling them, by default……..to abuse yet more victims,
            Surely, John could assert his influence, and warn them not to misrepresent his involvement, or endorsement, and make it clear that he is withdrawing any previous illusion of support ?

            I’m surprised that he has not been more emphatic, direct, clear..

            Liked by 1 person

      • I would have an issue with this proposal. I was a part of a team of three who assisted a terminally ill disabled individual against a certain UK institution. I underwrote the legal costs so she could afford to take the case to court; the other two individuals prepared all the documents and witnesses, got everyone to court, and acted as moral support in the court. We hired the solicitor who attended to fight the case in court. The case was won, and I got my money back. None of us I think would have been involved in that case if we had to go through all the administrative obstacles as suggested.

        Like

      • “My current favorite is “Legal supporter”.”

        The difficulty with this title is that to someone intent on abusing it, some inference may be made of professional standing and/or knowledge and ability. There is I think a general feeling that any title created should clearly reflect the non-qualified nature of the lay assistant.

        The ability in someone who purports to be credible and competent in a field to be able to provide evidence of that competence is not an obstacle when it potentially impacts on the safety and security of others. – You are required to pass a test and hold a licence in order to be allowed to drive a car after all! If you wish to drive a mini-bus and be paid for it you must pass another test and gain additional entitlement. If you even want to buy a remote-controlled drone and use it to take pictures which you sell (or offer your sevices to do so) you must gain CAA approval and carry insurance etc.

        In a world where we generally expect competence to be certificated and learning to be proved, what possible justification is there for permitting completely unlearned and untrained people playing at lawyers – and gambling with the liberty of others in that entertainment?

        Notable in your own example is the fact that ultimately you hired a Solicitor to address the court and presumably deal with process. My suggestion, outlined above’ is somewhat along the same lines as is required by the Law Society of Scotland for Paralegals. – It would not impact on those who seek simply to provide moral support or indeed practical assistance to a L.I.P. It would however provide greater scope for regulation of those who seek, to any degree, a right of audience.

        Liked by 2 people

          • A further issue – and what troubles me – is the fact that McKenzie seems to be one of those individuals who appears to hold a general ‘licence to offend’ without consequence. This strikes me as very strange in a world which can often come down very hard on people who make trivial mistakes such as parking in the wrong place or failing to fill in a form! She and her minions are given far to much scope by the courts. I for one cannot understand why when precedent is quite clear. – There is no reason to admit these known troublemakers/nutcases! Why have they been given so much rope?

            Liked by 1 person

          • This is a question we’ve all asked many times. There are rumours flying around that she’s ‘protected’ in some way, but we’ve seen no concrete evidence to this effect (other than her strange lack of arrests). It’s one of the issues we’d very much like to understand.

            Liked by 1 person

  8. You’d thnk this site is about the discreditation of two women, Belinda and Sabine, who do so much for our Childrens safety and protection instead of exposing the satanism of Hampstead, and London/Nationwide. No, let’s focus energy here, on these two women. Shame on all who ‘entangle’ their HigherSelf therein.
    Good day

    Like

    • I assume, then, that you’re unaware of the role these two noble women have played in the Hampstead hoax?

      Oh, wait. You’re actually talking about there being a baby-eating Satanic cult, aren’t you? If you care to look around this site and read some of the evidence-based posts, rather than being sucked into the fairy-stories of Belinda, Sabine, Abe, Ella, and their ilk, you might actually learn a thing or two. Otherwise, go ahead and remain a sheep–that’s what they’re counting on.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Belinda and Sabine are not interested in the welfare of children. They have fought to have children returned to situations where they are bitten by dogs in squalid caravans or starved and hit with red hot spoons.

      Liked by 2 people

    • What nonsense! McKenzie has proven herself to be at best grossly incompetent; and her influence has always been to the absolute detriment of those who become involved with her. – Robert Green for instance was (willingly, it must be noted, as he sought fame and fortune) led by the nose by her into circumstances that led him to be in effect convicted of ‘stalking’ Elish Angiolini. McNeill herself has been ‘influenced’ into actions that forced her ‘on the run’ and will ultimately, we expect, see her imprisoned and made martyr.

      It’s part of McKenzie’s M.O. to light the blue touchpaper under unstable attention-seeking fools, fan the flames, and then walk round with the collection tin. The proceeds from which seem only to further her (quote) “brand”. There is no evidence that a single child – or for that matter vulnerable adult – has ever been helped by her or any of her minions. For instance, it’s illegal to identify either a victim of a sex crime or a child that is involved in a court case. This is in order that these vulnerable individuals are given the opportunity to live the rest of their lives without being haunted by past horrific experience. – McKenzie and McNeill have absolutely ZERO respect for that. And are quite happy to make merry (and make cash!) from the suffering of others in this respect. McKenzie has been caught out in NUMEROUS lies and deceptions. From Iran Aid through Starchild to the Knight Foundation – all frauds!

      In fact the net effect of McKenzie’s actions has been to facilitate abuse. – Where injustice occurs in the future and when people attempt to campaign independently for justice she has increased the ease with which they may be simply dismissed as ‘nutters’. In this way she has bolstered the threat often used by the likes of paedophiles that if you speak out, no-one will believe you. And let’s recall that she has been known to defend paedophiles. – What if there are actually children being abused in some ritualised setting tonight? Who will take such reports seriously in the future now that McKenzie and McNeill have ensured that such matters are the realm of attention-seekers, the mentally ill and cheap money-grabbers? Belinda McKenzie has evil running in her blood. She facilitates child abuse, nutures endangerment and hacks away at that which might protect the vulnerable.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Shame on those who enable these abusers Belinda and Sabine, to disempower so many in the name of empowerment. Very cruel, to suck up victims outside of court giving an illusion of support, and discrediting many who have fought long and hard, with integrity…..Shame on the cynical claims of credit for, for example, whistleblowing on child abuse, whilst infiltrating, co opting and discrediting important events…….

      People deserve to be warned about them, and anyone entangled or fooled by them, needs to stop making ridiculous, untrue statements, as if they have any authority, let alone credibility…..

      Liked by 2 people

  9. Tim. My point is this.

    JH was patron of their association until Jan 2015. When I asked why he had a)ever been patron, seeing what these two had been up to since at least 2011 and b) why he didn’t dis-associate sooner his reply was that he simply didn’t know what they were up to prior to 2015.

    which is either a lie or he is alarmingly uncurious about those to whom he lends his mantle of respectability.

    I can safely say I have never in my life offered my patronage, my support or my respect to someone who is prepared to promote and promulgate child abuse on the scale these two have.

    I have of course represented in court all manner of scum bags. But not because I like them or what they did but because I believe in the rule of law and a fair hearing for all – concepts I sadly suspect Hemming, MacKenzie and McNeill need to pay a little more attention to.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. A very interesting and informative post El Coyote. One thing that disturbs me is that i believe the people that will find themselves using McKenzie friends will be the penniless and desperate. All is fine if that person finds themselves a genuine McKenzie friend to assist them in court but i dread the consequences for that person if they find themselves in the company of Belinda and Sabine instead.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Anyone going on Monday?

    The Blackfriars Crown Court List has just been published

    Court 4 – sitting at 10:45 AM
    His Honour Judge Hillen

    Plea and Trial Preparation

    T20160121 MCNEILL Sabine

    01EK0018216

    DIGITAL CASE,LAPTOP/TABLET REQ,Case won’t be called, until PTPH form uploded

    Liked by 2 people

  12. I must admit I was surprised at the claim that Neelu and Sabine were to stand trial together – Its hardly a fair process if they can not communicate due to bail conditions, On trial separately then they don’t have a need to communicate

    Like

    • I would think that their legal representatives might be able to communicate, though, wouldn’t they? I think it’s fairly standard in a case where conspiracy to act is suspected, that both parties are forbidden from conspiring further.

      Like

  13. Belinda had previously published this statement on her website (yet again she seems to be wrong, at least that’s something consistent about her)

    “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”

    Umm….

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hmm. This seems to conflict with the Ham & High’s report on Neelu’s plea (the one where she shouted at the judge and refused to go to the dock): “…co-defendant Sabine McNeill, who is believed to be the owner of the blog which published the witness lists, will appear before the court on March 7. Both women will then appear together in court again on April 8”.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. The Court Listings for 7th March have been published, hence my earlier post – Sabine is listed to appear at Blackfriars at 10.45.before Judge Hillen (In Court 4) to enter her plea to the charges

    Either she is there, or a Warrant is issued for her arrest.

    Should be interesting to see who is there to represent her (if anyone) Its a criminal matter so she will qualify for Legal Aid – Its her choice if she wishes to not have anyone there or chooses to speak for her self.

    She should also be eligible to ask for a McKenzie Friend to help her if she represents herself.

    With her history of addressing a court on behalf of others, I doubt a Judge would grant rights of audience to a lay advocate to speak for her in circumstances that she decides not to use qualified representation and represents herself as a litigant in person.

    Liked by 1 person

    • She might argue that Article 6 of the Human Rights Act says that “Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing”

      Like

      • Thats a good point – is it not answered by a person being allowed the assistance of a Mckenzie friend to assist in Court?

        A defendant can of course represent themselves and has a right to address the Court (subject of course to any witness questioning meeting the Court guidelines and adhering to the correct procedure).

        What is clear is that only in certain circumstances can a lay representative be granted rights of audience in the Court (so they can conduct the defendants case IN Court ) As Sabine has acted for others in the role of lay representative (rather than just as a Mckenzie friend in the Court environment) Sabine might have an uphill battle to convince a Judge that she needs a lay representative to conduct her case rather than conducting and presenting her own case.

        Of course she could just use a lawyer – in much the same way as she and Belinda finally used a lawyer to sort out the issue of costs in the Laird case.

        With her great skill and track record of proven and demonstrated ability, I do hope she represents herself.

        From what she has said (and published) she is after all a superior being and will do better than anyone else at whatever she does

        Liked by 1 person

  15. Wouldn’t it be fun if Belinda and Sabine were represented by their champion McKenzie friend, Deb Mahmoudieh no less! I can’t imagine why they would not show their full confidence in her legal opinion given this opportunity to prove themselves.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. I must say… I can see why people say Belinda might be employed in some way by the establishment to cause trouble for campaigns and campaigners. Justice for Families has worked long and hard over a period of many years to raise awareness of Forced Adoption, which is, as Christopher Booker has commented, one of the greatest scandals facing the country today.

    I, personally, am mortified to see BS (lets just call them that shall we?) talking about Satanic rituals in the same forums as Forced Adoption.

    There are many really decent, genuine people out there who have lost their children for no reason at all (I know a lot of them personally and have seen their court files), and we can well do without being tarred by the nutter brush by these two. Had (if) they set out to do so, BS could hardly have done a better job of damaging our hard fought campaign.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Hahaha Christopher Booker, a journalist so jaundiced that a personal rule of thumb is believe the opposite of what he writes.

    I’ve personally seen the truth of a case he wrote about. He writes about these people, according to him they are lovely, in actuality they are scheming crooks who are prepared to resort to some pretty serious criminal offences to exploit a vulnerable person. The one good thing about more people reading cases on Bailii and more cases being published, is that he can be challenged more easily. I wouldn’t be willing to reveal someone’s personal life just to get one over on a journalist who wouldn’t listen anyway. Now that cases are on Bailii it isn’t necessary. He could put links to the cases in his articles. When I last read his columns he didn’t.

    Anyway, Vicky Haigh/exonerated ex/Sabine/publishing in breach of court orders/invited to House of Commons. Vicky Haigh was sentenced in November 2011 for an incident in March. John Hemming had her speaking in April 2011. He framed it at the time as a super injunction issue but in reality the woman was pursuing a massive smear campaign doing things like emailing her child’s father’s employer saying he had sexually abused his child. Sabine was publishing stuff. I am amazed he could not see what Sabine was like considering the keen interest he took in that case. I was under the impression he thought it awful for a court to make an order preventing a woman calling a man a child abuser when he had been exonerated. That case has many similar features to the Hampstead one. Sabine publishing stuff for one thing.

    However, you told me John Hemming either lied or deliberately misled the court in another case. How surprised should I be really? I suppose that is one plus of McKenzie friends, they don’t have a duty to the court.

    Regards

    The person you called a coward for using a pseudonym, in case you forgot about that.

    Liked by 1 person

    • And I should add that I likely have more personal knowledge than you (whoever you are) about the cases that Christopher Booker reports – a lot of them are our cases.

      Like

      • Interesting you say that, Tim, as we’ve been asking your mates for evidence to support their bizarre claims for over a year now, to no avail. So come on, Chuckles – quit yer yappin’ and share the goods. Give us a taste of this legendary “personal knowledge” of yours instead of stinking up the page with your whining.

        Like

      • Then you were fooled too by their antics if it’s your case. Me, not so easily fooled. Nasty pieces of work. A bit of fraud wasn’t beneath them either.

        I’ve nothing against people getting help with their legal case. It’s when people use very bad people as causes that it grates a little bit.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. I do notice that I am one of the few that has the honesty/courage/whatever to use their real name on here. I really don’t understand why some people persist in attacking those who are on the same side as they are. The point about Hague was not whether she was innocent, but that she was denied due process, and without that, we become barbarians.

    Like

    • Sorry, I’m afraid you’re talking through your hat on this one, Tim.

      Until you’ve had your personal information slung across the internet, had your children targeted, been accused very publicly of the most horrendous false crimes, received multiple death threats, had all your work colleagues and friends targeted by poison pen writers, had your children denied school spaces because the new school couldn’t guarantee their safety…then you can lecture us about keeping our names private. Until then, zip it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Tim, in light of the endless torrent of abuse, slander and death threats to us and our families over the last year, it would be extremely irresponsible of us to use our real names and put our families in danger.

      Also, many of us have careers and/or positions of status and cannot afford to have our names muddied in public. So if you’ll excuse us, most of us will continue to do what almost every person on the internet (including the vast majority of your hoaxer buddies) does and use funky pseudonyms. It’s free, it’s ethical and it’s legal (and what the hell your problem with it is is anybody’s guess). Hey, for all we know, Tim Haines isn’t your real name either😉

      Liked by 2 people

    • How on earth can you say she was denied due process? I really would like to see you explain that one. She was convicted in NOVEMBER. She spoke in the House of Commons in APRIL well before the conviction.

      Her daughter is doing well though. And even up to 2014 Vicky Haigh chose no contact over supervised contact. Shows what her priorities are yes?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Tim, I use my real name here too, hurrah for us.

      That you support Booker as beacon of truth I am afraid puts you not necessarily on same page as BS but certainly in the same Chapter of the Book of Credulous Loons.

      Do please enlighten me as to what cases Booker has accurately reported? Because it wasn’t Haigh, it wasn’t the Musas, it wasn’t Alessandra Pacchieri etc, etc, eat ad nausaeam.

      Like

  19. Please answer the question, don’t just swerve it.
    When has Booker ever commented accurately about a family law case?
    I have been following his antics for about two years now and my answer to that question would be ‘never’.

    With regard to the point you make – its called confirmation bias I am afraid. You believe what your clients say, ergo, court judgments that are critical, you dismiss.

    I have been in conversation with many parents on line. They tell me that their children were taken for ‘risk of future emotional harm’ only. They never hurt their children. They never would. there is nothing wrong with their parenting, the system is corrupt, etc, etc, etc.

    I offer to advise them for free – they send me their paperwork. It generally bears little resemblance to the protestations that there is ‘nothing’ wrong with their parenting. Usually there is plenty wrong and they are in abject denial – a denial which is fuelled by these morons B and S who encourage them to believe in conspiracy theories when actually what they need to do is stop drinking/stop using street drugs/stop going out with violent men etc, etc, etc.

    this doesn’t mean I argue that everything in the system is rosy – everything clearly isn’t but that has much more to do with the government push for adoption coupled with austerity policies that reduce services available to help parents. It has nothing to do with eating babies, as you yourself agree.

    But Booker is in bed with those who do believe that. So if you are in bed with Booker, you are also sleeping with them. I am afraid that is how it works. You are rightly damned by association.

    You and Julie charge quite a lot for your services, I am told. Therefore it is even more incumbent upon you to behave with propriety and integrity. I am afraid that if you genuinely support Booker as a truth seeker and truth reporter, then that makes me doubt hugely that you possess either characteristic.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The fact that we are rather successful in the Court of Appeal perhaps indicates that the Lord Justices at least sometimes agree that the judgments aren’t right!

      Christopher provides a counterbalance to the lies told by social workers and their ilk. It’s all how you spin it at the end of the day.

      You’re quite right that the way parents tell it is, of course, their spin – and that sometimes there is more spin than a helicopter! We turn down a lot more cases than we take on. There are nonetheless far too many genuinely wronged parents out there. Let’s take Baby with No Name. The court accepts that neither parent has ever harmed their children. The only problem is that Dad refuses to deal with social workers, whom he has found invasive, dishonest and bullying, so his kids have to go for adoption.

      You already know that you often can’t believe what parents tell you, so perhaps you might also question what people have said they pay us, as I have heard some pretty outrageous stories myself! If only!

      Like

  20. What is your success rate in the Court of Appeal? Julie stated that you make appeals not because you think you will win but because you want to show the Judges what is going on in the lower courts and how dissatisfied parents are.

    I don’t recall reading any recent Court of Appeal judgments where the first instance decision was overturned as a result of arguments made by either you or Julie.

    It would be helpful if you could list those CoA cases that you won. This could give confidence to vulnerable LiPs that you were sensible and appropriate people to contact.

    I am well aware of the Baby No Name case. I have read the judgments. I can only say I disagree profoundly with your ‘spin’ on that case. I assume you would agree that assaulting a social worker in court is a bit more than just ‘refusing to deal with them’ ?

    Anyway. This is getting off the point of this post. The point is that we urgently need to do something to regulate MKF and warn people away from the nutters. And as you continue to be unable/unwilling to tell me when Booker has ever reported anything about a family case accurately, I must continue to put him (and all who support him) in Camp Differently Sane.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.