Charles Seven’s court case: Not quite as advertised

Like many of those determined to spread their particular brand of personal fiction across the internet, Wendy John-Charles, aka “Charles Seven” repeats the same untruths loudly and frequently. She lives, it seems, by the maxim that a lie, repeated often enough, will become the truth.

It was no surprise to discover, in her latest video featuring her interview with Alfred Lambremont-Webre, that she’d appended the following backgrounder, which contains the same completely untrue stories she’s been spouting for 15 years:

Background: In June 2003, Seven took her creative writing to Russells Media Lawyers, London W1, to protect her rights and licensing the concept of bringing mind/body/spirit matters to the entertainment industry. However, upon seeing the lucrative value of her documents, they conspired with various TV networks and production houses to secure the free trade and ownership of the rights and royalties of her works.

In her attempts to stop such illegal deals and be paid as the owner of her creative works, Ms Seven was sent death threats and put under “gang stalking” surveillance to prevent her taking legal action.

Her communications were intercepted and in some cases blocked altogether. The Court Case: Despite massive intimidation, she did gather evidence and filed “Seven Vs Gossage and 9 others” with the reference: HC04C02565 Chancery Division as well as A3/2005/2301 and A3/2006/1967. The case was originally due to be heard between July/August 2005.

Gang Stalking instead of Payment of Damages: Her case eventually got to court in 2006 and won a landmark victory before Lord Justice Chadwick and Sir Peter Gibson. Later the judgement hearing was heard before Justice Pumfrey who ruled entirely in her favour, as the Defendants provided no defence to her 9 bundles of evidence. Consequently, she was due to be paid out damages and royalties. But barrister Brian Nicholson rewrote and replaced the official court judgement with a faked fabricated version and Judge Pumfrey was later found dead.

She fought for a further two years to get the 18 courtroom audios from Pumfrey’s hearing 14th June 2006 released. Justice Warren made an order to release them in 2008, but the already proven guilty criminals got a corrupt Judge Justice Lawrence Collins to make an order preventing the audios from ever being used or referred to in court. Judge Pumfrey had stated on record that it was the best case he had ever seen in his entire 30 year career as a Judge and that there was no doubt she was telling the truth. Despite the Barrister begging him in court to drop the case to protect his clients’ reputations, he had to rule in her favour and that it would be breach of law to do anything else. This is available on court audios. Instead of companies paying royalties, Seven remained targeted on the gang stalking program.

Her home is under 24 hour surveillance. It was broken into to install covert surveillance as well as into her neighbours’ homes.

Since her speaking up via emails, her life is permanently in danger. Her work has become some of the most successful selling popular TV shows now worldwide, but her enemies are trying to stop people finding out how these shows and movies came into existence. Some of the titles are: “Dancing with Stars”, “Dancing on Ice”, “You Are What You Eat”, “Ten Years Younger”, “Strictly Come Dancing”. An affidavit catalogues many of the health, fitness and dance shows and campaigns that address obesity via entertainment from 2003 onwards that were lifted and converted from her stolen documents.

Almost every statement here is provably false.

We’re fortunate that Naqsej, one of our commenters, was able to track down and send us the judgment from Seven v Gossage and others. In addition, some of Naqsej’s commentary from our previous posts bears repeating here, to clarify Seven’s claims.

1. The claim that her lawyers conspired to steal her ‘works’

The judgment states,

The claimant alleged that she had visited the first defendant, a solicitor, for advice on how to protect and market an original concept for a reality television show (the concept). It was alleged that the first defendant stole the concept and sold it on to television producers for his own benefit. The allegations against the other defendants were in a similar vein, in that they had all profited from the theft of either the concept or other original ideas that had been communicated to them by the claimant. …

…The claimant had made several serious allegations against the defendants. In addition to the claims for the breach of her intellectual property rights there had been allegations of elaborate conspiracies and covering of tracks by the defendants. Those allegations had been scurrilous and scandalous and were unsupported by any material within the supporting documents provided by the claimant. The material put forward by the claimant was based upon ill-founded suspicion, required unreasonable inferences to be made, and in short could be rightly categorised as absurd. In those circumstances the claimant had failed to provide adequate justification for the gravity of her allegations and the action would not be permitted to proceed.

When judges use words and phrases like “absurd”, “elaborate conspiracies”, “scurrilous and scandalous”, “ill-founded suspicion” and the like, you know that things are going pear-shaped fast.

2. The claim that she’d won her court case

Seven claims:

Her case eventually got to court in 2006 and won a landmark victory before Lord Justice Chadwick and Sir Peter Gibson. Later the judgement hearing was heard before Justice Pumfrey who ruled entirely in her favour, as the Defendants provided no defence to her 9 bundles of evidence.

This makes no sense. If the case “won a landmark victory”, then why did it need to be heard again before Pumfrey J?

As Naqsej says,

The final hearing [in front of Pumfrey J] arose as she’d failed to comply with procedural requirements in her action against 9 defendants (people and companies), and the defendants applied for the case to be struck out – for her to successfully oppose that, the court had to be satisfied that her case had a real prospect of success.

As for the contention that Pumfrey J “ruled entirely in her favour”, we beg to differ.

In paragraph 5 of his judgment, he states:

5. At the hearing before me, Ms Seven represented herself. She explained the whole of the proceedings to me. She was always courteous and her submissions were clear and well-expressed. Her papers, given their bulk, were logically organised. She was, on the other hand, willing to accuse well-known authors not before the court of plagiarism, and counsel and solicitors of dishonesty. The former allegations I consider in their place, and the latter I disregard. As will become clear, I find that despite the attractive presentation of her contentions made by Ms Seven, they are completely insubstantial.

This is rather like a schoolteacher noting, “While little Seven’s penmanship has improved since half-term and her work is now quite neat and attractive, she has not managed to answer a single one of my questions correctly”

Seven also claims,

Judge Pumfrey had stated on record that it was the best case he had ever seen in his entire 30 year career as a Judge and that there was no doubt she was telling the truth. Despite the Barrister begging him in court to drop the case to protect his clients’ reputations, he had to rule in her favour and that it would be breach of law to do anything else.

What Pumfrey J actually said was not quite so glowing:

19. I have carefully considered the material advanced by Ms Seven in her witness statement and in the voluminous exhibited documents. There is nothing in this material that suggests to me anything more than a chain of unreasonable inferences and ill-found suspicions, and no objective support for an allegation for a breach of confidence or infringement of copyright. …

22. Here, therefore, Ms Seven complains that the launch of the band “Charlie 7” was deliberately targeted at her by the defendants. As this extract from the witness statement makes quite clear, there is no evidence at all to support this allegation. …

28. Again, there is no rational basis for Ms Seven’s complaint. It is not possible to draw any inference from this material that any part of Ms Seven’s documents or ideas have been used.

29. The reason I find these complaints to be confirmation of my views expressed about the core allegations should be apparent. I do not speculate as to their origin: but they are completely devoid of any sort of coherence, substance or probability.

Later in the judgment, Pumfrey J states,

I do not propose to spend any time on this allegation: it is hopeless and wholly unsupported by any evidence.

And still later,

31. Then Ms Seven complains of ITV’s initiative called “Britain on the move”. This initiative is explained by ITV as follows:

“We want to inspire you to make a change to your daily routine by walking a little further each day. . . . Currently we are the couch potatoes of Europe, but by building in small changes to our busy lives we can reverse this trend by walking our way back to health.”

This is said to be derived from Ms Seven’s story about a walk. So too are the various events (including the London Marathon) listed on a website called “Walk the Walk”, which is said to be “proof of the numerous international campaigns sold illegally worldwide from this theft and fraud of our manuscript”. These complaints must be described as ridiculous.

As for Seven’s contention that Judge Pumfrey was “later found dead”, this is quite true. He died of a stroke in December 2007, a full year and a half after delivering this 26 July 2006 judgment. Hardly a “suspicious death”.

3. Missing courtroom audios?

Seven states,

She fought for a further two years to get the 18 courtroom audios from Pumfrey’s hearing 14th June 2006 released. Justice Warren made an order to release them in 2008, but the already proven guilty criminals got a corrupt Judge Justice Lawrence Collins to make an order preventing the audios from ever being used or referred to in court.

The defendants in Seven’s case were most certainly not “already proven guilty”, and we suspect that Seven might be in contempt of court for her claim that they were able to convince a “corrupt judge” to make an order preventing the audios from being used in court.

4. What about the gang-stalking allegations?

One of Seven’s continual complaints is that she is a victim of “gang-stalking”, a phenomenon which we’ve discussed here in the past.

Pumfrey J addresses this, at least in part:

36. Ms Seven complains that her e-mails have been interfered with, that her post has been diverted, and that she has been spied upon and followed by a succession of individuals in vans. It is also said that her accommodation has been broken into. All these events are said to be the responsibility of the Defendants in the present case, and Ms Seven seeks injunctive relief in relation to these activities.

37. Briefly, the matter is as follows. It is plain that Ms Seven has been the victim of malicious software in the form of one or more computer viruses that have been delivered to her computer. It looks as though her computer has been turned into a “zombie” and has been used to transmit malicious messages to others. None of this justifies any allegation of interference with her computer by the defendants. The story about the diverted mail is not capable of being investigated. So far as the vans are concerned, one of those photographed is plainly a van of a company called Champion Sport Surfacing Limited, and it is not possible, I am afraid, to take this complaint seriously. Finally, it is plain that Ms Seven has had problems with the payment of council tax and has on a number of occasions received notices from bailiffs prior to distraint. She blames this, too, on a conspiracy directed by the defendants. Finally, she complains that her telephones are tapped: but the evidence is non-existent to anyone who does not fervently believe in its truth whether or not evidence to support the allegation can be obtained.

5. And by the way, her witnesses weren’t great either

Referring to the witnesses which Seven produced to corroborate her stories, Pumfrey J said,

41. I have also had regard to the fact that in relation to certain of the events which form part of her story, Ms Seven has provided witness statements from others tending to corroborate what she has said. So Ms P___ again talks manifest nonsense about the front covers of Time Out magazine in January 2004. Ms Letang seems to give most of her evidence on hearsay from Ms Seven. Mr Nicholas is extravagant to the extent that he identifies one of Messrs Russell’s references (/DE/AD) as a personal threat by solicitors acting for NTL against Ms Seven. Mr Terence Willows says that “by April to May 2004, Charles’s work was everywhere, on all mainstream television channels, taxicabs, radio, billboards and all the newspapers”. I do not, I think, do an injustice to this material if I describe it as largely absurd.

6. Why did Seven claim she’d won when she clearly had not?

We’ll give the last word to Naqsej, who summed it up very well:

I’ve mused on this in relation to others, Neelu Berry, and Elizabeth Watson for example. They appear to have querulant paranoia (as it used to be called), try to engage in get-rich-quick schemes, but often get scammed or cheated themselves. They tend to be quite credulous, and I think it derives from, for whatever reason, an inability to judge others’ reaction, so they believe people who tell them they will get rich with SwissIndos, or if they hand over all their money to invest, and it’s a part of that that they believe that others including banks and High Court Judges (in 7’s case) will believe their stories.

The judge, who was no sort of a fool, seems to have thought there was something wrong with her, but it wasn’t part of his mission to probe what, simply to decide whether she had a case, and clearly she didn’t.

It’s not surprising that 7 puts everything that happens, either to her, or in the world as a whole, into her story, as that’s a feature of querulants. It is more grandiose than usual – Maurice Kellett had a heart attack and believed the freemasons had caused it, but even he didn’t believe that they’d demolished the Twin Towers as a warning to him. It does seem very extreme in her case.

As ever, I’m not surprised that people with mental illnesses do odd things; what’s odd is the number of people who believe it, or reinvent it as a story they can believe in. For example when one of the US birther cases was thrown out with excoriating contempt by the judge, this was reported by birther websites as a spectacular success, Obama’s days numbered etc.

However I know SHE knows (or knew once) she lost, as prior to the judgement being handed down (but after she received a copy) she asked the judge to change his mind, and when he refused, applied to appeal, and clearly she wouldn’t have done that if she’d thought it had all been a conspicuous success.

Indeed. Royal Courts of Justice-interior

76 thoughts on “Charles Seven’s court case: Not quite as advertised

  1. Her case eventually got to court in 2006 and won a landmark victory before Lord Justice Chadwick and Sir Peter Gibson.

    This, I think, refers to Chadwick LJ’s ruling on May 2 2006, in what was then “Seven vs. Ossage & Ors”.

    Evidently the case had in fact come before court the previous year, on 12 May 2005, before our man Pumfrey J. As far as I can tell, two of Ms Seven’s witnesses (Letang and Nicholas) had screwed up their paperwork. Pumfrey told them to get their act together, with 12 August as a deadline: “Pumfrey J had directed that unless the claimant made an application for directions including a release or continuance of the stay which he had imposed on the proceedings by 4.00pm on 12 August 2005, the claimant’s claim should be dismissed with costs without further order of the court.”

    The story jumps to 12 August 2005, with Judge Blackburn presiding (if that’s the word for what judges do. I never had the Latin to be a judge). Wires were crossed, and the claimant and witnesses misunderstood… or the court officers misunderstood what they wanted… anyway, a misunderstanding happened, and the wrong sort of extension or stay was applied for, so Blackburn J. was all “Case dismissed”.

    Chadwick ruled that this was uncharitable, so he cancelled the dismissal and let the case stay in the system.

    For whatever reason it seems that the real need to file the application was not appreciated either by Miss Letang and Mr Nicholas or by the office. In my judgment further enquiries as to exactly what happened that afternoon would be unlikely to take the matter further.

    — I.e. “We could sit here and try to figure who forgot to pick up who until the cows come home but let’s just say we’re both wrong and that will be that.” This was the “landmark victory”.

    So eventually the case wended its way back to Pumfrey J, now with all the witness statements inscribed upon parchment and countersealed in vermilion ink (or whatever)… allowing Pumfrey to read them and indulge himself in snide commentary.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Her “creative ideas” were so nebulous that if copyright were accepted the entire media industry would fall apart.
    For instance, X-Factor and Britain’s Got Talent (and the dozens of world-wide syndications of the shows) could be deemed to be a direct steal of Opportunity Knocks which ran successfully for years (which in turn was just the televised version of local talent quests in local social clubs).
    The format is virtually the same (the only truly original talent show format is the Netherlands ‘The Voice’).

    The same could apply to book publishing. They simply cannot get enough crime writers to churn out similar Agatha Christie-style murder mysteries to a world-wide voracious public. TV police murder mysteries only vary according to the actors basically although as I commented to a pal the other day when we watched the final “Branson”, they have now made the top cop a serial killer- that’s something new!.
    Pop music would grind to a standstill as composers claimed “I invented the format: ‘she/he left me, please come back’, ‘ I need your love’ etc and so on.

    The woman is a nutcase but while the more malicious elements of the Troofer Mob (c) (™) seize upon her nonsense she, and they, have been caught out in a blatant and provable lie: the claim she won a court case. It exposes them as the malicious fools they are repeating and promoting fabrications.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Ms Pahne again talks manifest nonsense about the front covers of Time Out magazine in January 2004.

    The customary phrase is “arrant nonsense” but Judge Pumfret liked to mix it up a bit.
    This is Lisa Pahne, whose statement is available at Tony Farrell’s site (27 pages, single-line spaced). There she describes herself as having “a law degree”. Richard J Hannah was under the impression that she whad accompanied Ms Seven as a lawyer (“The wannabee who called herself Charles Seven and her Lawyer, Lisa Pahne”), but I can see how a genuine misunderstanding might arise.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I tried to plow through Farrell’s nonsense but got bored. Let alone read Seven’s ridiculous “witness statement” What worries me is the SYP (mind you their reputation is basically in the gutter) even employed a phony and crackpot like him.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I was just reading Charlotte’s words (quoted in an earlier thread), and realised that Farrell was a repeat-offender gullible focknozzle, willing to be anyone’s puppet.. Apart from the pain in Charlotte’s chakra,

        , I also saw Tony Farrell being “handled” by Charles Seven, crap-talker Penny Pullen and her pendulum (how can you encourage that woo woo shit? You claim to be a Christian!) and Ray Savage (whom your good friend APD is now savaging, having pretended to fall out with you). …

        Then there’s the business of the boobies:
        that woman was/is likely a honeypot and Lloyd Pye (RIP, Lloyd – respect but not for the tits predilection, also shared by porngraphy addict Miles, who also handles vulnerable survivors at your house) could not stop looking at her tits, either. (Although don’t worry – Tony is still in denial.)

        In the comments, “Sir Henry Rawlinson” had some insights into Ms Seven’s background and character:

        ROFLMAO Christ! Is she still about? Better known as “bendy Wendy” she’s a failed actress-singer-model-dancer who made herself utterly toxic by trying to shag her way to fame and fortune back in the late 80s and early 90s; got to the stage people were afraid to be left in a room with her… Says the 7/7 bombings were actually meant to take her out or something. Barking!

        Consistent with “more-than-usually-dedicated scammer”, rather than mentally ill.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. I admire anyone who has the patience to sit through that entire Seven-Webre interview. I gave up at about 17 minutes, when she started banging on about “Illumninati terrorism”, and just flitted across the rest of it.

    One thing jumped out at me – at 2:05:08 she claims that all trace of the court case has been scrubbed and can’t be found anywhere. The last three Seven posts on here beg to differ!

    Liked by 2 people

    • It’s ironic that she’s accusing people of “scrubbing” and covering up, as she’s just changed her settings so that all comments on her videos now require her approval. And naturally only people who kiss her arse are being approved, whilst anyone calling her out on her bullshit isn’t.

      Liked by 3 people

    • She’s banging on about a ‘jezebel spirit’ ruling hollywood on twitter. she’s determined to attach herself to every loopy theory out there.

      Liked by 2 people

    • The entire Troofer Mob (c) (™) need to learn the phrase “less is more”.

      I’ve had some interesting emails from a cousin who is researching various branches of the family. One branch she traces back to the 1600s in Ireland (thankfully NO relation to Angela Power-Disney. Or her horse Blue). They were all involved in banking and one was even shot dead during an attempted bank robbery in Ballymena in the 1800s.

      Clearly, the concept of banking was my families invention and has been stolen ( Bindmans Lawyers sold it to the Rothschilds?) and not only that, if they hadn’t been involved in banking they couldn’t have been robbed. The concept of bank robberies is obviously my copyright and I should have received a share in every hold-up to date. How did the (MI5 dis-info agents ) The Kray Twins get a hold of my family concept idea to rob banks?.

      I’ve engaged a top Equity Lawyer, one Edward Ellis who says he’ll get Britain’s top brief Michael Shrimpton to advise.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Oh this is hilarious. Go to 1:16:37 in that interview video.

    “What you’re seeing here…are some of the shows that are mine. But this is probably about 1% of the amount of shows that were stolen from me.”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Anyone familiar with Harry Enfield’s character Marcus, the floppy-haired con man who runs a shop called ‘I Saw You Coming’ and preys on gullible, pretentious women, winning them over with his repertoire of bullshit…?

    Remind you of anyone?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Oh it gets better!

      1.5 million? 250,000? At least keep your lies believable, Malky 😂

      Still no sign of any proof to support those “nonce” claims, btw. But be patient – we’ve only been asking him for it for a year. He’s getting round to it, I promise.

      Liked by 2 people



        Liked by 1 person

        • Don’t be rude about Malcolm or he’ll put a hex on you. Right now he is probably making a voodoo doll out of old Special Brew cans or dancing naked around a burning shopping trolley (don’t try to visualize that).

          Liked by 2 people

    • ‘Malky’s claiming that his “blog” got over two thousand hits yesterday’

      He just wants to let people know he can count that high. 🙂

      Liked by 3 people

  7. If you like tall talking walter mitty types and want to see a master at work then google grandmaster jay GMJ. The guy started by claiming he was a famous dj and mc who’d won no less than eight grammy awards. he managed to con an electronics company into advertising their ‘beamz’ product for them. he resurfaced claiming to be a blacklivesmatter leader and went to events filming himself participating. last seen running for president.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @10:51 – “For example, they’ve invented this disease called cancer. it’s an invention because if I recall, it was called the Cancer Act and it was based on the premise that radium treats cancer…So anyone who claims to cure cancer, it’s against the Cancer Act. They will be prosecuted, so nobody’s allowed to make any claims of curing cancer, because it’s a fiction. It’s actually a disease caused my itself, basically. The treatment is the disease and the disease is the treatment. as in chemotherapy is the only treatment allowed, which kills the patient and does not treat the patient.”

      Liked by 3 people

    • The Hampstead bollocks starts at 24:50. Sigh

      “See, we never know where these people come from and where they get these names, because we found out from the Hampstead case that what happened when it all leaked out was what they did was all these children, then they had to change their identities. They pretended the reason was because people found out who they were but they routinely change identities. As soon as they, you know, they get caught out, they will ship them abroad and then they will give them new jobs, new clothes, new uniforms and, you know, they always get promoted, always get promoted, because oh dear, you know, they got caught out and the show must go on and they deserve a holiday, you know, they deserve a promotion. But I’m hoping it’s all history now, because we have put them to shame. I mean, I don’t think the process allows for remedies, it only allows for denial of remedies.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • She’s promoting the Pendragons too! She’s in for a bit of a culture shock when she finds out what they stand for 🙄

      Liked by 3 people

      • So when people describe her as “the gift that keeps on giving”, there’s actually some truth in it 😃

        Liked by 1 person

    • More Hampstead bollocks at 32:57

      “But then these two children described how they were made to take eyeballs out from the babies – and you’re talking about a 7-year-old and a [sic] 8-year-old being able to do that – and I thought, that really stuck in me and I thought, there’s something, there’s, this is, they could not, you cannot make that up, you know.

      Now Ella Draper’s passed the, you know, the truth test, whatever you call that… Yeah, yeah, she passed it. So the judge had said that, you know, that Judge Pauffley, they had to retire her, so the polygraph proves that she was telling the truth and Judge Pauffley had said that the mother had to made [sic] them lie.

      Because I had gone into the research into the medical file for these children, you see, and I found the evidence that they could not have been lying, because they had anal, you know, this reflex anal dilatation that you can only have if you’ve been, you know, sodomised, basically.

      So we made, we tried to make an application, Belinda and I made an application in the court to try to, whilst Ella was out, whilst Sabine was out, we tried, and Judge Pauffley had gone on this break, but when we went to court to get the judgement on the 19th of March, and it had been uploaded by midday, you see, but they didn’t have a hard copy, which was odd. So it was almost like somebody had done the judgement for them. It wasn’t the judge. The judge’s clerk didn’t have a hard copy. so it was very dodgy and they said, ‘Oh if you want the judgement, you’ll have to go online.’ They didn’t have hard copies for us. And when we read that – we went round the corner and we read that – there was [sic] about 12 of us – we went there and so [sic] and I read it and i thought, you know, this is a criminal coverup, because you’ve got this anal, you know, this anal reflex anal dilatation and that’s not normal for two siblings to have that. You know…”

      Liked by 1 person

        • How many times do we have to repeat it for the idiots who believe Abe and Ella’s lies?
          ONE child was found to have RAD, not both as Neelu is stating.

          I’ll say it again for any hoaxers reading, RAD is not indicative of sexual abuse and is seen in a large percentage of children who have not been sexually abused as it can be caused by constipation, therefore is no longer used as evidence.

          Liked by 2 people

    • 42:37 – “Edward [Ellis] is white Gandhi. He’s actually the reincarnation of Gandhi…Yeah, yeah, he is, he is…Yeah, he is. And then a lot of my friends, like tom Crawford – they’re white supremacists but they don’t realise that actually they’re reincarnations of the Indian royals.” 🙄

      Liked by 2 people

      • So to paraphrase Princess Neelu: “Ha ha ha. These racists don’t realise they are actually black.”

        Nice of her to confirm what any sentient being already knows, the racism deep at the heart of these muppets positions. They can’t complain if it’s restated here. One of their own has just said it of them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • This might interest you. arabs and jews in the middle east have been known to describe themselves as being white and us ‘white’ europeans as being red. If you think about the way caucasians react to the sun and turn the colour of lobsters then they do have a point. While we sometimes describe the irish and scotch as red and also the native americans, who used to be red indians. it’s never ever as simple as it seems.

        Liked by 1 person

    • 54:30 – “The angels took out the underground bases in 2011. They’re finished. They’re gone. And they deactivated all nuclear weapons in 1975. There are no nuclear weapons activated on this planet” 🙄

      Liked by 1 person

    • 58:10 – “And these children that are being born now are divinities. They actually are gods that are being born now” 🙄

      Liked by 1 person

  8. LOL!

    “This is the beginning of an in-depth team investigation into how Nathan Stolpman from Lift the Veil, Isaac Kappy, Vegan Mikey aka Michael Whalen, Daniel Lee aka dnajlion7, SGTReport, David Shurter and Fiona Barnett have all connected so nicely at exposing the Hollywood SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse), MK Ultra, Global Pedophilia and Human Child Sex Trafficking around the world. This is the beginning of how I am starting to connect some dots at what I see as a Network of Disinformation here on YouTube.

    Just who are the Gatekeepers here in the YouTube Truth Community? This video is only the beginning as we look to putting more pieces of this ugly pedophile channel pushing puzzle together.”

    Liked by 2 people

  9. So did Seven (or whoever) break the law by audio-recording that court hearing?

    Ah, the business of the tapes; they are central to Farrell’s entire protracted rant. Ah, but the tapes, that’s, that’s where I had them, they laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, with geometric logic, that a duplicate court ruling did exist…

    Farrell goes on and on about the “official audio-recordings”, where “official” here is a term of art meaning “not official and possibly illegal”, as proof that the ruling handed down by Judge Pumfrey (dismissing Seven’s case) was not the real ruling. In the Seven-Farrell version of events, it was Pumfrey who recorded the hearing (unbeknownst to himself) —

    Ms Seven’s solicitors repeatedly tried to contact the judge about releasing the audio tapes

    — with copies provided to Seven after a July 2008 ruling by Judge Warren: “An order is made to release Pumfrey’s court audios immediately to Ms. Seven and she pursues her already won case.” Yeah right.

    The recordings continued to feature in these later court appearances, where Seven tried to have Pumfrey’s ruling reversed, ending in September 2008 when LJ Lawrence Collins refused to admit them as evidence.

    Mark Windows speculates that “The audio is from a case management hearing pre trial. There is banter between Pumfrey and the defence barrister. It was a bit of theatre before the case was thrown out as there was obviously no evidence. This is where she states she won the case which did not go to trial as stated above.”
    Me, since Farrell can’t be arsed providing a transcript of what The Tape (or Tapes) actually contain, I can’t be arsed inquiring into them any deeper to see if they’re fakes or just bad-quality bootlegs.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. It just occurred to me how well Ms Seven works as a projective test. From a moderately-talented dancer / model whose career aspirations as an actress were derailed by a toxic personality, she became

    1. From Tony Farrell’s perspective: a profoundly religious individual, beset by betrayals from all around her, and by vast shadowy conspiracies.
    2. To the Kent Freemen crowd like Window, she is a conspiracist, albeit one working for the Derp State to discredit the Truther movement.
    3. Charlotte’s perspective: she’s a ‘honeypot’ who uses her tits to manipulate men.
    4. To me, she’s a self-aware Machiavellian schemer

    Liked by 1 person

    • 5. A deluded idiot for people to laugh at. nobody could seriously believe her so she’s only viewed online by people who enjoy stupidity.


  11. I think she must have been watching the film called, ‘The Hoax’.

    ” In 1971, struggling novelist Clifford Irving, whose only success to date had been a non-fiction study of art forgery, claimed to have been selected by reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes to ghostwrite his autobiography. Hughes allegedly communicated with him only in mysterious but authentic-seeming handwritten scrawls, which Irving produced at meetings. Bamboozled by Irving’s brazen and plausible manner, the mighty McGraw-Hill publishing company and Life magazine handed over seven-figure cheques to this extraordinary man, whose wife cashed them in a Swiss bank account with the aid of a false passport in the name of HR Hughes. In this film version, the crunch comes when the panicky publishers demand some sort of proof that the whole thing is for real. Irving ups the ante by claiming that Mr Hughes himself will be shortly touching down in his private helicopter on the roof of the McGraw-Hill building in midtown New York to discuss the matter in person.”


Comments are closed.