Author Archives: Samuel Collingwood Smith

About Samuel Collingwood Smith

Samuel Collingwood Smith was born in the north of England, but his family moved south early in his life and spent most of his early years in Hertfordshire before attending Queen Mary, University of London, where he studied Economics. Sam currently lives in the southeast of England. Smith was employed as a Labour Party fundraiser in the 2001 General Election, and as a Labour Party Organiser in the 2005 General Election. In 2005 Smith was elected as a Borough Councillor and served for 3 years until 2008. In 2009 Smith changed sides to the Conservative party citing division within Labour ranks, Labour broken promises and Conservative improvements to local services. In 2012 Smith started to study a Graduate Diploma in Law, passing in 2014. Smith then moved on to studying a Master's Degree in Law combined with an LPC, receiving an LL.M LPC (with Commendation) in January 2017. During his study, Smith assisted several individuals in high profile court cases as a McKenzie Friend - in one case being praised by Parliamentary petition for his charitable work and legal skills. Smith is also the author of this blog, Matthew Hopkins News, that deals with case law around Family and Mental Capacity issues. The blog also opposes online drama and abuse and criticises extreme-left politicians.

Whistleblower Sends Evidence BNT Held Personal Identity Document for Years

Posted on by
2

It is late, and I was only up watching TV. I have just received a whistleblower email making an incredibly serious allegation about Brand New Tube, the troubled online video sharing website hacked in 2020 and again earlier this month, that hosts controversial fringe content like ‘journalist’ Sonia Poulton. This is bad stuff.

I had to check a couple of things because I frankly did not believe it and I needed to check some HTML quickly from a third party site. I will need to call the ICO in the morning. I can say this goes way beyond passwords and emails. Full details tomorrow but there is incontrovertible proof that a lot of data was held that Brand New Tube did not declare as breached.

Share Button

Could the UK High Court Case of Smith v Baker Determine the Delaware Case of Twitter v Musk et al and the Fate of Twitter’s Vijaya Gadde?

Posted on by
2
Vijaya Gadde at a Fortune Event

Vijaya Gadde at a Fortune Brainstorm Tech event. Would she be such a popular speaker if she was properly no-platformed due to her allowing vile stalking and racism against a child rape victim as well as anti-Semitism? Picture by Photograph by Kevin Moloney/Fortune Brainstorm TECH. (NC License here).

On 4 April 2020, I published the article, “Twitter’s Del Harvey / Alison Shea and Vijaya Gadde Openly Back Child Rape Stalker and Anti-Semite Racist”. Multiple parties, including Twitter, threatened lawsuits. Twitter did not make good on their threats. Esther Baker attempted to do so. The lawsuit over the article, brought by Esther Baker in the High Court in London, was commenced in 2020 (before the Twitter purchase was proposed) and determined in my favour last week. The lawsuit has the potential to harm Twitter’s reputation. So, did Twitter know about it, and did they disclose it to Elon Musk when they formed the purchase agreement between Twitter and Musk currently being litigated in Delaware in the United States? Did Twitter notify Musk of the legal risks arising from the matters in this article – “Labour’s Secret Deal with Twitter and Facebook to Surveil its own members”? The article ended with an express threat to draw it to the attention of the relevant regulatory law enforcement body.

It is worth recapping for new readers. In 2020 I was covering a significant amount of what, in my opinion, was wrongdoing by Twitter. The Labour Party head office team had been using an in-house application that used their database of member emails, cross-referenced with privileged access to the Twitter API, to scan their members’ tweets for statements warranting disciplinary action. It is unclear if members’ consent was ever clearly sought for this by either the Labour Party or Twitter, or whether they were told about it. It is likely that would have been a legal requirement for processing to be compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The second issue was Twitter’s inconsistent handling of complaints of breaches of its rules. Esther Baker, had, at the time, been made subject to two restraining orders by UK courts. One was for libel and the other was for, in the words of His Honour Judge Gargan, “particularly malevolent” and “racist” stalking. One of her supporters, Alan Goodwin, had made plainly anti-Semitic posts including gratuitous, utterly baseless, speculation that a senior British government minister had conspired with Mossad to cover up child abuse. The actions of Esther Baker (@Esther9982) and her supporter Alan Goodwin (@Ciabaudo), followed by Twitter lawyer Vijaya Gadde’s failure to deal with them even after being thoroughly put on notice, were the subjects of my 4 April article.

Around 8pm on 1 May 2020, I received a letter from UK lawyers Bristows telling me that my article was libellous and there was, “no conceivable chance of defending” it as truth or honest opinion and saying it should be, “removed immediately”. I refused, and published the relevant section of the letter and mocked them in this article. I then requested further information under UK pre-action rules. Much as Elon Musk complains, Twitter were curiously reluctant to answer my questions and backed off as I detailed in my later article, “Twitter and Bristows in Humiliating Libel Climb Down”.

Extract from Bristows' Email of 6 May 2020

Bristows now claim they were never threatening to sue me on behalf of Twitter. That letter they sent me late on a Friday night was just abstract information shootin’ the breeze.

Bristows are a proper libel law firm and therefore know better than to test me in court. I stand by the article. Vijaya and her colleagues have in effect supported the actions of Esther Baker and Alan Goodwin by not banning / permanently suspending them from Twitter, when others have been banned without recourse for far lesser wrongdoing. In fact Twitter did not even remove the tweets that were the actus re of the stalking, just made them inaccessible in the UK.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Smith v Baker, Summary Judgement on the Counterclaim! MHN Wins. Devastation for David Hencke, Mark Watts and Sonia Poulton

Posted on by
8
BakerRestrained

Esther Baker has lost her claim over articles that meant (as the court found) that she is depraved, stalked a child abuse victim for years, is a racist stalker worse than most other racist stalkers, tried to undermine a paedophile priest’s criminal conviction, told deliberate and malicious lies on Twitter for the purpose of raising money under false pretences, has made numerous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse, children are being abused by paedophiles because money and police resources have been used up by Ms Baker’s groundless allegations instead of being available to protect them and that it is possible that some of these children have been raped as a result.

In 2020 I filed a lawsuit against Esther Baker for libel and harassment. I won, and she agreed to be restrained for life after her defences of Truth and Public Interest were struck out. That court order is here. However, a counterclaim by Baker against MHN editor Sam Smith continued. Now, in a judgement today of Mr Justice Griffiths, that too has been defeated after your author applied for strike-out and / or summary judgement. The case is over. Esther Baker loses. MHN editor Sam Smith wins. The result is a devastating humiliation for fringe journalists like Mark Watts, Sonia Poulton and David Hencke who have given her account credence over the years.

The result is also a vindication for victims of Baker like former MP John Hemming, Darren Laverty and Simon Just of Real Troll Exposure.  Each of these men has been subjected to substantial police involvement over the years due to Esther Baker’s false allegations. Now her supporters must suffer the consequences.

Baker and her supporters were cock-a-hoop earlier this year when Mr Justice Griffiths held that previous articles on this blog had defamatory meanings. Now, in today’s judgement the same judge has found that those meanings have been successfully defended, including via a defence of Truth –

“94. For these reasons, I am satisfied under CPR 3.9 that Ms Baker’s statements of case disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, that her statements of case are an abuse of the court’s process and are likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings, and that they fail to comply with the requirements of Practice Direction 53B and the Griffiths Order. I am also satisfied under CPR 24 that Ms Baker has no real prospect of succeeding on her claims and there is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at a trial.”

Furthermore, these are not mere technical findings because Baker failed to comply with court rules. The judge found that, had she complied and filed paperwork on time, she would still most likely have lost and had no realistic prospect of defeating my defence of Truth. As an example, Baker was suing me for saying that her mental illness caused her untrue allegations of child abuse. However, a medical report she had filed in other proceedings stated that she had decided to participate in IICSA (the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse), because a voice in her head told her to. The evidence was simply overwhelming. She conceded her mental illness in her draft reply and told the judge at the hearing about the voices in her head.

It is also worth mentioning that before judgement, at several stages, I gave Baker the option to drop her counterclaim with no further order for costs. She was not forced to bring this – it was her claim. No one used expensive lawyers, I am a law graduate and I defended myself. Baker had many warnings. Hard working judges, High Court Master Lisa Sullivan and High Court Judge Martin Griffiths, both gave Baker many chances to correct her pleadings and reply coherently to my defence of Truth. They gave detailed judgements and guidance on what steps Baker should take. They made express allowances for Baker’s mental disabilities. Baker failed to follow the rules in the case she brought and had the opportunity to drop.

There are a lot of meanings spread across eleven articles. The meanings that have now been defended ought to devastate Baker’s reputation, shame her supporters and Staffordshire Police.

The imputations defended are as follows, in the judge’s words cut-and-paste from the judgement on meaning. Because there were 11 articles, some are repetitive or overlapping. Each meaning has a shield next to them to show they have been successfully defended in court and can be relied upon by readers –

Continue reading →

Share Button

Jon Wedger and David Swift – Helping, Enabling Abusers?

Posted on by
14

In 2019, a woman named Esther Baker was found liable in court and handed a permanent restraining order for harassing a child abuse victim, and even providing information to the catholic priest who abused him as a child. In 2021, a man named Wilfred Wong, a non-practicing barrister, was sent to prison for 17 years, with another 5 on license, for kidnapping a sobbing, terrified, child at knife-point. Why are former police officer Jon Wedger and veteran David Swift publicly enabling these people?

Enablers David Swift and Jon Wedger on their conspiracy theory channel.

Enablers David Swift and Jon Wedger on Swift’s bizarre video channel. Picture used for the purpose of criticism and review.

The bizarre reason for Wong’s kidnapping was that he and his co-conspirators wrongly believed that the child was being abused by satanists. In fact, the only child abuse going on was the gang of imbeciles led by Wong who tore the child from their screaming foster mother after putting a knife to her throat and dragged them across half the country whilst ranting about Satan, before eventually being apprehended on the M1 by police in Northamptonshire.

Wedger, a former police officer and a long-standing associate of Wong, has been campaigning for convicted abuser Wong to be released, for example publishing logos and t-shirts with the logo, ‘free Wilfred Wong’ on his Facebook (archive).

MHN is aware of Wedger as a controversial figure, but I had never encountered him before a video on an obscure channel run by a person called David Swift was drawn to my attention. In it, Wedger claimed that a person well-known to MHN readers, Esther Baker, had been sued for a, “million quid”, “but she won she won” and “she has cleared her name”. Wut?

For those of you who have not been following, Esther Baker has not in fact won anything, nor cleared her name. Esther Baker was not sued for a, “million quid” by any politician. She sued former MP John Hemming and humiliatingly lost his counter-claim for libel. Her allegations of rape against him were found to be untrue and she was restrained for life as well as ordered to pay damages (archive). The restraining order is a public document and readers can download it here. The same year, Esther Baker was subject to another restraining order for harassing a victim of child abuse. The judge called her, “particularly malevolent”. The harassment was racist as well.

Esther Baker is a Malevolent Racist

The express findings of the County Court judge agreeing Baker behaved in a “vindictive, “obsessive” and “malevolent” way. MHN has erased the barrister’s name to protect the anonymity of the victim of Baker’s years of racist harassment.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Sonia Poulton, Fake News, and Holding Herself Out as a Journalist

Posted on by
12

On Wednesday 13 July 2022, there was a hearing in Hemming v Poulton. I was excused attendance, because although I am a party to the case the technical application between John and Poulton is nothing to do with me and also I had a medical appointment. So, I was astonished to read a highly misleading tweet (archive) by Poulton claiming the court had ‘accepted’ her objections to being described as, “someone who holds herself out as a journalist”. This is fake news.

A tweet by Sonia Poulton

Sonia Poulton’s tweet is misleading. The court has in no way accepted her objections to the phrase referred to, now made any decision on it.

What happened at the hearing is that it was originally listed before a Master but when further issues were raised late by the parties, the Master decided it needed to be dealt with by a judge and adjourned the hearing. Nothing was decided, least of all was there any decision that the phrase could not be used or was wrong, or that Sonia is a reputable journalist. Nor is it likely to be determined when the hearing was resumed as it is not in issue on the applications.

What was before the court was that John Hemming has applied to expand his claim against Sonia Poulton. Poulton objects. That is the application listed to be decided. The night before the hearing, Poulton via her barrister Richard Munden raised an issue of limitation that some of the proposed amendments relate to claims that are out of time. John via his barrister says they are not out of time but on the safe side applied for an extension of time on the morning of the hearing. With the new and technically complex material, the Master decided a judge should hear the applications.

Sonia did (by her barrister Richard Munden), object to the phrase but the court in no way, for example, told Hemming or his barrister Matthew Hodson not to use it nor struck the form of words out of Hemming’s documents. Hodson has not descended into the arena on this issue, but Hemming commented saying that the Master did not address the point at all. It is bizarre because Hemming is not even disputing Poulton is a, ‘journalist’ because it is not a regulated profession or reserved title. Anyone can stumble in off the street and say they are a ‘journalist’ in the UK. John’s pleadings at paragraph 2 say that the, “Defendant is a freelance journalist”. However, I am entitled to the opinion that Poulton is not a good or ethical journalist. There are a number of reasons and my opinion is based upon all of the facts set out in these linked articles of mine – [1] [2][3][4][5] and the matters raised in this one.

Poulton has been raising money on the cases she is involved in and statements like this to her supporters are highly misleading. It is not the first time. At a hearing last year, Poulton claimed that she had received 85% of her costs, “of the hearing” (archive). This was false. Poulton had received 85% of her costs of only one of several applications. The others had been decided differently – one she had no costs of. One she has to pay Hemming, but delayed until the end of the case. She also agreed to pay my costs and Darren Laverty’s. So her overall recovery was lower and she had to pay me. The overall effect of this order is that everyone except me lost money. Extracts from the order are below –

Extracts from the order sealed 14 July illustrate the misleading nature of Poulton's statements.

Extracts from the order sealed 14 July illustrate the misleading nature of Poulton’s statements. She got 85% of her costs on one application, lost all her costs of another, has to pay John later and paid Darren and I.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Joy and Dismay for Conservatives in Welwyn-Hatfield After Labour Leader Loses Council Seat

Posted on by
1

Conservatives in Welwyn-Hatfield had a good election night on Thursday 5 May, losing only 2 of 28 council seats on the borough council despite being behind in the polls nationally, with a public angry about breaches of Covid laws by members of the Conservative Government. The Conservatives were also devastated as one of their best assets, longstanding local Labour leader Kieran Thorpe, lost his council election. Although Labour gained 2 seats, they also lost 1 to the Liberal Democrats, meaning a net gain of a mere 1 seat for the group.

Councillor Kieran Thorpe

Former Labour Councillor Kieran Thorpe and Former Labour Leader. Not the sharpest tool in Keir Starmer’s box.

When I was a school leaver, just entering university, Welwyn Hatfield Council was controlled by the Labour Party. Two large political groups fought each other for control of the local authority. British local government elections have always tended to go against the national government – the public wisely keen to distribute power between parties. After nearly 18 years of Conservative rule they had handed much of local government across the UK to Labour.

Yet now, 25 years later, despite the Conservatives having had nearly 12 years in government, the Labour group on the council only holds 10 seats, slightly outmatched by the Liberal Democrats on 12. Nationally, Labour has only a single Parliamentary seat in Scotland and has failed to make headway in regaining the so-called, “red wall” constituencies.

Why have the Conservatives had such good results locally? Why is Labour failing to make headway in the Borough or nationally?

Continue reading →

Share Button

YouTuber Ann Drogyne to be Sued?

Posted on by
8
A Scary Legal Hammer

Allegations of serious crimes, like child rape, may not end well for the publisher when made in a non-privileged context.

The Witchfinder has been asked to assist in a possible court case, pro-bono, against YouTuber Ann Drogyne.

Recently, I have become aware of an argument between YouTuber “Ann Drogyne” and another minor YouTuber. A bit of a flame feud. I did not want to get involved because although my sympathies lie with their opponent, I cannot fight all the battles of everyone else on the internet. I was also of the view that there was an element of the old adage, “six of one, half-a-dozen of the other”.

Then Drogyne started posting calling her opponent a, “self-confessed child rapist”, on multiple websites. I have to say, that is going a bit far. From the records I have seen, the alleged rape was supposed to have occurred in 1992, 30 years ago. The alleged perpetrator was investigated at the time. They denied it at the time. Said it never happened. Police were given the names of the other parties. One can believe the alleged perpetrator’s account that police asked the alleged victim about it and the person denied it happened. No further action was taken. A journalist who repeated the allegation was later criticised by a judge for other questionable actions at the time.

The allegation seems to me to blatantly exceed the threshold in s1 Defamation Act 2013. It seems to me it will be hard to prove Truth given the contemporary denials, and the fact the only person who could possibly support the allegation, the journalist, says they cannot remember and also was criticised by a judge for other similar articles at the time. In fact, they were also interviewed by police and blamed a number of errors on sub-editors. Similarly, to use the defence of Public Interest, Drogyne would have (to simplify) show the criteria were met. The defence is not a cover-all, it is intended to cover balanced responsible reporting. I find it difficult to see how it could cover what was published.

I am also not sure about the compliance with the GDPR. Clearly an allegation of sex crime falls under Article 9 GDPR, assuming there is no exemption (e.g. domestic use, journalism).

I think there are grounds to investigate whether Drogyne has committed some civil wrongs. Subject of course to Drogyne’s right to explain or provide some defence.

After a recent video, Drogyne has today received a letter of claim from her opponent. I am providing pro-bono support. Oops. Still, perhaps they have a reasonable defence or explanation. We shall see in due course.

Share Button

The West Should Reflect Carefully Before Condemning Putin

Posted on by
Reply
Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin is the President of Russia

I love my country. However, I have to say the current attacks on Putin show a lack of understanding of the factors that led to the recent conflict. The West has failed to understand the Russian perspective and as a consequence fuelled a fire that was always going to get lit. The Ukraine situation is, to the Russians, something like a combination of the Cuban Missile crisis with the Irish Troubles. The West failed to recognise this, and carried on in provocative acts whilst ultimately failing to put in place the military force needed to pay the cheques its diplomatic approach wrote.

I live in the United Kingdom, or to give it the full official name, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a region on the tip of Ireland that is run by the UK. The rest has its own government independent of the UK, an EU state in its own right? Why? Well, the people of Northern Ireland are historically a mix of Protestant and Catholic Christians. They have a history of vicious, genocidal, religious conflict and the Protestant side wanted to be part of historically Protestant UK. The Catholic side, the IRA, tried to blow up Margaret Thatcher in 1984. A peace process later led to a ceasefire. This type of situation is not uncommon. The territory of the Saar Basin moved from French occupation to German rule after a referendum in 1935.

Western leaders see themselves as paragons of democracy. Some Russian and Chinese people see us a bunch of hubris-ridden imbeciles who gave the world Isis after we overthrew Saddam Hussein’s government in the Iraq war and failed to manage the aftermath. Waves of refugees from other countries where the West has gotten involved (for example, Syria) have then destabilised European nations and contributed to, for example, Brexit. Added to that, of course there has historically been a great conflict and suspicion between the US and Russia.

The Ukraine is a divided country with two eastern provinces bordering Russia, containing a number of people that want to be independent from Ukraine. Rebels have set up their own states, now recognised by Russia. These are the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. The same situation exists with Crimea. Ukraine has sought to continue to occupy these territories and also sought help from NATO – the traditional enemies of the USSR.

So to the Russians, they feel a bit like we might feel if (southern) Ireland invaded Northern Ireland and let Saddam Hussein station Scud missiles there pointed at London. War was inevitable and foreseeable. Worse, having encouraged the Ukrainian government we have failed to offer military support. The West needs to radically reconsider its strategy.

[UPDATE – 12 April 2022] – I feel I should update this article. There are a number of allegations of brutality by Russian soldiers, rapes and murders, coming out of Ukraine which, if true, are abhorrent and unacceptable. However, that only reinforces the point that by fanning the flames of a partly racial / ethnic conflict without a clear risk assessment and strategy, the West has let down the people of Ukraine.

Share Button

Smith v Baker: Judgement Update

Posted on by
1
BakerRestrained

Esther Baker was been handed a life-long restraining Order by Mrs Justice Steyn over her allegations against John Hemming. She agreed to lifelong restraint for her allegations against me.

The latest judgement in the turgid saga of Smith v Baker is out on BAILII. As readers will remember, I sued Esther Baker and most of her defence, as well as much of the counterclaim, has been struck out. She settled in a lifetime restraining agreement – a Tomlin Order, and I am still receiving my costs back in monthly instalments via High Court Enforcement Officers (High Court bailiffs basically). Some of the counterclaim limps on. There has been a favourable judgement on meaning. Judgement here.

By way of explanation, there is often a dispute in libel claims about meaning. The Claimant wants the court to find there were really damaging claims. The Defendant, that the claims held weaker meanings, or to find meanings that are easier to defend as Truth, Honest Opinion and so forth. So in this case the judge had a pre-trial held by written submissions, to decide meaning, what were allegations of meaning and fact, and what was defamatory at common law (i.e. what might be harmful).

Baker wanted some strong meanings. She did not get the. For example, about publication 1 (still up here) – one meaning she wanted was to say she was violent,

Continue reading →

Share Button

Just v Moody: Doctor Louise Moody Settles, but She is Right About Harrop

Posted on by
6

Last week I was interested to read an article by Doctor Louise Moody, which linked to uploads of legal letters she had sent claiming I had broken the law by serving ‘court documents’ on her. Not least, because forwarding an email with unsigned draft documents is not service (Bar Standards Board v O’Connor (a Barrister) [2012] 17th August, Visitors to the Inns of Court at 33) and if it is, recent case law states that McKenzie Friends are permitted to effect service for their clients, because solicitors use unqualified process servers all the time (Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2865, 67). She has now removed these allegations and settled with Simon.

The allegations were very serious, and amounted to an allegation I have committed a criminal offence, which Mr Just abetted and procured. After these cases were pointed out to her, she has now settled and removed the allegations, including agreeing with Mr Just never to repeat them, nor to mention him at all save to rebut allegations by third parties.

I add that I hope this matter is at an end because leaving aside this strange incident, I agree in large part with Moody on the issues of transgender identity. I feel that Doctor Harrop, the GP whose conduct was at issue in the online debate that apparently prompted all this, should have been struck off not just suspended. His conduct was far worse than Barbara Hewson’s. I take the view that drunkenly publicly swearing at your regulator as Hewson did is a slapped wrist / warning / week suspension offence.

However, in the Harrop case the GMC found,

“The tribunal considered that Dr Harrop’s actions in posting inappropriate tweets over a sustained period of time, in contradiction to the advice he was given, breached fundamental tenets of the profession.

His actions brought the profession into disrepute, undermining public confidence in the profession and the standards of conduct expected from members of the profession.”

It is amazing how many SJW ‘transgender allies’ and ‘male feminists’ turn out to engage in inappropriate or creepy behaviours. They seem to feel their beliefs justify anything up to and including stalking (that is not to say Harrop’s behaviour amounted to stalking, albeit it was found to be improper).

I would like to add again that I do not condone the @ReporterLAL account. I do agree with some of the observations and some of the, ‘victims’ clearly provoked matters but even so some of the @ReporterLAL account’s tweets I do not agree with and I distance myself from it, as does Mr Just. I expressly do not condone the comments about Dr Moody’s deceased partner.

Share Button