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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lifelong Injunction for Esther Baker and her False Rape Allegations

BakerRestrained

Esther Baker has been handed a life-long restraining Order by Mrs Justice Steyn. She has had her day in court and the ‘Truth’ has indeed been proven.

Recently, Esther Baker has been making misleading comments about the judgement in her libel case against John Hemming. She claimed on Twitter (archive) that the judgement did not find Hemming innocent. Now High Court Judge Mrs Justice Steyn has made a lifelong restraining Order against Baker as well as another Order giving further directions for what remains of the case.

Key points in the Orders –

  • John Hemming has won against Baker on the main points. Hemming did not rape Baker, or anyone else nor did he stalk Baker nor defame her to cover it up. Baker is restrained for life from saying so (however obliquely), getting anyone else to say so or encouraging anyone from saying so. There is a penal notice on the front flat out stating that if she does so, she can go to jail. It is last warning time. It is a part of the general law of the land that it can also be a contempt for anyone to independently try to frustrate the Order by repeating the allegations. There are no exceptions to the Order – (Baker has asked for some and was not granted them).
EstherBakerPenalNotice

If Esther Baker breaks the lifelong restraining Order against her she could be sent to prison and so could anyone who helps her or otherwise tries to frustrate the purpose of the Order.

  • Supporters of Esther Baker such as Jayne Senior @Jes123Tia456, Jacqui Dillon @JacquiDillon and Alan Goodwin @Ciabaudo have been warned previously  they may be sued for libel. In fact with this Order, they need not even be sued – if they expressly or by implication suggest Baker’s allegations are true then they could be at risk of immediate Committal proceedings. Now is a time for reflection. The legal threats to Goodwin, Dillon and Senior are not bluffs but bringing the claims would be an aggravation we could all avoid. A decision on Baker’s allegations has been made.
BakerAllegationsNotTrue

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

  • It is noticed that Senior has gone quiet on this. Hopefully if the others take the hint we can all save some money and inconvenience. There are plenty of other alleged victims they could be supporting where their accusations have not been ruled against.
  • Whilst Baker’s allegations have been shown false, it is not yet established whether she lied or perverted the course of justice. The libel claim by her against Hemming on those words is ongoing, but will be struck out automatically unless she complies with the terms of an ‘unless’ Order made previously.
  • Hemming has dropped an ancilliary claim that Baker’s words also referred to ‘cult’ or ‘ritual’ abuse. As he has won on the main points, it does not matter if the group he was not part of was a rape ‘cult’ or ‘group’.
  • Baker has been ordered to pay 90% of the entire costs of Hemming’s counterclaim, 100% of his application to strike out and 100% of his responding to her failed application. Damages are to be assessed at the end of the case.

The judge has included a short set of reasons and as they are not on BAILII and the Orders are public documents I have uploaded them both here. I have redacted both cover sheets with the parties’ addresses.

UPDATE 22 NOVEMBER 2019 – HAVE ADDED SCREENSHOT WITH FINDING BAKER’S ALLEGATIONS ARE UNTRUE WITH UNDERLINING.

Share Button

Rekt – Esther Baker in Humiliating Libel Loss – John Hemming Innocent of Raping Her

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.]

John Hemming former MP

It is now a court finding that former MP John Hemming did not rape Esther Baker and when she publicly accused him of doing so on Twitter, she libelled him. She must pay damages and Hemming is completely exonerated.

Esther Baker suffered a humiliating defeat yesterday when John Hemming won the central point of the libel claim between them. In a judgement handed down in the High Court, Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that Baker libeled Hemming by accusing him of rape on Twitter. Some aspects of the claim remain live, the court has yet to rule on Baker’s claims Hemming libeled her by calling her a liar and criminal but Baker has been prohibited from saying John Hemming raped her even within the proceedings. Baker also applied to strike out Hemming’s claim, relying on 168 pages of exhibits (mostly articles from this website). Her application, including her many many many complaints about me, were found to have, “no merit”.

This article will be brief because the judgement is on BAILII. The whole judgement is lengthy, and worth reading in full. A few key points –

  • Baker is suing Hemming for libel and he is counter-claiming. In 2015 Baker, like Carl Beech from Exaro (who she supported on Twitter) made allegations of rape against an alleged faith related abuse group including in later versions at least two politicians including Hemming and a Labour Cabinet Minister. Baker is suing Hemming for calling her a liar and accusing her of Perverting the Course of Justice. Hemming counter-sues Baker for accusing him on Twitter of raping her and also allegedly accusing him of being involved in cult / ritual abuse.
  • At the hearing on 17th October 2019 for which judgement was handed down today, Hemming and Baker applying to strike out each other’s claims and defences. Hemming also applied for summary judgement and an interim injunction. Today the judge ruled on those applications. She found in favour of part of Hemming’s application and rejected Baker’s as having, “no merit”.
  • The judge held that Baker’s tweet did at least bear the meaning that Hemming raped her and the judge ruled this was libel. She granted Hemming summary judgement to this extent. Baker must pay damages – there is also an application for an injunction. It remains undecided whether the words in the tweet, “also bear an innuendo meaning that the Defendant abused the Claimant as part of a ritual cult involving Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Lords and Judges”. That is for trial.
  • The judge held that Baker had deliberately dropped her defence of Truth
The judge found that Baker deliberately dropped her defence of Truth

The judge found that Baker deliberately dropped her defence of Truth

Continue reading

Share Button

Esther Baker Made Bankrupt Over “Rape” Libel Case – are Jacqui Dillon and Jayne Senior Next?

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.]

EstherBaker

Esther Baker has made numerous unproven allegations of sexual abuse. Now she is literally paying the price.

Today, at 12:55 in the afternoon at the Liverpool Civil and Family Courts, Esther Baker was made bankrupt as a result of her crumbling libel claim against John Hemming and her failure to pay the costs order. At this point, most mentally healthy people would think again about supporting her. Two notable exceptions to common sense however are “Dr” Jacqui Dillon and Rotherham Councillor Jayne Senior. Despite Hemming now having won two libel claims against significant opposition – a former Guardian journalist and a charity CEO – these two women continue to refer to Baker’s allegations on Twitter.

I do not intend to deal in much detail with them now, as that is for later articles. However a brief introduction. Jayne Senior is a councillor in Rotherham and manager of a charity called Swinton Lock. She received an MBE for supposed whistleblowing. However, the shine has been knocked off her by recent revelations in an independent safeguarding report commissioned by her local council. The findings were that she mistreated real abuse victims who used her charity. This was bravely exposed by Sammy Woodhouse (@SammyWoodhouse1). The findings are set out in detail in the Yorkshire Post in these articles [1] (archive), [2] (archive). A third article [3] (archive) sets out her failed attempts to silence media critics by complaining to police. Most recently, Jayne Senior has been complaining on Twitter that her local police are contemplating restricting her right to complain (archive). She has also been complaining about me – to no effect.

“Dr” Jacqui Dillon is a mentally ill woman who by her own admission sees things and hears voices as set out in my previous article here. Dillon, like Baker relates an unproven history of alleged child abuse. She admits her first psychiatrist thought they were delusions. However she eventually found a psychiatrist who believed her and launched a successful career as a mental health ‘advocate’ and ‘survivor’ despite there being no convictions. This is dealt with in more detail in this excellent blog here. Dillon has a nasty history of calling people “paedophiles”, their “supporters” and “enablers” on Twitter but now complains of criticism. Again, this has been of no effect. I am entitled to scrutinise and criticise public statements by a public figure.

Both of these women have seen the unravelling of Baker’s life, and her court losses. They are aware of the bankruptcy proceedings. Yet they have this strange belief that it could not possibly happen to them. If they persist in supporting her, they are likely to find out just how wrong they are.

For Baker, it is a tragedy. John Hemming bears her, surprisingly, no ill-will. He recognises she was offered inappropriate encouragement by others. There is sufficient evidence even in public statements for me to name Jess Phillips MP in this article. Even now if Baker would cooperate, admit her mistake and produce evidence as to those who encouraged her, it may be another resolution could be found. In some circumstances those others may even be liable for all the costs.

Share Button

Dr Jacqui Dillon and Her Appalling Remarks on Esther Baker and Historic Abuse

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.]

“Doctor” Jacqui Dillon is psychotic. Not in the hyperbolous sense but in the proper medical sense that she hears voices (archive) and sometimes sees things that are not there, including (according to the Daily Mirror) hallucinating her own daughter covered in blood. Even so, Dillon has many achievements to her name – an honorary doctorate she received from the University of East London for her undoubted work in mental health. However, her achievements give her no right to hound others on Twitter or jump into complex debates about historic abuse without respect for guilt or innocence, nor to the families and children of those involved.

JacquiDillonTweet

Jacqui Dillon calls Baker a survivor, but none of Baker’s alleged abusers have been charged. Baker was then placed under police investigation and Staffordshire Police have stated that a file is to be sent to the CPS for advice, including on potential charges.

Historic abuse is a complex issue. There are undoubtedly many persons who have been genuinely abused and even today authority figures want to turn a blind eye. I have written many articles, for example, about Reddit. Reddit is large social media website of sorts that was openly advertising two groups called, “/r/PedoCity” and “/r/PedoWorld”. The groups were openly advertised in a full text index, though no images were visible except to those warped individuals who joined. One was there for three years quite openly. They were banned the day after my article exposing it based on a tip-off from a whistle-blower.

EvidenceRWorld

Reddit, proudly hosting a forum for ‘Watching pedos rape the young’. Screenshot from their text index above. They hosted the ‘community’ for three years – until I wrote an article exposing it. Words cannot adequately express my contempt for Reddit CEO Steve Huffman.

So, when Dillon complains of paedophile apologists and modern fellow travellers to PIE on Twitter I have no doubt she is raising legitimate issues.

The problem is not everyone is guilty. Dillon believes she was abused by a paedophile. Perhaps that is true.

However, when dealing with abuse, there is a world of possibility for mistake and outright falsehood. In 2015, Esther Baker accused then MP John Hemming as well as a former Labour cabinet minister and a large group of other people of rape. She said she recognised Hemming as her assailant beyond doubt, that she had seen his whole body and he had various physical features including a birthmark on his back. The police investigation checked that and he does not have those features. The case inevitably ended with no prosecution.

Hemming is clearly not the man who raped Esther Baker – if she was raped at all. According to the BBC, Baker is now under police investigation for inventing all her allegations (archive). In fact matters have moved on. An advice file has now been sent to the CPS and police have stated that, “The CPS will consider the papers pertaining to the Perverting the Course of Justice allegation alongside any alternative offences they feel might be appropriate”.

Continue reading

Share Button