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

Hemming Brings it – Court Papers re Sonia Poulton Filed

This is just a brief note updating my previous articles about Sonia Poulton (1st here, 2nd here). At around 10:38am this morning proceedings were brought by John Hemming in his claim against Sonia Poulton. The fee has been paid and the filings accepted by the clerk. The court case is no longer a threat, no longer a possibility. It has been filed. Sonia Poulton has yet to be served or enter a defence, and it is now for a court to decide matters. However, she has been sent a receipt and copy of the final legal papers as a courtesy.

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.

This will be a new development to Poulton, a figure who has faced legal threats for years but somehow avoided litigation. To me she seems to be a pathetic figure much like David Hencke, who humiliatingly settled Hemming’s libel claim against him in 2018. Once taken seriously by the national press, her career has followed a “this is spinal tap” model into self-publication. She has shaded into ever more dangerous territory and her recent podcast with Shaun Attwood has finally put her into deep waters.

Poulton now face the risk of further lawsuits. She has made public remarks about two supporters of Hemming, with the following words – “I’ve finally found out the reason why two creepy middle-age, childless men have been stalking me and survivors of child abuse for years. And I’m going to expose them,” (tweet) (archive). Her difficulty with this statement of course is that stalking is a crime. If the men can be identified, even by a small number of people, then they can sue her. In order to defend her statement, she might well have to prove that they are guilty of the offence for which they have not been convicted.

Share Button

Hemming v Poulton Update

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

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

NewProject2 – It was MHN not Leopirate

The closure of 9chan / Kiwi Farms / Joshua Moon funding site Newproject2 was not caused by Leopirate (although his channel is great and so is his recent video). It is not a free-speech issue. It was me. I had their account closed and it is going to stay closed whilst Josh is a member. Newproject2 is owned and run by low-rent internet shock-jock Dick Masterson. Dick Masterson appears to have ignored the complex regulatory requirements that apply to would-be financial institutions like Newproject2 LLC.

Master Card Closes New Project 2 2020-05-29

MasterCard required that NewProject2 be investigated by its acquiring bank due to its provision of services to Joshua Conner Moon and various regulatory breaches. The investigation led to termination of the account.

I have been quiet for a while on the dreg-o-sphere (my pet name for the embarrassing fringe of the fringe of the Right who actually associate with Joshua Conner Moon and Ethan Ralph). That is because I have been doing productive things. I passed my law exams and whilst I have not sought to practice law as solicitor I have been helping celebrities and politicians pro-bono in high profile lawsuits in the Queen’s Bench as a McKenzie Friend.

Aside from the Coronavirus lockdown I have been earning very much in the higher income tax bracket from the IT business I own. I have been writing articles on major issues. In this recent judgement (archive), a woman called Esther Baker made 200 pages of complaints about me to a High Court judge. The complaints were all rejected, as having, “no merit”. Baker had to pay the costs of making us read her complaints about my articles.

I was praised in a newspaper recently for defeating two of Britain’s biggest and most prestigious libel law firms in a case –

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

Twitter and Bristows in Humiliating Libel Climb Down

On Friday night, 1st May 2020 I received a letter from UK solicitors Bristows instructed by Twitter. They demanded I take down my article of 14 April 2020 about Twitter, claiming it was defamatory of unnamed staff. Now, after I wrote back pointing out I was legally qualified and identifying their procedural errors, they claim this was just an informational comment, and not a libel threat at all and they do not have to reply to my requests for information as they are not proceeding with the Pre-Action Protocol they have to follow in England before suing me.

Extract from Bristows' Email of 6 May 2020

Bristows now claim they were never threatening to sue me on behalf of Twitter. I understand that Robert Graham and Alex Keenlyside are responsible. Image adjusted to show headed paper logo above the relevant paragraph.

In England, the Civil Procedure rules require that before suing someone you write them a letter and try to resolve the claim with them. In libel, the applicable rule is the Pre-action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims. If a party fails to follow the rules, the court can impose tough sanctions like ordering them to pay some or all of the other side’s legal fees even if they ‘win’ and the other party ‘loses’.

As pointed out in my previous article, in their letter to me, Bristows were missing a lot of important information such as (for example) the name of any natural person claimant, details of the alleged serious harm and other elements required by UK law. Of particular importance the claimant has to set out which facts they dispute and why. Therefore I sent them a request for information under the protocol to include the missing information. Bristows now claim they were never following the protocol at all and so do not have to make any disclosures. It follows that there is no intent to sue me at all. I will still consider complaints and further letters with an open mind but in the absence of the requested information see no reason to remove or modify my article.

That is, my article naming Vijaya Gadde and Del Harvey (née Alison Shea) and stating that they had intentionally and in breach of Twitter’s supposed policy allowed vile harassment / stalking of a child abuse victim and anti-Semitic hate speech. My article also stated that, in effect, they were backing the anti-Semite and the stalker by allowing them to continue to post. I am not in receipt of any clear factual statement from Twitter setting out any basis as to why those allegations are wrong.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg once famously described Twitter as being like a clown car that crashed in a gold-mine. Apparently, this is also true of their lawyers.

Share Button

Twitter Threatens to Sue! Del Harvey and Vijaya Gadde Double Down

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg once famously described Twitter as being like a clown car that crashed in a gold-mine. Their latest antics, involving their lawyers at Bristows, include writing me one of the worst ‘libel’ letters I have ever seen. The specific lawyers on the case are Alex Keenlyside and Robert Graham. I reproduce the relevant parts below. Then I school them on procedure and more importantly the substantive facts of their case.

Bristows Libel 2020-05-03

Bristows’ letter to my mind is deficient in law. I understand that Robert Graham and Alex Keenlyside are responsible. Image adjusted to show logo above the relevant paragraph.

I received a letter just past 8pm on Friday night. It is a trashy tactic solicitors use that works with many people. However, although I do not practice as a solicitor I have passed the exams (LL.M LPC Commendation) and have nearly 9 years experience as a McKenzie Friend. I have written the pleadings of multiple libel cases so late night letters are less impressive to me, especially given the obvious, negligent and improper failure in this one to comply with the relevant UK law, the Civil Procedure Rules.

Much of the letter is a request for information. Twitter asks for court documents relating to the recent court case in which Esther Baker was found liable for racist harassment because of various proposed legal claims against it, in multiple jurisdictions. The last paragraph however is a demand I remove an article, which is said to be defamatory. Twitter are concerned with my article of 14 April 2020, headlined, “Twitter’s Del Harvey / Alison Shea and Vijay Gadde Openly Back Child Rape Stalker and Anti-Semite Racist”. So far they have not sought to challenge my article, “Labour’s Secret Deal with Twitter and Facebook to Surveil its own members”.

The article complained of referred to Twitter’s decision not to remove proven racist stalker Esther Baker’s account nor the tweets held by a judge to be racist stalking. The same article complained of Twitter’s failure to remove anti-Semitic material posted by a man named Alan Goodwin. As previously covered on MHN, Esther Baker has been successfully sued by former MP John Hemming and a child abuse victim who MHN is anonymising as a courtesy. Twitter, of course, has rules against racism and ‘targeted harassment’ so one would think in light of the lengthy judgement to the effect that Baker engaged in racist targeted harassment over a period of years the issue would be a no-brainer. Nope. “Clown Car”!

Continue reading

Share Button

Twitter’s Del Harvey / Alison Shea and Vijaya Gadde Openly Back Child Rape Stalker and Anti-Semite Racist

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.]

Vijaya Gadde at a Fortune Event

Vijaya Gadde, Legal, Policy, Trust and Safety Lead at Twitter, at a Fortune Brainstorm Tech event. Would she be such a popular speaker if she was properly no-platformed due to her allowing vile stalking and racism against a child rape victim and anti-Semitism by the perpetrator’s friends? Picture by Photograph by Kevin Moloney/Fortune Brainstorm TECH. (NC License here).

Imagine you were raped as a child by a paedophile Priest. Then imagine that years later, as the trial of the priest took place you were subject to a campaign of racist stalking by a, “particularly malevolent”, vile and mentally ill harasser. The stalking puts your health and life at risk. Eventually, the Priest is convicted and the stalker is bankrupted and made subject to a lifelong restraining Order. Both verdicts are upheld on appeal. Now imagine, that an international social media company Twitter helps and empowers your stalker, who has been associated with prominent Labour MPs like Jess Phillips, and refuses to remove their stalking material, apparently contrary to its own rules.

[UPDATE From Twitter Below – 14 April 2020]

This of course is a real story. Esther Baker was recently bankrupted and made subject to a lifelong restraining Order for the racist stalking of a child abuse victim. Baker is of course publicly known because she was one of the VIP paedophile accusers associated with Exaro News, like Carl Beech. She received support from Labour MPs and was even invited to the House of Commons by Jess Phillips MP. Ironically Phillips is now the Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence and Safeguarding.

The judge really did call Baker, “particularly malevolent”. The restraining Order is one of two such Orders she has received because of course she has also been restrained from repeating her, “untrue” allegations about former MP John Hemming. Of course County Court judges see lots of stalkers, family cases and domestics so a finding that stalking is particularly malevolent is saying a lot. Baker was so depraved she even tried to contact the paedophile priest – to try to undermine his conviction! It borders on the immortal line, “So, we got a once in a lifetime, top of the line looney tuney”, from the movie Basic Instinct. Except of course that Baker, who admits to hearing voices, is no Sharon Stone.

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 stalking. If only Vijaya Gadde, Del Harvey (Alison Shea), Karen White and Sinéad McSweeney over at Twitter would protect them too!

Whilst Baker has occasionally, grudgingly, removed some tweets she has not removed most of the stalking tweets including some that may put her in breach of the various court Orders against her. So, needless to say, Twitter were contacted by some of her victims. John Hemming had also been in contact with Twitter and can produce email receipts from their report form going as far back as 2017. As a result of a number of controversies, Twitter has enacted a number of supposed rules. Targeted harassment is supposedly prohibited (archive). Racist harassment is supposedly prohibited (archive). In the context of hate of protected groups, the Twitter rules state that, “We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs […]”.

Continue reading

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