Poulton v Hemming: Poulton pays my costs of correcting her lawsuit!

Posted on April 30, 2021 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

Sonia Poulton has issued an inflammatory and misleading ‘official statement’ on the dispute. This morning though, she actually had to pay mine and another man’s modest costs of correcting her pleadings. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.

At a hearing in the High Court before Deputy Master Bard this morning, Sonia Poulton agreed to pay my costs. Why? John Hemming is suing Sonia Poulton. She has entered a defence, which we thought was deficient. Sonia then counter-claimed alleging John, myself and a third man, “harassed her”. Mostly by criticising her on blogs and suing her. John applied to strike-out. Sonia initially talked to tough, but then applied to amend her pleadings. Unfortunately, they were still deficient and she agreed to remove one of her proposed changes at my request. The rest I agreed (because the court usually allows one chance at fixing poorly drafted pleadings, and because I am confident to defend them).

As a result, Sonia agreed to pay me £219, plus another £60 for my time amending my defence if the court does not strike out or summarily the pleadings on John’s application. Not the best start to her claim. Sonia has commented extensively on social media, so I will be doing an article later setting out some of the true facts of the case for people who might be minded to support her or even donate. Sonia also agreed to pay £225 to the third man.

However, I will be waiting until after the hearing of John’s application as I want to be careful as to what is said in court and what documents are referred to, so check back later or tomorrow. I have limited this post to decided matters. I would add that I have a high opinion of Deputy Master Bard who very kindly and professionally granted me an Order back in the days when you could go see the (Deputy) Masters in practice, whilst I was a law student.

Bleach Mummy Charisse Burchett: Social Services Making Enquiries After MHN Investigation

Posted on April 6, 2021 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

Social services in West Berkshire have confirmed they will be making enquiries into the welfare of Charisse Burchett’s children (now dubbed, “Bleach Mummy” by MHN). The move comes after an exclusive MHN investigation revealed that Burchett advocates feeding Chlorine Dioxide, an industrial bleach, to children and expressly stated she would use it on her own children. Furthermore, she states that she never takes the children to the doctor’s surgery as their medicines, in her view, fail at treating issues. She prefers her tried and trusted tool – bleach!

Andy Sharp, West Berkshire Council’s Executive Director of People, is on the case.

There is a nasty subculture of medical conspiracy theory that preys on those with incurable illnesses and their loved ones. One such is the, “Miracle Mineral Supplement” (MMS) scam. The UK Food Standards agency Food Crime Unit prioritises stopping the sale of this here in the UK because it is actually an industrial bleach (archive). The United States Food and Drug Administration issued a press release “FDA warns consumers about the dangerous and potentially life threatening side effects of Miracle Mineral Solution”, (archive).

Charisse Burchett however, advocates its use for children, especially autistic children, and says she would use it on her own children if appropriate. She responds aggressively to horrified Twitter users disagreeing and insists, contra the UK FSA and US FDA, that it is not bleach [1] (archive) –

Continue reading →

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

Posted on April 3, 2021 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

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.

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 →

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

Posted on March 11, 2021 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

[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 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 →

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

Posted on February 20, 2021 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

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 →

Raw Report with Sonia Poulton Fails to Take Off – Are Brand New Tube Counting the Cost?

Posted on December 18, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

In an episode of the Raw Report not so long ago, Sonia Poulton called this blog, “little read”. In some ways is fair comment, in relative terms MHN has a low circulation. At times, however, articles have had vast numbers of views and I have been surprised by the influence I have exercised. Even so, MHN is not my day job – it is a pastime that allows me to do some good but these days I have little time for. In recent years I have posted far less than once a week. Unlike myself, Sonia Poulton claims to be a professional journalist – so it is only fair to scrutinise the performance of her viewer figures.

The Raw Report with Sonia Poulton was launched in September 2020. Since then, it has failed to take off, with views as measured from replays trending down to around 3,000 views per video. Picture used for the purposes of criticism and review.

Every Friday, Sonia Poulton livestreams the Raw Report. Shortly afterwards, a replay of the full episode is posted. The viewing figures for each episode are published. This can give a rough idea of viewership and trends. There are obvious caveats of course. Most views of livestream archives usually occur around the time of an episode but views can occur indefinitely so older videos will generally have an advantage. The number of views of an archive is not the same as the number of live viewers. There was a gap in the series when Sonia’s brother died.

Even so, after 8 episodes and 3 months, 5 days after the most recent episode it had 3,090 views. On 8 November 2020 episode 4 (uploaded on 6 November) had 3012 views. So it is not a huge change. Furthermore, not every view represents a person and not every view represents a person who watched the episode to the end. On 8 November Poulton had 8,473 subscribers and today she has 9,375. That is an increase of under 250 a week. It is not insignificant but it is not going viral.

Continue reading →

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

Posted on November 18, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

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 →

Hemming v Poulton: Sonia Poulton Begs for More Time

Posted on November 16, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

A few weeks ago I reported on a public statement by Sonia Poulton. In her video she responded bullishly to a threatened claim in damages by John Hemming. In the description, she thanked, “Brand New Tube and their legal team”. Whether or not thanks were due is a matter of opinion. In her video Poulton seems to refer to at least one defence which has been abolished. Since then Hemming has filed his claim in the High Court and served Poulton. Despite her public bravado, her confidence seems to have wavered. Today, her third solicitor since the matter began obtained an Order for an extension of time to serve a Defence.

Sonia Poulton talked tough and issued an inflammatory and misleading ‘official statement’ on the dispute. Now, she is on her third solicitor and has begged the High Court for more time to serve a Defence. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.

Of course, there would normally be nothing wrong or unusual about asking the court for an extension of time except that per the video above Sonia had already prepared her defences. So … why not just write them up? Why ask for more time? The Order the court has made is public, so I can say that it was made on the basis of CPR 23.10 (without notice / hearing from John) and costs lie in the case (the winner of the libel claim will get the costs arising from the application and resistance to it).

Because the Order was made under CPR 23.10 Hemming now has the option of applying to set it aside or pointing and laughing at the other side’s frantic antics. What he does is a matter for him but he is unlikely to be feeling especially stressed.

In the meantime, your author confesses to being genuinely bewildered by Brand New Tube’s (BNT) approach to Poulton. In a recent edition of the Raw Report, Muhammad Butt (a director of My Media World Limited, which owns BNT) confirmed Sonia Poulton was employed. Yet, she continues to produce content as an employee which carries a high risk of defamation proceedings in relation to un-convicted, living, individuals it is suggested ought to be suspected of child rape and / or murder. Not, one would suspect, a recipe for business success (or solvency).

Is Paedophilia Internet Troll @CraftyMuvva really so Crafty?

Posted on November 11, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

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.

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 →

High Court Case Filed: Seeking £100,000 from Brand New Tube, Sonia Poulton and Muhammad Butt

Posted on November 9, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

On Friday, Sonia and Muhammad hosted a video entitled the Raw Report 04. Somewhat misleadingly, Poulton said this of me, “Sam Smith, has sent Muhammad Butt, Senior Founder of Brand New Tube a number of outrageous emails about me, sometimes citing Hemming’s case against me and how there is intention to damage me irreparably through it. Some of this correspondence is, in my view, reminiscent of blackmail and extortion with threats of public exposure for things which make no sense and demands for sums of money if BNT refused to comply“. If by “demands for sums of money”, she meant “a letter of claim”, sure. I am suing them for £100K over various publications I feel are defamatory and also Muhammad Butt’s video in which he condoned violence against me.

An email from the High Court e-Filing Service, Confirming Approval

In response to the misleading in the video claims, I confirm the following. In UK law, before suing someone you usually have to send them a letter. Such letters are ordinarily confidential. On 30 October 2020 I wrote a letter of claim to My Media World Limited (operator of Brand New Tube), Muhammad Butt and Sonia Poulton. The Defendants instructed a solicitor, Blake O’Donnell of Spencer West LLP, but did not reply in a compliant fashion. Instead they misleadingly described the letter as Blackmail in a public video on their website. Under the circumstances, I consider that either confidence in the letter has been waived by the Defendants or that there is now a countervailing public interest in my setting the record straight.

So, was it a bluff? Was it Blackmail? Unfortunately for the Defendants, nope. Over the weekend my supporters and I prepared the court documents and I filed them online on Sunday night. The court clerk approved the filing today. The court case has started. The value of the claim is £100,000. I did toy with the idea of publishing the letter of claim, which may still become appropriate but for now it is sufficient to provide proof that I am really suing them.

As my biography belows explains, I am not a solicitor. I do however have a Master’s Degree in Law (Legal Practice) and that includes the Legal Practice Course – the exam you need to do to become a solicitor here in the UK. The fact that I have not practiced but just used the skills in my IT business and charitable work is irrelevant. I have nearly 10 years experience as a McKenzie Friend now and have done 6 libel cases for myself or others. All successful. We shall see how matters progress.

Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

Exposing the Guilty – Protecting the Vulnerable

Category Archives: John Hemming

Poulton v Hemming: Poulton pays my costs of correcting her lawsuit!

Bleach Mummy Charisse Burchett: Social Services Making Enquiries After MHN Investigation

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

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

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

Raw Report with Sonia Poulton Fails to Take Off – Are Brand New Tube Counting the Cost?

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

Hemming v Poulton: Sonia Poulton Begs for More Time

Is Paedophilia Internet Troll @CraftyMuvva really so Crafty?

High Court Case Filed: Seeking £100,000 from Brand New Tube, Sonia Poulton and Muhammad Butt