Category Archives: Esther Baker

Charisse Burchett of Bath, Somerset: A Threat to Children and the Vulnerable?

Posted on by
1

Earlier this year, a Bath woman known as Charisse Burchett (a fan of BNT creator Sonia Poulton) was excoriated online and in the Daily Mirror (archive), Sun (archive) and Mail (archive), after refusing to wear a mask on a flight from Berlin to the United Kingdom. Bereaved relatives of Covid-19 victims condemned her ignorance and arrogance. Though she claims a “private” medical exemption, by her own admission police did not find it acceptable. Now, she has ignorantly defamed former MP John Hemming, claiming he needs to face a jury when in fact his accuser Esther Baker’s allegations have been found to be, “untrue” in the High Court and she has been restrained for life from repeating them. By refusing to wear a mask and risking spreading Covid, denying the existence of Covid, as well as spreading debunked false allegations that cause huge distress to Hemming’s children, she is likely to pose a risk of harm to a number of vulnerable people.

Charisse Burchett - condemned by the bereaved.

Charisse Burchett – condemned by the bereaved.

One of the most tragic things about Brand New Tube’s (BNT) output is the denial of very real diseases. The website features Vernon Coleman, a man who still denies AIDS is a disease (archive) – “[…] it is now my considered view that the disease we know as AIDS probably doesn’t exist and has never existed”. There is no doubt AIDS is real, like Covid-19.

When I saw Charisse Burchett’s tweet about John Hemming earlier, at first I thought it beneath notice. She is just some nobody mum from the provinces with a bad attitude. A not-very-bright consumer of BNT conspiracy theories. Her remarks about Esther Baker and John Hemming were dead wrong. The facts are these as set out by High Court Judge Mrs Justice Steyn –

Continue reading →

Share Button

A Bad Day for Muhammad Butt (and Sonia Poulton) of BrandNewTube.com / My Media World Limited

Posted on by
22

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.]

Last year I wrote an article explaining that I had filed a High Court claim for £100,000 against Sonia Poulton of BrandNewTube.com, founder Muhammad Butt and the company itself (My Media World Limited). The claim was filed on 09 November 2020 and was deemed to be served on 22 December 2020. Three months on, they still have not entered a Defence. Today at a public telephone hearing in the Queen’s Bench, their latest antics (a further extension application) led to a modest costs Order against them and Master Thornett also made what is called an Unless Order. Unless they get on and enter their Defence by 4pm 25 March 2021 judgement will be automatically entered in my favour. The Order also means that they never get back their costs of paying their lawyer to apply for an extension of time.

Sonia Poulton Video Statement

Sonia Poulton issued an inflammatory and misleading ‘official statement’ on her dispute with John Hemming. Even stranger, she is now clinging onto my claim despite the fact that I have effectively dropped her as a Defendant. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.

Even weirder, is why Sonia Poulton was there at all. Last year to the extent I could understand their weird legal correspondence, Poulton was insisting I am a criminal blackmailer. After proceedings were issued she changed that view claiming she totally did not mean that and so I filed a partial discontinuance, dropping that claim against her. The claim against Butt and My Media World Limited continues unaffected. Because the partial discontinuance was filed and served before a defence I can make the claim again if she repeats the libel or tries to claim she has justified her original allegation. So … she can go.

All that is left, at most, is an argument about the costs of her third of their joint response to the letter of claim. But nope – she was there and ignores my attempts to unjoin her as a party. What parties would normally do is agree a consent Order but as Sonia does not wish to do so I may have to make an application, which the court has the power to order costs of.

The Order made today says as follows –

“1. Unless by 4.00pm 25 March 2021 the Defendants file and serve a Defence (whether individually or collectively), then judgment on liability for damages to be assessed shall automatically be entered.”

I was very grateful to Master Thornett for his professional and efficient conduct of the hearing. I have actually helped litigants, charitably, in cases involving him before, although we have not interacted directly, and he is known for sensible, assertive case management. As the hearing was public, so is the Order and a copy may be downloaded here. The judge actually gave them less time than I was willing to accept. I suggested an Unless Order for 30 March 2021, but he gave them only until 25 March – a clear court signal to stop messing about!

Continue reading →

Share Button

Struck Out! – Update on Smith v Baker – Nearly All Esther Baker’s Defence Struck Out

Posted on by
1
BakerRestrained

Although my claim against her is ongoing, Esther Baker has been handed a life-long restraining Order by Mrs Justice Steyn for defaming former MP John Hemming. She has also been handed a different restraining Order in the County Court for harassing a vulnerable victim of childhood abuse.

On 18 February 2021 Master Lisa Sullivan, sitting in the High Court at a remote hearing, handed down her most recent judgement in Smith v Baker. The judgement is now on BAILII (archive) and the judge has confirmed we can share it as we wish, so a copy can also be downloaded here. There was then a consequent Orders hearing in which Ms Baker was Ordered to pay all of my (very modest) costs. From the past judgement, with the High Court Enforcement Officer’s fees, Ms Baker now owes me £2,275K, so with the new costs she will owe more than 2.5K.

So, what precisely did the court decide? I am suing Esther Baker for defamation and harassment, and she is counter-suing. Esther Baker has entered a Defence and Counter-claim in which she contended she would prove the truth of her words. Baker also claimed her publications were in the public interest. All of her defamation defences have been struck out, except she is still allowed to dispute the meaning of her words and also whether the publications caused serious harm. All of the defence to the harassment claim has been struck out except I have to show the the incidents rose to harassment (which will depend on meaning), and loss (as to damages).

Much of the counterclaim has been struck-out, including all of Ms Baker’s pleas of malice and I have now been directed to file a Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim. Baker may then file a Reply (which is mandatory depending on what defences I use). Because Baker’s plea of malice has been struck out, she is likely to have difficulty with any privilege defence whatsoever, meaning that once pleadings close I may have the opportunity for a further application to strike-out / for summary judgement.

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

Hemming v Poulton Update

Posted on by
4

Sonia Poulton has been active in the world of child abuse, ‘research’ and independent journalism for some time. What she calls journalism, others call conspiracy theories. However until now, legal threats made to her by a variety of individuals have never been carried out. MHN can exclusively reveal that having consulted a media barrister, John Hemming now does intend to proceed with his claim against Poulton, who will be hearing further from him next week. Meanwhile two other men who are aggrieved with Poulton are now contemplating legal action.

Sonia Poulton Video Statement

Sonia Poulton has issued an inflammatory and misleading ‘official statement’ on the dispute. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.

On 18 September 2020, Sonia Poulton published a video statement you can view here. In it, she monotonously reads to the camera the following words –

Continue reading →

Share Button

Decent Shaun Attwood Corrects the Record, Vile Sonia Poulton Doubles Down

Posted on by
10

In response to John Hemming’s concerns, Shaun Attwood has done the decent thing and corrected a recent video about Hemming and Esther Baker. His statement is here. Meanwhile, vile Sonia Poulton seems to have split with him and has released a misleading statement to her followers.

Shaun Attwood does the decent thing

Shaun Attwood has released a video correcting the record about former MP John Hemming. His former collaborator Sonia Poulton has doubled down linking a misleading video.

In 2019 Shaun Attwood released a video on a number of topics and alleged child abusers. During one section, he interviewed freelance ‘journalist’ Sonia Poulton about the Esther Baker case. It was a train wreck. Attwood relied on Poulton’s expertise but from a journalistic perspective, her contribution was a disaster. Poulton told viewers that Esther Baker had made allegations of abuse against Hemming and that, “it is quite clear that Esther Baker, erm, feels that she has a case that needs to be examined, appropriately examined”. She neglected to mention however the simple fact that they had been investigated by Staffordshire Police and rejected. The CPS stated that there are, “no witnesses”, “no medical or forensic evidence” and “no one else has come forward with a similar complaint”.

In fact Baker’s allegations have now been found, “untrue” in the High Court and she has now been restrained for life from repeating them. Baker has also been found to have harassed a potential witness in the case, in racist fashion. The victim, who MHN has anonymised, is a real proven victim of child abuse.

None of this was told to viewers of the podcast, because Sonia did not bother to contact Hemming for a statement before giving the interview to Shaun. It was a basic journalistic error, shoddy and amateurish.

When all this was pointed out Shaun Attwood did the decent thing. He removed that section from the video, which he re-uploaded. He published a correction. That cannot have been nice but he did it. That is the kind of thing that separates the decent from the less decent.

Sonia Poulton has been far less pleasant. Continue reading →

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