Category Archives: Mark Watts

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

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

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

Video: Esther Baker Drops Truth Defence … Shock!

Posted on by
1

Esther Baker has dropped her libel defence of Truth in the defamation claim and counterclaim between herself and former MP John Hemming. Full MHN video with details and documentary evidence.

In this video I reveal the facts about Esther Baker’s libel claim against John Hemming that she does not want you to know. Baker has repeatedly solicited money on the basis that she is fighting to reveal the “Truth!” In fact, she has dropped her defence of Truth and there is much she has not shared about her case.

Title music – The Escape – (c) – Machinimasound (Commercial license purchased)

Background music – Through the Night – (c) – Machinimasound (Commercial license purchased)

Related articles –

“Fag in hand, portrait of the ‘fantasist’ given starring role in the £100m Westminster child abuse inquiry”

“Sex abuse probe will NOT look at the claims on an MP rape ‘fantasist’ after doubts emerged about her story”

“Former MP wins £10,000 damages in libel case after being falsely accused of being part of a VIP sex abuse ring”

“IICSA: Unsubstantiated ‘Rape’ Accuser Esther Baker Under Police Investigation”

“Esther Baker Crowdfunding Page Taken Down Over False Statements”

Share Button

Jess Phillips MP, Mark Watts and Who Raped Esther Baker?

Posted on by
6

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.]

Official_portrait_of_Jess_Philips

Jess Philips MP (official portrait, CC-BY-SA 3.0 license).

Who raped Esther Baker? Baker is suing John Hemming for libel, claiming he raped her. He is counter-suing. On 15 April 2019 I sat in the High Court with John Hemming, Barbara Hewson and Richard-Owen Thomas and looked on as Baker, accompanied only by former Exaro Editor Mark Watts, was handed a costs order likely to run to about £12,000. Baker was also ordered to have a psychiatric assessment to be filed at court. During the hearing it was revealed that Baker asserts that she is seriously mentally ill. Politicians and ‘journalists’ such as Labour MP Jess Phillips and former Exaro editor Mark Watts have encouraged Baker’s allegations yet Jess Phillips is not Baker’s MP and never has been. Were Phillips and Watts right to encourage a vulnerable mentally ill woman in making unproven allegations public? Were they right to expose her to the possibility of mental injury from public criticism and controversy? Were they right to expose her to legal risks? Have Watts and Phillips helped Esther Baker … or benefited from her distress?

As my previous article recounted, Esther Baker is suing John Hemming for libel – without legal representation. He is counter-suing. The claim is not yet decided but outcomes so far are have not been good for her. Barrister Barbara Hewson’s excellent article is here for an independent perspective.

Amongst other things, John Hemming alleges Esther Baker’s lawsuit is out of time. Despite regularly insisting on Twitter that the ‘truth’ will be revealed she has point blank refused to particularise the alleged ‘rape’. This led to the judge telling her that Hemming did not know the claim he had to meet – Baker’s pleadings were inadequate. She claims in reply that her lawsuit is not out of time because she was mentally ill and lacked mental capacity to litigate for part of the limitation period.

My earlier article did not cover Esther Baker’s mental health problems, as I wanted to treat the issue sensitively and appropriately in this piece. On Twitter Baker has admitted to being, ‘psychotic’ (archive) and referred to hearing voices. In the publicly available pleadings in her case it is alleged that she suffers from auditory and ‘command’ hallucinations. In simple terms, she hears voices in her head that tell her to do things. Sometimes she obeys.

For a woman in Baker’s position to bring a lawsuit as litigant in person is challenging. Whilst the case is not yet decided, there is now significant evidence on the other side. As the Mail reported (archive) Baker has admitted that she told police her rapist had a curved penis and a birthmark on their back. Hemming has never had either (and there is a photograph of his back exhibited in evidence) but does have a distinguishing characteristic that Baker did not mention in her pleadings. So if Baker was raped at all, there are good reasons a fair minded observer might conclude that it was not Hemming. Now a court will decide.

CreepyJessPhillipsSweetDreams

Jess Phillips eerily wishes Baker ‘sweet’ dreams, a few months after she accused Hemming.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Mark Watts: Unparticularised

Posted on by
4
FOIACentreLogo

The logo of the so-called Freedom of Information Act Centre of which Mark Watts is ‘coordinator’.

On Monday, I wrote about the first preliminary hearing in the case of Baker v Hemming. In the hearing, Esther Baker was ordered to rewrite her claim, have a psychiatric assessment and pay costs to be subject to the detailed assessment procedure. At the hearing Baker was unrepresented but assisted by Mark Watts, former Exaro editor, who sat behind her and appeared to assist as a lay advisor. Now he has complained about myself, Barbara Hewson and Simon Just to the judge because we blogged about it.

It is curious that a man who claims to campaign for transparency like Mark Watts, who ‘coordinates’ for the ‘Freedom of Information Act Centre’, is suddenly not-so-keen on information getting out when he is the subject. There are three blogs that Watts complains of. My previous article here, barrister Barbara Hewson’s blog and Real Troll Exposure.

In the United Kingdom, most libel cases (unlike the Family Courts) are open to the public and it is perfectly legal to report on them. Providing the reporting is ‘fair’ and ‘accurate’ it even attracts qualified privilege. Watts’ complaint accuses all three of us of being ‘unfair’. What moved me to write this brief post however, was the fact that his complaint is … unclear. I have no idea why he thinks Barbara and Real Troll Exposure have been unfair. His only comprehensible complaint about my blog is that he is described as a blogger. I do not see how that is harmful to him, and the FOIACentre’s ‘News’ section to me looks like a blog attached to a niche research business.

Put another way his complaint is … inadequately particularised. Much like Esther Baker’s claim in which he advised her. I may be running some articles on Mr Watts in due course but for now I include his complaint below. In the spirit of Freedom of Information, of course.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Baker v Hemming: Esther Baker Ordered to Pay Costs!

Posted on by
7
EstherBaker

Esther Baker has had a bad day in court.

The first interim hearing in Baker v Hemming occurred today, and Esther Baker has been ordered to pay the whole costs of the hearing as well as re-write all of her court pleadings. Furthermore, Hemming has been given leave to commence detailed costs assessment immediately.

Esther Baker is suing John Hemming for libel for saying she lied about her allegations of Rape. Hemming has counterclaimed for libel over a tweet he says is an allegation that he raped her. Hemming had applied to strike out Baker’s claim and her Defence to his counterclaim.

The hearing, which was open to the public, took most of the day with various breaks for advice and production of documents. Hemming was represented by barrister Richard Owen Thomas of 3PB chambers. In Hemming v Wilmer I assisted formally as McKenzie Friend but here I sat with them and provided informal support.

Baker acted in person but was assisted by Mark Watts, former editor of Exaro and currently Coordinator at the Freedom of Information Centre. At the start of the hearing he sat next to her like a McKenzie Friend but after a brief discussion with the judge he sat behind her and provided informal support. Watts accompanied Baker for more-or-less the whole day.

One interesting aspect of the case is the fact that both sides were supported by bloggers. I have been upfront about my support for John Hemming but felt I should make clear the extent of Watts’ support for Baker. Barbara Hewson also attended the hearing as an observer although she was not as closely aligned with any side.

At the start of the hearing Baker applied for an adjournment claiming she now has pro-bono support to amend her pleadings. This was granted, but because her pleadings were clearly deficient she was ordered to pay the costs of the hearing and the amended pleadings. She will be liable for those costs regardless of how the rest of the case proceeds, whatever the outcome. Baker has been given a tight timescale to file amended the pleadings. Baker had sought an initial decision on meaning, but a meaning hearing was not ordered. Baker has also deleted the allegedly defamatory tweet.

Continue reading →

Share Button