Lawsuit idea gets overwhelming support

We’ll admit it: we were over-awed and very moved by your flood of responses to yesterday’s post in which we discussed the self-outing of the author of the Dearman Does Hampstead blog.

It brought home to us—yet again—the strength and determination of this community, and your dedication to doing the right thing and seeing justice done.

In yesterday’s post we mooted the idea of an international lawsuit, targetting the patent illegality of the DDH blog. The blog was formed with the express goal of defaming RD. Every post on DDH is in direct violation of the court order issued in February 2015, and yet the blog’s author, Kristie Sue Costa, has been allowed free rein to harass and defame her innocent target.

We brought a lawsuit up as a possibility that we’d been researching, and you threw yourselves behind it wholeheartedly.

How difficult is international litigation?

We had noted that UK to US lawsuits can be tricky to set in motion, but Ghost of Sam offered some reassurance, noting that in fact, defamation is less complex to pursue in the U.S. courts than here:Ghost of Sam-lawsuit-international 2016-06-19In addition, he said that U.S. lawyers have a number of tools at their disposal, such as the use of liens to keep defendants from disposing of assets prior to judgement, and demanding that defendants guarantee court costs should they lose, if it appears they might try to frustrate the court process. Useful information, indeed!

Sarah Phillimore pointed out that this case, like a growing number of internet-based defamation and harassment cases, could point to the need for a complete rearrangement of our current court jurisdiction arrangements: Sarah Phillimore-lawsuit-int'l court 2016-06-19

Building a fighting fund

The idea of crowdfunding a ‘fighting fund’ was raised, and many of you threw yourselves behind it with enthusiasm:Anna Raccoon-lawsuit-fundraise 2016-06-19Y'Tracey-lawsuit-fighting fund 2016-06-19Satanic Views-lawsuit-fighting fund 2016-06-19Sarah Phillimore-lawsuit-fighting fund 2016-06-19Pallas Athene-lawsuit-fighting fund 2016-06-19Anna-lawsuit-fighting fund 2016-06-19

Looking out for the children

One important theme you raised was ensuring that RD’s children, who continue to be victimised by people like Kristie Sue Costa, should have their interests represented, and their futures secured. Karnevilnine-lawsuit 2016-06-19SatanicViews-lawsuit-children 2016-06-19We fully agree, and would like to add that the other Hampstead children whose personal details have been spread across the internet have also faced many repercussions because of the Hoaxtead mob, and will likely continue to find themselves garnering unwanted attention as they grow older.

Where do we go from here?

It’s clear that there is an interest in pursuing legal remedies for the damage Kristie Sue has inflicted upon RD, his children, and the entire community of Hampstead.

You’ve given our team a great many ideas to think about, and we don’t want to take your suggestions, or your personal support, lightly. With that in mind, we’ll be holding some important discussions over the next few weeks, to determine the best course of action.

One thing is clear: no one is content to just let this lie. And for that, we thank you all. LAWSUIT

82 thoughts on “Lawsuit idea gets overwhelming support

  1. Dear Mr El, Frances supports this lawsuit 100%. If there is any way you require a 7-foot tall lizard with exquisite taste in home furnishings, to help out, you know where Frances lives.
    Solidarity, Mr El!

    Liked by 1 person

      • Precedents set in one country, say Australia or the UK are often cited in the USA, UK and Oz courts given most of their laws are all based on British law.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Although Mr Alchin’s behaviour is pretty unpleasant, it is no where near as vindictive or prolonged as that of the Hampstead Hoaxers. The man from Sydney has (not to mince words) been acting like a complete dick – but has been doing so to a random stranger who is an adult. The Hoaxers have repeatedly named and published photographs of a number of individuals, some of them vulnerable children, in breach of a very specific court order. For over a year we have given them warnings to stop; they haven’t. The law needs to come down on them now like a ton of bricks.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Absolutely- they have been very vicious & nasty and repeated their falsehoods dozens of times.
        Note the law lecturer says this case will be watched world-wide and may also affect Facebook. It’s time Facebook etc stopped covertly allowing this abuse to continue.

        Like

      • Agree 100%, FS.

        While I fully sympathise with people like the woman who was attacked by Mr Alchin, I think the Hoaxtead situation is even more dire, and ought to have elicited a very stern response from the law from the beginning. I have my own ideas as to why that didn’t happen, but the fact is that by the time anything was done, the situation had spiralled out of control. This case shows the importance of stamping out this sort of brush fire before it starts devouring entire forests.

        Like

  2. Most US states have uniform laws on this:

    47 U.S. Code § 223 – Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications.

    (B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
    (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
    (ii) initiates the transmission of,
    any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;
    (C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass any specific person;

    (E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any specific person; or

    (4) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever, within the United States, intentionally violates paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to a fine of not more than $50,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

    Liked by 1 person

    • See? Can’t reason their way out of a wet paper bag, this lot. “RD has children. RD is human. Therefore all humans who have children are RD”???

      Like

    • Not sure what’s funnier – proving Alanson and that ignorant freak Sonja Vangelder wrong by posting the above (I understand that as we speak, they’re rummaging through the Alphabetti Spaghetti in an attempt to eat their words); or the fact that despite his countless blog posts and videos slagging off this blog, they genuinely believe that David Shurter is one its biggest supporters!

      This screenshot gives a snapshot of both examples of them comprehensively shooting themselves in the foot:

      Liked by 1 person

      • LOL, these people are bizarre. What would make them think HWSNBN is in any way connected to us? Other than the fact that he rants about us from time to time, that is?

        As for our picking and choosing what we wish to share…I can’t even. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that Sonja picks and chooses what she reads? Besides, if we shared every bit of idiocy these people vomit forth, we’d require a staff of hundreds.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Right, so there is someone who calls themselves Code2222 whose super investigative skills involve doorstepping a woman with a young child and asking if they eat babies. That’s what Sound Affects was on about.

      He who will not be named is no fan of this site, but deluded as he obviously is, at least he has managed to spot that Ella and Abraham claim that she has three children in this supposed cult.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Alan Alanson and his mates confirming (on Alanson’s FB page) what peace-loving bastions of morality they are by issuing more violent threats and homophobic abuse to Mr. Dearman (yawn):

    Remember, folks- we’re the ones who are abusive and threatening, not them. Right?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Alan Alanson is American yes?
    So this is actually a conspiracy by US citizens to breach the :
    47 U.S. Code § 223 – Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications. ( same in most US sates)

    $50,000 fine per day (& the 3 year possible jail sentence). The average price of a US house ? $300-400K?. Wiped out within 10 days at most with this illegal harassment.

    Add the interest that the US /UK media would take in such a sensational matter which has been settled in the UK High Court. Would the UK CPS consider applying for an extradition of those who would breach UK law? Nor would US prosecutors wish to really mock British law.

    Add in the fact US prosecutors & DAs are elected in a similar manner to politicians and routinely seek sensational cases to prove their credentials that they are tough on crime.

    Add in the fact that laws rarely used are very attractive to prosecutors / police to test the system and just because a new entity like the Internet has allowed the law to be breached 1000s of times is an incentive to authorities to be seen to crack down with a test case.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Another legal avenue in the UK: private prosecution.
    So many UK citizens have now committed a crime by exposing the child victim’s images and they have illegally harassed innocent people.

    Under a Private Prosecution the state is obliged to takeover the case if is clear laws have been broken and a conviction is likely. There is no limit to the defendants who can be prosecuted under one case. This would in fact aid the police who I am sure are overwhelmed with the amount of online harassment.

    A defamation action can proceed at the same time and again, numerous defendants can be attached to a lawsuit. When a newspaper is sued for defamation the plaintiff can sue everyone involved in distribution from the author, publisher, van driver who delivers the papers and the newsagent who sells. They only don’t because large publishers indemnify the other in the chain and take full responsibility.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. It must really wrankle Angies wrinkles to observe how a genuine cause can elicit such goodwill and sustainable support.

    Her own coup de grace in aiding Droopy Quaintarse`s Amsterdam jolly by contrast isnt particularly looking overly clever at this juncture.

    Together with seeing the extensive list of offences she has committed and agiitated to face up in the real world wont be doing her inner or outer complexion many favours.

    Can wrinkles have wrinkles btw ?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I think Angie thinks she’s a journalist by seeking out every case in the newspapers about child abuse and then posting it on her timeline. It shows a disturbing obsession with pedophilia. Those who congratulate her for doing this as though she’s some sort of activist by doing so are equally scary. It’s like they relish every new post of Angie’s hoping there will be another story about child abuse they can read.

    And she admits living with a pedophile in the USA and becoming pregnant by him- I’ve never believed the claim people cannot tell who is a pedophile especially if they are living with them. Did she have an abortion ? Because the Christian claiming Angie would have committed a Mortal Sin if she did. Or did she have the child and decide to tell the entire world that child’s dad was a pedo?. Disturbing, very disturbing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Her daughter, her eldest child is the product of Angela’s 2 nights stand with the Mafia paedophile allegedly.

      Who knows with Angela.

      Perhaps it is all a figment of her imagination?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, posting on Facebook and Twitter makes Angela believe she is a Journalist.

      Hey, I must be one too as I’ve posted on Facebook in the past.

      Angela also thinks she is a Journalist because she does those ridiculous Skype calls with some unsavoury characters, which she secretly records and then puts on You Tube for all to see and hear.

      Angela wanted to do one with me once regarding Bill Maloney.

      I turned her down thank goodness.

      Then there’s the visit to Christchurch.

      I’ve done that too.

      Think I shall call myself a Journalist in the future.

      I’ve matched Angela and if it’s good enough for her, it’s good enough for me!

      Oh I nearly forgot.

      I received £100 from the Daily Mirror back in 1979 or thereabouts for an article, so I actually think my title should be Senior Journalist.

      Angela is nothing more than someone milking the system.

      If she can gallivant over to Lanzarote and do all this posting here, there and everywhere, she can find herself a cleaning job I’m sure.

      She is perfectly capable of earning her own money.

      Liked by 1 person

    • That seems to be a bit of a ‘pattern’ with a few of these ‘types’. – On both counts!

      We have quite a serious case locally where a wife seems to have covered up for her (now convicted and jailed) Paedophile husband, yet appears to be getting clean away with it! – Even claims to have the support of her neighbours! We know for a stone-cold-hard fact she was confronted at least twice about his behaviour. Still her line is one of ignorance!

      As for the ‘activist/quasi-journalist types…… The regurgitation game seems popular! I suppose it saves actually doing any legwork.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ‘Mr Levick argued he made a mistake when publishing the post and that he meant for it to be shared privately, however Magistrate Simon Young said that was not a defence.’

      Hmmm, sounds like the whole ‘whoops, I pressed the wrong button and accidentally sent filth out to the entire world, aren’t I a silly boy?’ argument just doesn’t cut it anymore.

      Excellent!

      Liked by 1 person

  8. I’m a pensioner, but I would be willing to contribute to any legal action you decide upon. Some things are worth more than money.

    Liked by 1 person

    • you have many supporters, its only retarded conspiracy nuts who support christie and they are few but crazy, kristie sue scored one hell of an own goal when she posted pictures of rickys family, anyone can see they are a close family and the kids love him. alfred webre is pushing this hoax to a big audience, i would love to see him sued too

      Liked by 1 person

    • Being “accused” of being RD?
      It’s being accused of being a man who was found by the highest UK court to have been terribly wronged and falsely accused and proclaimed innocent by that same court.

      That same High Court that accuses people like Angela Power-Disney of pandering to pedophiles by exposing innocent child abuse victims to them and condemning people like APD as having little regard for the law.
      The same court that condemned the child abusing Ella Draper & her criminal partner Abraham Christie of being evil people.

      Angela Power-Disney is quite a prolific poster on Facebook but she still hasn’t found the time to publish those ‘charity’ records.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Hehe, I just got blocked by George Greek Trucker. Must have touched a nerve 😉

    I’ve now been blocked by Angela, Rupert, Jim Mcmenamin, Helen McMenamin, Neelu, Sonja Vangelder, Kane Slater, Tina Kachina, Maria MacMahon…

    Liked by 2 people

    • They can’t handle the truth.

      Each and every one of them but most especially Angela Power-Disney constantly posts tales from the media about people charged and convicted of child sex offenses.
      So they & we know our authorities and courts are pursuing real criminals as best they can given they have limited resources.

      But when a court makes a finding that a man is innocent and the real abusers were a mother and her career criminal boyfriend they just can’t handle it.

      Sigmund (not Clement) Freud may have much to say about these people : do we get a clue from Rupert Q when he says he would like to rape a child just to “see what it is like”?.
      Are these Hoaxers so fixated on the murder & eating of babies because deep down they may want to taste baby flesh?

      Does APD have a secret desire to dance around the living room of her Lanazorte villa far from the prying eyes of the Upstanding Citizens of her Irish village, in just a hula skirt made of baby skulls while a gathering of The Cult including Jim & Helen McMenamin, Neelu, Sonja Vangelder, Kane Slater, Tina Kachina and Araya Soma chant “more, more more” as Rupert Quaintance in a drugged haze tries to picture Angie as a 4 year old?

      Is Maria MacMahon who tried to organise a child kidnapping gang the one who finds this cult’s baby victims?. Is George Greek Trucker in competition with DHL in smuggling infants to the Hoaxtead Cult? Is Jake Clarke the Village Idiot?
      I think we should be told.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Sorry, I’ve not read all the comments or recent posts… but perhaps another option would be libel. Granted, that’s not something this blog could do, but the UK has some of the toughest libel laws in the world. Many people use our courts to silence people, even when the the libel hasn’t; been published in the UK. Something that is an affront to freedom of speech could be used for good for once.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Perhaps only good for getting pages and blogs taken down. There is already a court order. If anyone is any doubt why that would be, it is because the children made allegations of sexual offences and had their most intimate details published. We are talking rape exams here. In most countries children would be afforded anonymity, and for very good reasons.

      I notice some of the people who are vocal about allegations that have been made involving VIPs abusing children don’t care when they tweet these children’s private information. Though they will screech that others who have made allegations should remain anonymous.

      My guess, many people who’ve had frankly ludicrous allegations that they pop off from work to visit a school to eat babies and rape the pupils, and do it in non existent secret rooms, with no one noticing, don’t fancy long drawn out court cases for unenforceable results.

      Liked by 1 person

      • That’s my guess as well. And yes–I see so many on Twitter screaming about alleged ‘VIP abuse survivors’ having their personal details kept confidential, whilst feeling no compunction about sharing the most intimate information about two small children. All the worse that it’s false information to begin with!

        Like

      • “In most countries children would be afforded anonymity, and for very good reasons. ” They are so entitled under the law! – A child, or any other person who has been or is alleged to have been the subject of a sex crime has the right to anonymity under basic, core statutes…… That right stands whether or not the allegations are proved or not; it’s an automatic right. There are additional protections for children. – The court order lends extra weight and clarity to this. But identifying the children was an offence from the very start.

        Liked by 1 person

          • Yes the USA under the First Amendment. Various states had anonymity laws but they have been struck down in the Supreme Court.
            However the mainstream media rarely publishes a victim’s name and indeed, respects foreign laws that shield victims.
            Unlike the Hoaxer Cult who seem to take delight in ensuring some child abuse victims may have their lives blighted by their re-publishing over and over of videos, images and names.
            And you have to wonder why they do this as they could still share their beliefs about Hampstead but they insist on not only breaking British criminal law but attempting to destroy the lives of the innocent child in the case.

            Liked by 1 person

    • Oh, and I don’t disagree with anonymity for people going to the police to say they’ve been a victim of sex offences.

      Liked by 1 person

      • No, of course not–and it must be the same for all alleged victims, until proven otherwise. I also think alleged perpetrators should be granted anonymity until they are actually charged by police. Otherwise we run the risk that trial by internet will become the norm.

        Like

    • They have crossed the libel line so many times that if there was still a law of Criminal Libel this lot would be incarcerated for years.
      I believe there badly needs to be a new law of Criminal Libel given how the internet makes it so easy to break criminal laws.

      I fully support this South Australia law on Criminal Defamation which carries a 3 year jail penalty and has been used several times.
      http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch16s08.php

      Liked by 1 person

  11. “…we can post things about your family…”

    Yeah? Is that right, Kristie Sue? In that case, allow me to put you right on two things:

    1. You don’t f*cking scare any of us and we refuse to be intimidated by you or your creepy followers (all 3 of them).

    2. Perhaps you’re forgetting that your warning works both ways. We’ve barely scratched the surface with the info’ we have on you and yours (including your full postal address). But we’ve elected not to stoop to your level and held back on posting any of it.

    That said, I just cannot overstate how satisfying it is to watch you wriggle and squirm. Your desperation and panic are a symphony to our eyes.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Pingback: A kinder, gentler slanderer? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.