Category Archives: Mental Health

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

Esther Baker: Please Give Generously, the Shame of Jess Phillips, Sonia Poulton, Mark Watts and David Hencke

Posted on by
3
BakerRestrained

Esther Baker was been handed a life-long restraining Order by Mrs Justice Steyn in her claim against John Hemming, which backfired spectacularly. She was handed a second lifelong Order when a child-abuse victim sued her. She has had her day in court and the ‘Truth’ has indeed been proven.

Esther Baker has been Ordered to pay my costs of applying to strike out her Defence to my libel claim and her ‘Counterclaim’. The judge has given her one last chance to rewrite it but she has to pay my interim costs. Orders in the Queen’s Bench are public, so you can download your own copy here. Baker is now begging for money on GoFundMe.com, claiming she needs the food to eat. Please give generously.

Many people have been unsympathetic to Baker, who has of course made untrue allegations of rape against one of my friends (which she is now restrained for life from repeating, and for which police are still investigating her). Baker’s crowdfunding campaign (archive) has only raised £70 in the last 24 hours. So, I have decided to put Baker’s case better than she ever could – because it amuses me and I might see some of the money.

Esther Baker is a tragic victim. No her rape allegations are not true. A court already decided that the ones against John Hemming are not true. Furthermore, I am simply willing to prove on primary fact that the Lord she accuses of rape is also innocent (he did not sue her ‘cuz he is dead) and her father too.

Esther Baker however, is very seriously mentally ill. Based on documents which have passed into the public domain after being used at public court hearings, she hears voices and suffers from command hallucinations. That is, the little voices in her head tell her to do things. Sometimes, she obeys their commands – for example by attempting suicide. Baker also continually makes spectacularly poor judgement calls and repeats those mistakes time and again, having learnt nothing. The most recent court sanctions were the 6th time she has botched attempted civil proceedings in exactly the same way. Bear in mind she is a second year law degree student.

Ms Baker holds unusual beliefs and maintains those beliefs in defiance of those facts which can be established. Her allegations to police were that she was raped by a cult (she does not like the word cult, preferring something along the lines of, “faith related abuse group”) including VIPs. She accused Hemming, a Labour Lord and her father as well as sundry police and users of her local church.

These events simply did not happen. The CPS summarised all of the evidence collected in the case relating to all of the alleged rapes by saying Continue reading →

Share Button

Is Paedophilia Internet Troll @CraftyMuvva really so Crafty?

Posted on by
4

Esther Baker owes me money. On 3rd November 2020 Master Lisa Sullivan in the High Court ordered her to pay me £1,226.80 (order uploaded for transparency) and also struck out parts of her defence to my claim for libel and harassment. Predictably, Baker has been sniping and grumbling about it, making nasty remarks on Twitter to the extent that she dares to. What surprises me is the very small remaining rump of trolls who have time for her. One particularly vile individual is @CraftyMuvva, who is likely to face heavy scrutiny herself in the near future. Their latest ploy is to write unpleasant public posts on Twitter and then claim anyone who reads them is stalking them (evidence archive) by monitoring their communications.

The corrected strike-out and costs Order against Esther Baker.

The corrected strike-out and costs Order against Esther Baker.

For new readers, it is worth reminding them who Baker is. At the height of the paedophilia hysteria engendered by Exaro and Carl Beech, Esther Baker alleged that she was raped by a number of men on Cannock Chase as a child. After a police investigation into her ever-changing story, followed by CPS consideration, no charges were brought. Baker sought a review. The CPS responded to D1’s request under the Victim’s Right of Review Scheme. In that document, dated 15 March 2018, the CPS prosecutor says as follows, having reviewed all of the evidence collected in the case relating to all of the alleged rapes that there are “no witnesses”, “no medical or forensic evidence” and “no one else has come forward with a similar complaint”.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Smith v Baker – Costs Order. Are Brand New Tube’s Muhammad Butt, Sonia Poulton and Spencer West’s Blake O’Donnell Next?

Posted on by
5

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[Update 22 May 2022 – My Media World Limited and Director Muhammad Butt sued over this article in the High Court in a counterclaim in case QB-2020-003936. They dropped the libel case by discontinuance, after MHN editor Samuel Collingwood Smith entered a robust defence. The effect of discontinuance is they are automatically liable for Smith’s whole costs.]

EstherBaker

Esther Baker has made numerous allegations of sexual abuse. Now it is revealed she is under investigation herself by two police forces, one for nearly a year.

As per my previous article, Master Sullivan in the High Court has found Ms Baker’s pleadings to be deficient (revised judgement here). I feel that Ms Baker has had enough chances given her behaviour in related cases, but the Master has given Ms Baker a second chance. She has refused me permission to appeal against that decision. However, Ms Baker has been Ordered to pay the whole of my costs in the application to strike out in the amount of £1,226.80, within 14 days on the basis that her pleadings were deficient, had to be re-written, my application was consequently reasonable and Ms Baker’s opposition to it was not reasonable. Ironically, the only element queried on my costs schedule by Ms Baker was the postage, which of course would have been unnecessary had she agreed to accept service by email instead of insisting on my serving an 800+ page bundle on paper. My arguments that we were all guilty of tree murder were accepted by the court and the parties have now been Ordered by the Master to serve by email. It is also worth Ms Baker remembering that long (and by long I mean nearly 200 pages) pleadings take time to read and those costs are recoverable.

So who is next? I am presently contemplating a claim in damages against fringe journalist Sonia Poulton (who is being sued by John Hemming for allegedly repeating Baker’s allegations of sex crimes against him – allegations a court has ruled, “untrue”), Muhammad Butt and Brand New Tube. By ‘contemplating’ I mean I have served a letter of claim and propose to file the claim on CE-File either Friday or early next week. The slight uncertainty is only that verbatim transcripts have been ordered and may not be ready until next week.

The basis for my claim is simple. On 17 October 2020, Mr Butt published a video in which he used the following words – “I condone any violence against you by any Muslim”. I have sent him a letter of claim. Around the same time, Ms Poulton tweeted accusing me of Blackmail because of an email I sent to Muhammad Butt. After I sent a letter of claim and other matters, the video was made private.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Smith v Baker, Baker Defence and Counterclaim Partially Struck Out

Posted on by
1

Judgement has been handed down by Master Sullivan in my strike-out application against Esther Baker in Smith v Baker and Dillon. I have a copy, and it has been released to BAILII so will presumably be going up there shortly.

EstherBaker

Esther Baker has had parts of her Defence and Counterclaim struck out.

In short the judge has struck out parts of Baker’s Defence and Counterclaim and will make an Order that she files an amended one within 28 days. The precise form of the Order will be finalised at a hearing to be set for 30 minutes next week. It is not an unless Order, but it is intended to contain liberty for me to renew my strike-out application if the pleadings remain deficient. The judge also said, “I am not making an unless order for the reasons set out, but if there is any substantial breach in the amended pleadings, the relevant part is likely to be struck out”.

I am disappointed with some typos, including apparently mixing up the Claimant and Defendant in a couple of places and some similar errors, as well as one error of fact. These could have been avoided had a draft of the judgement been sent out in the usual way, which I did suggest. There are procedures for correcting these, called, the “slip rule” and “reconsideration rule” and I will comment further once I have invited the Master to address them.

[EDIT – 20/10/2020 18:20] The judge has now corrected all the typos and factual issues I raised and sent an amended judgement to BAILII.

Otherwise, the effect is positive. Ms Baker must correct her pleadings once the Order is finalised, or face final strike-out.

Share Button

Smith v Baker and Dillon, Dillon Settles, Amy Lee Helpful

Posted on by
4

This is a brief update. The Witchfinder has agreed a settlement with Jacqui Dillon, the second Defendant in his claim in damages for Libel and Harassment. The terms of the settlement are not confidential. The Claimant Samuel Collingwood Smith will “waive his right to damages, costs and to an injunction”. The 2nd Defendant Dillon in exchange has entered into a lifelong restraining agreement not to repeat the meanings complained of in the action. Her Twitter account is presently suspended but if it is ever reinstated she must also delete the tweets complained of.

Jacqui Dillon has settled the claim brought by the Witchfinder.

Dillon has not admitted liability nor that her tweets bore the meanings complained of. However she has agreed not to repeat the words of the tweets, or words bearing the same or similar meanings to the following –

  • That the Claimant is the operator of the @legalaidloser Twitter account;
  • That the Claimant is a paedophile and harasser of child sexual abuse victims;
  • That the Claimant’s allegation that the Second Defendant’s tweet referring to Esther Baker as a victim libelled John Hemming, as set out in the Claimant’s email of 10 October 2019, was a dishonest attempt to intimidate the Second Defendant;
  • That the Claimant is a habitual stalker, who is mentally ill and stalks as a result of that mental illness; and
  • That Amy Lynn Lee Hartzler, the lead singer of Evanescence, has told the Second Defendant that the Claimant stalked her.

Dillon was represented, to my mind wisely, by media lawyers Atkins-Thomson (both formerly of Schillings) and not Mohammed Akunjee who previously advised her whilst not being formally instructed. In the ratio of Zenith Logistics Services (UK) Ltd & Ors v Coury [2020] EWHC 774 (QB) it was held at 59 that, “[…] the Schedule forms part of the “order” within the meaning of CPR 5.4C, and is subject to the default rule that it is publicly accessible […]”. In the interests of transparency I have uploaded the entire consent Order here.

I am grateful to Amy Lynn Lee Hartzler, the lead singer of Evanescence, for the helpful and pragmatic approach taken by her lawyers in denying any contact with Dillon, a fact I included in my Amended Particulars of Claim. For my part I regret that she has been troubled on this matter and have no plans to vex her about it further if this can be avoided.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Service with a Smile! – Esther Baker and Jacqui Dillon Libel and Harassment Case Issued

Posted on by
9

Esther Baker has been found to have defamed former MP John Hemming by Mrs Justice Steyn in the High Court. Her allegations were found to be “untrue”. She has been found to have engaged in a sustained campaign of racist harassment against a child abuse victim, by the County Court. In both cases lifelong restraining Orders were made. In both cases I offered some legal support to Ms Baker’s opponents. Now, I feel Esther Baker and her friend Dr Jacqui Dillon have behaved inappropriately towards me and I have commenced a claim for defamation and harassment. The Claim has now been reviewed by a High Court Master and issued. Service was effected today.

Image of the top of a letter from the court enclosing the issued claim forms

Image of the top of a letter from the court enclosing the issued claim forms.

As the Defendants are litigants in person it is important to give them as much time as possible to consider the matter. Therefore, I ensured that the Claim Form and other documents were hand delivered to Dr Jacqui Dillon’s home today so she could contemplate her defence over the Bank Holiday weekend. I also sent Esther Baker’s copy of the proceedings by registered post. Courtesy copies of the claim and response pack have been delivered by email also. To prove delivery and that there was no impropriety, the delivery to Dr Dillon was videoed.

Extract from the video of delivery to Dr Dillon's Home. House number blurred out.

Extract from the video of delivery to Dr Dillon’s Home. House number blurred out.

Readers are reminded that my claim is yet unproven and no court has made any decision. The Defendants have time to enter their defences. The fact that both Defendants are seriously mentally ill, the fact that I am the third person to sue Ms Baker and the fact that she has lost all her other cases to date does not mean they will lose this one – although it does not in any way bode well for them.

Share Button

Merseycare Pay Damages Over Esther Baker, Baker Loses Racism Appeal

Posted on by
3

The Witchfinder has received £3,500 in damages, an admission of liability and an apology from Merseycare NHS Foundation Trust on the basis that they revealed to Esther Baker that he had raised confidential safeguarding concerns about her. There is no confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement – I am free to tell all. Meanwhile, Esther Baker has lost her appeal against a finding she harassed a proven victim of child abuse, making racist tweets and apparently contacting the victim’s paedophile abuser – with a view to helping the abuser overturn their conviction.

RemittanceSlipMerseycare

Sam Smith, the editor of MHN, has received £3,500 damages for the disclosure of confidential information by Merseycare NHS Foundation Trust. Click for full size.

In late 2018, I raised serious concerns about the well-being of Esther Baker. I wrote to her psychiatrist, Dr Kate Wood and to executives at her local NHS Trust.

All of my concerns have been realised – I warned Esther Baker was at risk of large costs Orders in court proceedings she has unwisely brought and defended. The Orders were made. I warned Baker was at risk of bankruptcy. She has been bankrupted. I warned Baker was at risk of her job. She has lost her job. I warned of further civil and criminal legal troubles – they are in process. I warned Baker was a danger to others – the County Court has found her liable for stalking, the High Court for defamation. In both cases lifelong restraining Orders have been made.

Nearly every risk has materialised.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Staffordshire Police, DCS Javid Oomer, DC Garry Bainbridge Must be Investigated Over Esther Baker Bias

Posted on by
5

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

DCSJavidOomer

Detective Chief Superintendent Javid Oomer is currently acting up as Temporary Assistant Chief Constable. However, is he showing bias?

Just past 2:23am on 3rd February 2020, Esther Baker emailed Staffordshire Police and John Hemming to complain I had violated her anonymity as a rape victim under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This is of course ridiculous. Baker’s anonymity is the most waived there ever was – she has commented on Sky News, the Guardian, the Daily Mail and many other publications. Why does she keep putting in these absurd complaints? If her public court filings are correct, it is because Staffordshire Police are encouraging her.

On 17th December 2019 Esther Baker filed her Re-Amended Reply to Defence in the claim Baker V Hemming. By way of brief explanation, Esther Baker was an abuse accuser who alleged that a group of VIPs and others ritually abused her. No charges have been brought. She has attempted to sue one of the VIPs, former MP John Hemming for libel for calling her a liar. He counter-sued for libel over her rape allegations. Much of Baker’s claim was struck out last year and she lost the counter-claim entirely, with Mrs Justice Steyn ruling her allegations of VIP ritual abuse, “untrue”. Baker is now supposedly under police investigation.

A few small parts of Baker’s claim continue as to whether she lied or there was some other explanation for the untruth such as honest mistake or mental illness, although some more of Baker’s claim was struck out at a hearing on 30 January 2020. The pleadings are available to the public without permission under CPR 5.4C. Under CPR 5.4C (1) (a) any non-party may obtain a copy of the pleadings (but not attachments) in the case as of right without the court’s permission so the pleadings are not confidential. They may be reported upon.

One passage I find particularly chilling is this one –

“[…] The Claimant’s liaison officer at Staffordshire police who has recently become involved in the case again due to the Defendant’s behaviour and admissions, has repeatedly stated to me that as far as Staffordshire Police are concerned the Claimant is regarded as a victim of crimes and not a suspect […]“

Esther Baker’s liaison officer is Detective Constable 4163 Garry Bainbridge. The officer running the purported investigation is, DCS Javid Oomer. If Bainbridge has told Baker that Staffordshire Police regard her as a “victim of crimes and not a suspect”, acting as liaison for Oomer, then that completely prejudges the investigation that the police are supposedly conducting. More importantly, it ignores the multiple recent court rulings against her.

I therefore believe there is grounds for an investigation into police bias and / or failure of duty. I put it no higher than the lowest ‘Chase Level’ meaning. Baker has made a formal statement in court. However, she has in the past been incorrect or mistaken – including of course in her serious allegations that John Hemming raped her. It is possible that Baker is mistaken, or that police have some reasonable excuse. DC Bainbridge might not have been fully briefed on the court rulings, for example. Ms Baker, who hears voices, might have misunderstood his position due to her mental health difficulties. Because of that, I do not say there is anything more than grounds for investigation.

In November 2019, the County Court found that Baker had engaged in racist harassment of a proven child abuse victim and awarded said victim £12,500 in damages – details are in my full article here. The stalking included specific, imminent, violent threats as this extract from the judgement shows –

Baker Violent Threats

The County Court found that Esther Baker threatened to commit battery against a vulnerable child abuse survivor. MHN underlining.

Continue reading →

Share Button

County Court Restrains Esther Baker for Racist Stalking, High Court Makes Further Strike Out Order

Posted on by
26

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

BakerRestrained

Esther Baker has been handed another life-long restraining Order, this time by the County Court, for racist harassment of a proven child abuse victim. She was also ordered to pay £12,500 damages.

Last week on Thursday 30th January 2020, there was a hearing in Baker v Hemming. Three more passages of Esther Baker’s defamation claim were struck out, after she tried to include further allegations that Hemming raped her. The judge removed these sentences because Baker’s allegations of rape have already been ruled untrue. Meanwhile, MHN is finally able to report on a County Court judgement made late last year in which Baker was made subject to a lifelong restraining Order and damages for multiple counts of stalking, including racist stalking, of a proven child abuse victim who cannot be named for legal reasons.

Readers will be familiar with disturbing news personality Esther Baker. Like Carl Beech, Baker made untrue allegations. Specifically, she alleged that she was raped by (then MP) John Hemming. By Order and Reasons of 19th November 2019 (sealed 20th), High Court Judge Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that they were untrue, there was no public interest in repeating them and restrained Baker for life from doing so. The only outstanding legal question is whether Baker lied and whether she Perverted the Course of Justice, as opposed to (for example) making an innocent mistake.

BakerAllegationsNotTrue

The Judge Mrs Justice Steyn has made very clear that Esther Baker’s allegations are untrue and defamatory. MHN underlining.

Last year, much of Baker’s libel claim against former MP John Hemming was struck out and she lost the counterclaim, as set out in my article of the time and my follow-up article when the Order was made. Last week on Thursday 30th January 2020, there was another application. Baker had put in a revised version of her Reply to Defence in what remains of her claim. She had also put in a Part 18 Response. Shortly afterwards Baker faced an application to strike out the claim.

The same week MHN also obtained the complete transcript of judgement in a harassment case against Baker that took place last year. Your author has wanted to write about this for a long time but has been waiting for the official transcript of the judgement. Esther Baker was sued in the County Court by a child abuse victim. They have anonymity, so I will be blocking out their name, sex, location and the names of any lawyers from the judgement extracts.

However, MHN can reveal that Baker has been successfully sued under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – anti-stalking legislation – for a years long campaign of racist stalking against a proven child abuse victim. The judge ruled on 20 allegations and found 16 to be true. Multiple counts were expressly found to be racist. Baker had caused the child abuse victim psychiatric injury.

The judge expressly accepted counsel for the victim’s argument that, “the Defendant’s conduct is vindictive, obsessive and unpredictable and that it has been particularly malevolent”.

Continue reading →

Share Button