Now many who read my blog will know that I was, in the 1991-2008 period, at various times a practising barrister (in England) and an employed barrister (mostly overseas). Defamation was not one of my specialisms. I would have liked it to have been. It is an interesting and lucrative field, often involving interesting and/or famous people, though certainly not demanding the highest legal skills or intellectual gifts (contrary to the general public belief).
I did a few cases of libel while at the Bar, though all were advisory; none reached a substantive court hearing. I did advise, pro bono (unpaid), and when only a student, on a libel matter the result of which made the front pages of the more serious newspapers: Flegon v. Solzhenitsyn [1987].
Unable (as a mere student) to appear before the judge and civil jury (all defamation cases then had a jury), I nonetheless attended court most days, sometimes all day, wrote (mostly ignored) instructions and good advice for the plaintiff (now dumbed-down to “claimant”), and advised generally on tactics etc (also mostly ignored). I was told by another attendee that once, I having told Flegon’s assistant to give Flegon a note while he, Flegon, was (speaking very loosely) “cross-examining” a witness, I bowed myself out of [High] Court, only for the judge to demand of Flegon, as soon as I had gone, “to see that note that you have just been given”. Apparently, the judge read the note and told Flegon (who was proving a massive pain to the judge in various ways) to “listen to the good advice that you have been given, Mr. Flegon”! My first commendation by the Bench!
The Daily Telegraph said, when Flegon died (16 years later, in 2003):
“His remarkable success at repeatedly getting manuscripts out of the Soviet Union led to the widespread view that he must have had contacts in the KGB; but in 1987 he won £10,000 libel damages in the High Court from Solzhenitsyn over an allegation to that effect in the Russian version of The Oak and Calf. Unable to afford a barrister’s fees, Flegon conducted his case himself, in faltering English.”
Well, returning from the past to the present, we often see people, usually on Twitter, either talking about suing this or that person (often another “tweeter”) or expressing an opinion on defamation cases before the courts.
The average Joe has no idea about legal matters, and yet many opine about the law and practice of defamation, perhaps because it tends to attract msm publicity. For example, the tweet below betrays no hint that the tweeter knows that people have never been allowed to get legal aid for matters of defamation.
"Kezia Dugdale wins £25k defamation case brought by Wings Over Scotland"
This seems to me a balanced and reasonable judgement. A Win-Win. But who will pay the costs of the action? Shared costs between plaintiff and defendant? The taxpayer? I hope not …https://t.co/ix1WbN1CBQ
Despite having been expelled from Twitter, I read the tweets of others, particularly those whom I consider “persons of interest”. Often, en passant, I see tweets by various idiots either threatening others with legal action or recommending that others sue —often named— other parties in defamation. Few seem to understand either the relevant law (which has changed somewhat in recent years) or the practical aspects.
In the Kezia Dugdale case reported today, the Scottish judge decided that the words written were defamatory, but that the defendant, Ms. Dugdale, had a defence (that of fair comment). By the way, note that that defence has now been replaced, in England and Wales, by a defence of “honest opinion”, but this case was heard in Scotland under Scottish law.
Now the claimant in that Kezia Dugdale case, a Mr. Campbell, obviously does not understand the law, having tweeted only today that the law or legal system is, in effect, asinine because the judge decided that the words were defamatory and yet had decided against him! Like many many others on Twitter etc, the said Mr. Campbell does not seem to understand that even if words are defamatory on their face or by implication, the defendant might yet have one or more of the available defences.
Time and again on Twitter (I am not on Facebook) I see people, innocent of any useful legal knowledge, claiming that words which are not defamatory anyway are defamatory, or (where the words might be defamatory) ignoring the available defences.
Prominent among the above are Jews on Twitter, who often invoke the name of “Mark Lewis Lawyer” (the Jew-Zionist lawyer who recently fled to Israel after being found guilty of professional misconduct: see Notes, below). In fact, his publicized defamation cases were all (the ones I saw anyway) very simple and straightforward, requiring little real legal expertise. My honest opinion is that he is a copper-bottomed self-publicizing poseur.
Take a look at the above paragraph. It might or might not be considered in part “defamatory” (or it might be considered as a whole or in part a “mere vulgar insult”, which would not be actionable in any event). Also, even if the statements above, or some or one, were to be considered defamatory, I have defences open to me should the supposed “top defamation specialist” reach out from his mobility scooter or wheelchair in Israel to sue me (he has so far not done so in respect of any of the rather many blog posts which I have written about him in the past months). I have the defences of, inter alia, “Truth”, “Honest Opinion”, and “Publication on a matter of public interest” available to me.
There again, the armchair lawyers of Twitter rarely consider other factors, chief amongst which is whether the defendant has any funds. If not, large sums (in some cases, hundreds of thousands of pounds) might be expended in pursuit of a defendant who (like me) would simply declare bankruptcy if faced with a money judgment. Bankruptcy in England is now little more than an inconvenience lasting for a year (in most cases) for someone without capital (whether in cash or real or other property) or income. There are few advantages to being broke (as I now am and, incidentally, as “Mark Lewis Lawyer” now is); one of them, though, is the useful one of being effectively “unsueable”.
There are other factors, but this is a blog post, not a legal treatise.
It is usually the case that the best advice that can be given to a potential litigant in defamation is “don’t”! Three examples:
Oscar Wilde. Wilde need not have brought the libel action which eventually led to his disgrace, imprisonment, exile and early death;
David Irving. A fine and persecuted (by the Jew lobby) historian, but not a lawyer. Need not have brought the case against Deborah Lipstadt, an American Jew-Zionist academic supported and funded by the worldwide Jewish/Zionist lobby. Insisted on appearing for himself. Said to have lost £2M in costs to the other side, at least on paper. He also, more importantly, had his books removed from large bookshop chains; some were even pulped. Large publishers dropped him;
Count Nikolai Tolstoy. The only one of the three whom I have ever met (once). The only one of these three who was the defendant (there was also a co-defendant in his case). He lost, but eventually paid only £57,000 of the £1.5M awarded against him initially; he paid the £57,000 years later and only after the death of the plaintiff, Lord Aldington.
So, Twitter armchair lawyers and the perpetually outraged: don’t put your daughter on the stage, never wear brown in town and stop threatening libel suits against people, even if you can get lawyers you can rely upon…
Those who read my blog regularly will know that I am far from being an unalloyed fan of Jeremy Corbyn. I think him wooden and not a genuine political thinker, someone who is stuck somewhere between the crypto-Communism of the Michael Foot era and the ideological madness of the contemporary self-described “Left” (I myself never use terms such as “Right”, “Left” as useful descriptors), the crazies who have rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of old-style socialism in and after 1989.
You get the idea.
Corbyn is, in short, a bit of a joke. I have blogged about him, and what I call Corbyn-Labour, in the recent past. He and his party are also in favour of, or not opposed to, mass immigration and the “multikulti” society.
I have little time for Corbyn as a political leader, as such. His poor intellectual level and Lego-brick level of understanding of society and international politics and geopolitics give little confidence.
On the other hand, there is or was something not entirely unpleasantly familiar about Corbyn. As I have blogged and (before I was expelled from Twitter) tweeted about him, he is a recognizable 20th century English type: the bearded “socialist” from the provinces (in Corbyn’s case, transplanted aged about 22 to London), wearing his Lenin cap, reading the Morning Star, Tribune and the Guardian, protesting against 1980s South African apartheid or Israeli West Bank settlements etc, supporting Castro-Cuba, “revolutionary” 1980s Nicaragua, “socialist” Venezuela etc.
Corbyn’s type, with variations, could be observed from around the time of the First World War, and up to the present day, in its “natural surroundings”: the Durham Miners’ Gala, the Tolpuddle Martyrs annual event, the conferences of the Labour Party and TUC, local constituency Labour parties, CND marches, steam rallies, heritage railways, allotments. So much of a “type” is Corbyn that he could easily be imagined included in a series of “English types” in the Edwardian cartoon tradition, complete with outsize head and a little descriptive caption.
Corbyn’s elevation to the Labour leadership was, as I have also blogged, little short of miraculous. Since 2015, Corbyn has also managed to fight off repeated Jew-Zionist attempts to unseat him. What do “they” want? They want Corbyn gone so that Jew-Zionists, lobbyists and placemen can once again control Labour. “They” already control the misnamed “Conservative” Party and have done since at least the end of the Thatcher era; until Corbyn’s accession, “they” controlled Labour too. They want that control back.
We have seen recently how some of Corbyn’s enemies in the Commons started to capitulate and leave the Parliamentary Labour Party, committing political hara-kiri
At the same time, however, Corbyn-Labour has made the mistake of trying to conciliate, making concessions to the Jew-Zionist element. It did that before, when it surrendered to “them” over the so-called “international” “definition” of “antisemitism” (in fact, adopted by fewer than 40 states out of about 200). Now Corbyn-Labour has given in on Chris Williamson MP and has suspended him.
Chris Williamson MP occasionally (maybe two or three times only) retweeted my tweets when I still had a Twitter account. However, when the Jew-Zionists noticed that fact, they criticized him for it, after which he stopped retweeting me and may have (I forget) blocked my account. Weak. It showed weakness in relation to the Jews. I have not forgotten that.
Now Corbyn, John McDonnell and some of their closest allies (as well as swathes of “useful idiots”) in Labour labour under the same cognitive dissonance problem: Corbyn and many of his supporters see what the Jewish-Zionist lobby is trying to do, want to fight against it, but at the same time tie their own hands behind their collective back by saying that they oppose “antisemitism” and are only against Israeli depredations and behaviour rather than being in any way hostile to Jew-Zionist lobby activity in the UK (or France etc).
Corbyn and most of Labour also go along with the largely-debunked “holocaust” narrative as well. It all just plays into the hands of the Zionist lobby, which controls or near-controls many Labour MPs. Yes, some have left (Luciana Berger, Joan Ryan, Angela Smith, Ian Austin, Chuka Fathead) and their political careers are finished. However, there are many like them still in place and reporting back: Stella Creasy is just one example. Mary Creagh, Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall also come to mind, inter alia, as do the outright Jewish Zionists such as Margaret Hodge.
Since Chris Williamson was suspended, the whole Jewish “claque” on Twitter and in the Press (in fact, in the msm generally) has gone mad again about Corbyn, “anti-Semitism” in Labour etc. It’s odd: we are told constantly that there is no “Jewish lobby”, and that individual Jews tweet or scribble purely as individuals, yet when something like this crops up, they all go the same way instantly, like a shoal of fish.
Corbyn-Labour, for all its flaws, is the only game in town right now for striking against the enemies of our British and European future. It can pave the way for social-nationalism down the road.
This is a crisis for Corbyn and his allies. They must either fight back against the encroaching, whining, pleading, manipulating and angrily-demanding Zionist lobby, or be “cribbed, cabined and confined”, imprisoned in a Zionist-constructed box made out of “antisemitism” allegations, “holocaust” fakery and a raft of trickster-drafted “definitions”, “regulations” and inhibition of free speech. Just say no!
Here we see the Jewish anti-Corbyn “claque-storm” in its “tweetstorm” mode, exemplified by this tweet, in which a Jewish woman wants the Labour Party to either disenfranchise its Sheffield Hallam branch (by putting it into “special measures”, i.e. ruling it from London), or to remove (or remove the rights of) the 40 members who voted for a statement (only 1 person voted against). You see the problem: the 40 English people count for less than the one Jewish or pro-Jewish one…If Labour did that across the country, it would be left without active members, the footsoldiers that win elections.
A good typical example of how, if you give “them” an inch, (((they))) take a mile: the Jew-Zionist lobby gets what it wants re. Chris Williamson, but then whines or blusters about how it is too little too late. Their next demand will soon be uttered…
Fiona Sharpe, spokesman for @LabourAgainstAS, said: ‘The decision of Labour's NEC ruling body not to allow Chris Williamson to stand as the Labour candidate for Derby North is too late in coming and totally inadequate. 3/6
When I wrote the above article, I thought that 30 or 35 states had “adopted” the “IHRA” definition of “antisemitism”. In fact, and as I now know, the true figure is only about 15, out of 200 states.
I interrupt other blog writing to address an immediate issue. The activist known as Tommy Robinson has now been banned from Facebook, he having already been barred from Twitter. That news highlights again something that I have been writing about, blogging about, speaking about (at the London Forum in 2017) and tweeting about —before I myself was banned or rather expelled from Twitter in 2018— for years, the privatization of public space.
In past ages and, indeed, until about 20 years ago, public space was literally that: the agora of ancient Athens, the forum of ancient Rome, the barricades of revolutionary France, the brief outbursts of free speech in the Russia of 1917 or the early 1990s, and Speakers’ Corner by Hyde Park in London, where a youthful Millard (aged about 21) spoke to fickle crowds a few times in the late 1970s.
Today, the traditional fora of free speech, eg in the UK, are very restricted. Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) made a speech in Whitehall in 2015. He mentioned Jews a few times. That alone was enough (triggered by the malicious Jewish Zionists who denounced him, the supine police who are now so often in the Zionist pocket, the wet CPS who are not sufficiently resistant to the Zionists’ endless whining demands, a Zionist-controlled System-political milieu, and a Bar and judiciary which are frightened of their own shadows and even more of those of the Zionists) to have Jez Turner imprisoned for a year. He served 6 months and was only recently released to live for months more under considerable restriction.
The “public space” which is now most significant is online space. Twitter, Facebook, blogging platforms etc.
I myself was expelled from Twitter last year. I had been the target of both the Jew-Zionists and mindless “antifa” (aka “useful idiots” for Zionism) for about 8 years. I have also had my freedom of expression taken away in other ways, as well as having been interrogated by the police (again at the instigation of malicious Jew-Zionists) for having posted entirely lawful comments on Twitter. I was also disbarred, quite wrongly, for similar reasons.
Alison Chabloz was persecuted, prosecuted and convicted for singing satirical songs in the manner of 1920s Berlin. She is appealing her conviction and the result of her first-stage appeal. She has also been expelled from Twitter (as well as being made subject to a court ban from social media, which bars her from posting until mid-2019).
If Twitter or Facebook ban you, you may have some limited right of appeal, if they so choose to extend it to you. You have no legal right to stay on Twitter or Facebook despite the fact that, in real terms, they are near-monopolies. Yes, I am now on GAB, but GAB has only 500,000 users, if that, whereas Twitter has perhaps 500 million! The fact that, as I believe, Twitter is largely a waste of time, is beside the point.
The point is that, beyond your very limited contractual or other rights qua customer, you have no rights in respect of Twitter or Facebook (etc). Qua citizen, you have no rights at all. You have no right to post, and if the owners or executives of those companies decide to bump you off, off you go, whether you have 50 followers, 3,000 (as I did) or a million.
The Blair law of 1998 [nb: 1998 = 666 x 3…], requiring political parties in the UK to be registered, all but killed any semblance of real political-party democracy in the UK. Now, free speech both online and offline is being, on the one hand, criminalized or subjected to other State repression (at the instigation of the Jewish-Zionist lobby), and on the other hand choked off at source, by companies (under Zionist control or influence) barring dissidents or known activists from even posting dissenting or radical views online.
As to Tommy Robinson, I am not personally one of his supporters, and I deplore his attempt to play the sycophant for Israel and Zionism, but he has some views which are valid, in my opinion.
In any case, freedom of expression is indivisible. It is facile to make arbitrary distinction between some free speech, calling it “hate speech” and so unacceptable, and other speech which is labelled “acceptable” (politically approved) speech. That is mainly hypocrisy. Even my own relatively mild postings are and always have been targeted by the enemies of freedom, of which the Zionists are the worst.
So we have, not only in England but elsewhere (eg in France, under Rothschilds cipher Macron) the same repressive tendency. Sajid Javid, Amber Rudd, Theresa May, others, are enemies of the British people and enemies of freedom of expression. They seem to want to ban all political activity and all political or socio-political expression which does not support the existing System. It is immaterial whether you call it that or “ZOG”.
The System in the UK, in France seems to think that it can slowly turn the screw on repression, controlling the political parties (or setting up “controlled” new ones, as with Macron in France and, perhaps, the “Independent Group” in the UK), preventing free speech by putting the fix into Twitter, Facebook etc, only having controlled news on or in the msm (controlled mass media outlets).
The Soviet Union tried a less subtle form of all that, and it still collapsed in the end. What the System politicians, msm faces and voices etc, fail to see is that a head of steam is building up in the UK (and France) and, if bottled up by the State and those behind the curtain, will eventually explode.
Another example, taken almost at random from Twitter:
As well as censoring our content over the past few weeks, Twitter have now deleted all the people we were following, which in turn means we have lost a ton of followers
Please RT and follow if you’re still right behind us – we have no idea why Twitter is doing this pic.twitter.com/opwxMMr6fX
Another example. A typical pseudonymous Jew-Zionist tweeter (troll), below, exults that a very prominent pro-Corbyn Twitter account, “Rachael Swindon”, has been “suspended” (probably, like me, expelled):
In fact, Rachael Swindon has been reinstated, though only after Twitter’s vice-President for Europe intervened. Why should such people control the online public space? Again, why should the police barge in with large boots and interfere with free speech when no threats are involved? It’s all wrong.
The pro-Jewish lobby freeloader and careerist Tom Watson MP, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Watson_(Labour_politician) who has wormed his way to becoming Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (with his eyes on Corbyn’s purple day and night), has attacked Tommy Robinson in the House of Commons and asked YouTube to take down Tommy Robinson’s YouTube channel, which is his last online platform of any importance.
The excuse for Watson’s actions and statement has been the apparent fact that Robinson came to the house of one Mike Stuchbery, a failed (and sacked) supply teacher who poses as both “historian” and “journalist” online, and whose main activity seems to be online advocacy of opposition (including violence, though he usually uses weasel words) to any form of British or other European nationalism. Tommy Robinson has exposed the apparent fact that Stuchbery colluded with others to visit Robinson’s wife or ex-wife at her home. Robinson’s response seems to have been to do something similar to Stuchbery. Tom Watson, in his Commons statement, referred to Stuchbery as “journalist”, based presumably on Stuchbery’s politically-tendentious scribbles for HuffPost and other, smaller, online outlets.
In the end, if someone is prevented from making socio-political expression, that person can either subside into silence, or take other action. That other action might be peaceful, it might not be. When the repressed individual is a public figure with many thousands of supporters, those supporters may also take other action. That might include, potentially, and in the French term, “action directe” somewhere down the line.
Those (of various types: Jew Zionists, the politically correct, “antifa idiots etc) in our society, who crow at shutting down the freedom of others to make socio-political expression should, in the well-worn (Chinese?) phrase “be careful what they wish for”. The Spanish also have a phrase, a proverb in fact: “Do what you will, and pay for it.” Repression of views, not “allowing” people a public platform (and anyway, who is, for example, a blot like Tom Watson to decide who should or should not be allowed to speak?) can only lead to upheaval in the end.
It will be interesting to observe the UK political scene in the coming months and years.
A few tweets seen
A tweet with a few examples of the frequent passive but malicious incitement of violence against white people by “antifa” bastard Mike Stuchbery of Luton:
@MikeStuchbery_ is the coward who Doxxed #TommyRobinson's wife and children accompanied by the Media and a Crackhead. He is a Far Left Antifa Thug who needs exposing to the Whole country.
Below: self-described (fake) “journalist” and “historian” (failed supply teacher and house-husband) Mike Stuchbery inciting serious political violence but trying to deny it…
Below: fake “historian” and “journalist” Mike Stuchbery threatens minor Northern Ireland politico David Vance with a lawsuit. Does he have any idea how much a defamation action (for example) costs? He must have got the idea of constantly threatening to “sue” from the Jewish Zionists and their useful idiots on Twitter, who are always threatening legal action, and who often invoke the “sainted” name of Israel-based “Mark Lewis Lawyer” in this regard. In reality, Lewis is a wheelchair-bound blowhard fake, recently fined by a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for his behaviour. At the Tribunal, he admitted that he often had no idea what he was doing because of his intake of prescription drugs. Oh…and Lewis’s own Counsel said that “he has no assets” and that “his sole possessions are his clothes and a mobility scooter”! See:https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/?s=mark+lewis
This individual has been proven to be an unhinged, hate-filled extremist, who has whipped-up his followers to engage in violent acts. this pathetic weasel should be charged with incitement to commit a hate crime on this evidence – pic.twitter.com/Ec2Yr9AAMM
Something called “Press Gazette” also refers to grifter Stuchbery as a “journalist” (does he have an NUJ card? I suppose that, these days, any wannabee can scribble for peanuts or for free in the HuffPost, silly little online “news” agencies, or for the (now often semi-literate) online msm “newspapers”, and then to call himself “journalist”…and in Stuchbery’s case, “historian”, too!…)
The more serious point here is that “Culture Secretary” Jeremy Wright MP thinks that he is entitled to ask YouTube to take down Tommy Robinson’s videos, Tom Watson MP having already demanded the same. Freedom? Free speech? Free country? Hardy ha ha…
Update, 11 March 2019
and still the tweets keep coming…
You are my favourite tweet thus far. Mike is just an observer? Excuse me for hooting with laughter. Mike is an extremist. It’s documented all over Twitter. He earns a living from incitement not observation. Yet he refuses to take ownership of the effect he has on others.
and Stuchbery has hit back with the piece below, posted on yet another of the plethora of new “news and comment” websites that pose as quasi-newspapers, in this case calling itself the Byline Times
Stuchbery (and many others on Twitter etc) really should refrain from using legal terms wrongly or pointlessly, eg, in that piece averring that Tommy Robinson defamed him. Well, that may or may not be the case, in the lay sense, but any actionable defamation requires publication. I have no idea whether in this case, Robinson published (meaning said or wrote to third parties) any of the allegedly defamatory material via video streaming etc. It seems not. Then there are all the other factors, such as the defences, one of which is that the statements, even if defamatory on their face, are true…
In any case, it costs vast amounts to sue for defamation, though in some open and shut cases it may be possible to find “no win, no fee” lawyers (in the old American parlance, “ambulance-chasers”) willing to take it on, with the help of specialized legal “insurance” (which in my view comes close to champerty, in the old Common Law sense)
…and here we see some supposed “comedian” (comedienne? Never heard of her), by name Janey Godley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janey_Godley , saying that those exposing Stuchbery are “a danger to free speech”:
In fact, I also must have missed seeing any support from Janey Godley for Jez Turner, imprisoned for making, in Whitehall, a humorous speech mentioning Jews and their history in England; neither did I notice the aforesaid Janey Godley (I had never heard of her in any regard until today) tweet anything in support of satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz, persecuted by Jewish Zionists, then privately prosecuted by them before being prosecuted by the CPS (under pressure to take over the matter…) and then convicted, in effect, of singing songs.
An example, below, of the muddled thinking of many on Twitter and elsewhere: this idiot, calling himself/herself “66ALW88” (what?) thinks that the way to preserve free speech online is for the online platform companies to “crack down” on, er, free speech online…
Below, a tweet not at all significant in itself (there are literally thousands of unthinking, purselipped nobodies like this Irish “academic”, one Fergal Lenehan, around, all waiting for the chance to denounce people, to “report” to Twitter, Facebook or police, or wanting to ban the free speech of others not signed-up to the System/ZOG mental straitjacket). It is the trend, the existence of a large bloc of such nasty idiots that is of importance.
and here (below) is a well-funded basically Jew-Zionist organization which admits that it wants, inter alia, to stop the historian David Irving from conducting lecture tours. I think the reverse: that those who oppose freedom of speech on political, social and historical topics should themselves be stopped…
The fact that Irving has done this before does not mean that we should allow him to do it again. We have plenty of advance notice to prevent it this time.
Let’s try & stop this grotesque event from happening ever again.
— Anti-Fascism & Far Right 🥤 (@FFRAFAction) March 17, 2019
Update, 18 March 2019
Now the cowardly and mentally-disturbed grifter, Stuchbery, continues to try to claim the moral high ground, which is laughable (and note the support from a political cretin, “Leftwing Revolt”, in the thread below, who is a member or supporter of “Resisting Hate” and sees nothing wrong with someone he might disagree with being attacked with an axe! Resisting hate? You could not make it up…). I might not “support” Tommy Robinson, but I prefer him a hundred times over to Stuchbery and the “useful idiots” of “antifa”!
and (below), another little shit like Stuchbery, this time a New Zealander, who positively welcomes censorship and repression (and he is, wait for it…a “writer/director” of film and theater”!). One of the weird aspects of the present time is that those most eager to see censorship and ideological repression are “creative industries” drones, writers, film and TV people etc, and journalists.
and he retweets, approvingly, this (below) announcement of New Zealand governmental censorship. I personally have no wish to see footage of the recent New Zealand massacre, but that should be my choice, not the New Zealand (ZOG) government’s.
Chief Censor David Shanks has officially classified the full 17 minute video of the fatal Christchurch shootings as objectionable.
It is illegal for anyone in New Zealand to view, possess or distribute this material in any form, including via social media platforms.
and…again: the same little shit, one Andrew Todd, does not want the accused to be allowed to defend himself in case he says something the New Zealand government (ZOG) does not want people to hear…
Not everyone on Twitter agrees with the idea of censoring views and people being found guilty as soon as they are accused, however:
So you believe in a system where your proven guilty before your convicted by a judge and group of your piers. Let me give examples of places this has happened: Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, and Uganda during the rule Idi Amin.
Here’s another one, below, a New Zealand journalist positively gagging for censorship (I had no idea that NZ was so ZOG-occupied):
FYI, more useful detail on how the big tech companies are failing to weed out hate speech videos and how they missed out on white supremacist videos https://t.co/lYdO10D2Nr
and yet another virtue-signalling “journalist” who is, it seems, an enemy of both freedom of expression and of the future of the European peoples…
I spent a good part of 2 years reporting on ISIS internet and how the group uses social media — in 2019 it's mind-boggling to me how well the coordinated cross-platform effort to remove them from the internet worked and how there hasn't been a similar one for white supremacists.
The grifter actually makes a joke out of his begging and scavenging!
It's been a challenging – and expensive(!) – couple of weeks, so if you enjoy the written pieces, the history threads, or whatever, you can always make a small tip through my Ko-Fi… https://t.co/Xd2iEmxucQpic.twitter.com/OJ7UGuAzPr
Tommy Robinson has now been banned from Twitter (welcome to the club…) despite (because of?) his being a candidate in the European elections (North West England).
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” [John F. Kennedy]
Update, 5 June 20199
Another random example of how the quasi-monopolies of youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc have arrogated to themselves the right to censor and banish: [Update, 22 July 2022: the tweets etc noted have now been completely deleted]
Update, 18 June 2019
More…
A Dr Who writer @OldRoberts953 is expunged from a book by the BBC because he won’t conform to the latest transgender ideology. His views on transgenderism are probably shared by 90%+ of Brits but he’s now a Non-Person for the BBC. The net tightens around free speech. Please share https://t.co/G9fM2BK1e4
Grifter, “antifa” supporter, fake “journalist” and “historian” Mike Stuchbery is desperate to close down free speech for those with whom he disagrees politically. See his recent tweets, below. This is one of the worst enemies of freedom of expression in the UK.
YouTube shut down four major US white supremacist channels in the last 24 hours.
If they're serious about reversing the spread of radicalisation, here's four accounts in the UK they could shutter today… https://t.co/nNG4sk938a
The latest news is that some odd woman tied up with both “antifa” nonsense and Jew-Zionists has created a GoFundMe appeal on behalf of Stuchbery, supposedly so that he can sue the political activist known as Tommy Robinson.
I prefer not to comment on the proposed legal claim until I read more about the foundations for such claim. I presume that Stuchbery is doing this (the woman mentioned above may be raising funds for him but only Stuchbery himself can actually sue) because:
he knows or believes that Tommy Robinson has assets sufficient to satisfy any successful claim;
he has seen that others are already suing Tommy Robinson;
he thinks, perhaps, that a civil legal action will damage Tommy Robinson by starving him of funds;
if successful, Stuchbery will make a great deal more money than he gets at present via online begging or his part-time work in Stuttgart, where he now resides.
Were I the defendant, and leaving aside the potential substantive issues that might be in issue in the proposed case, I suppose that I should focus firstly on the fact that Stuchbery is
resident outside the strict jurisdiction (albeit still in the EU);
is a foreign national (as I understand, an Australian citizen);
has no real or other property in England and Wales;
has no means with which to satisfy any judgment on costs or in respect of any counterclaim or setoff that might be claimed by Tommy Robinson, should the Court decide against Stuchbery on one or more issues or otherwise.
I doubt that this claim will get off the ground. I certainly doubt that it will clear the probable first hurdle, as explained above, but we shall see. It appears, however, that plenty of mugs are donating to the said GoFundMe appeal at present.
Update, 25 November 2019
Stuchbery’s solicitors, Eve Solicitors (the firm is a limited company in fact, possibly in effect a one-man operation), are operating out of a rundown Victorian terrace in Bradford; several other small legal and other firms are operating nearby. The operation has only been in operation since 20 May 2019, at earliest:
The “firm” has only been at its present address since 28 September 2019, before which, i.e. from its incorporation in May until September 2019, it operated out of a tiny Victorian terraced house in a “Coronation Street” lookalike, Hudswell Street, Wakefield (Yorkshire).
The principal (and only named) solicitor is one Waseem Ahmed.
Where the name “Eve” came from, God knows. My only guess is “Adam and Eve”, as in the Cockney rhyming slang, “you wouldn’t Adam and Eve it!”
Only joking.
Having said that, when I was a practising barrister in London in the early-mid 1990s, I knew of Pakistani and other ethnic-minority solicitors (in London, in Luton and elsewhere) who used “English”-sounding names for their small firms. Some of them still owe me money! (Unpaid fees). I am sure that Stuchbery’s solicitor is not like that.
I looked earlier at the GoFundMe appeal set up to collect money for Stuchbery’s proposed legal claim against Tommy Robinson. So far, 262 mugs have donated a total (as of time and date of writing) of £5,209 to start the claim. I wonder whether they or others will donate the rest of the £15,000 asked for? Frankly, I doubt it, though the amount so far raised has been raised in only three days.
I doubt that the proposed lawsuit will either launch or get anywhere.
Further thoughts
The woman who is fundraising for Stuchbery, and who seems to have all day to tweet etc, has tweeted that “As many of you know, Mike Stuchbery is about to sue #TommyRobinson for harassment. He is backed by #ResistingHate and a full legal team.“
A “full legal team”? So that would be someone called Waseem Ahmed and…?
I do not say that “Eve Solicitors” (i.e. Mr. Ahmed) is a one-man-band (though it certainly seems to be), and I cannot say that there are no legal people offering advice etc from the sidelines (what used to be known at the Bar as “cocktail party advice”), but I do know, having been at one time a practising barrister who (in the 1990s) regularly appeared (weekly, at least) in the High Court, as well as in County Courts, and more occasionally other types of court and tribunal (both then and in the 2002-2008 period), that GoFundMe £20,000 will only serve to kick off such a case and claim, if I have understood its likely nature properly. Costs rapidly escalate.
Solicitors vary in their fees, barristers likewise. Simply to issue proceedings in a High Court action (which I suppose the proposed case would probably be) would be several hundred pounds as a minimum, and many thousands of pounds in some cases:
As a rule of thumb, a barrister will get anywhere from (as minimum) £500 a day on a small civil matter in the County Court, up to many thousands of pounds per day for almost any High Court matter, though there is no “limit” as such, and some barristers, eg the top commercial silks (QCs) will be on £10,000 a day or more. The spectrum is very wide.
As those who enjoyed Rumpole of the Bailey will know, a barrister usually gets a “brief fee” (to cover all preparation and the first day, if any, in court), then daily “refreshers”. How much are they? How long is a piece of string?
One of my own last few cases was a County Court commercial matter involving a large amount of cattle feed. Now that it is long ago since I last appeared in court (December 2007; this case was not long before that), I think that I can reveal, by way of illustration, that I was paid, that time, £5,000 as a brief fee and £1,000 a day for refreshers (in fact there were no refreshers, because the matter settled on the first day in court).
I have no real idea how much the case of Stuchbery v. Robinson might cost Stuchbery in legal fees if it is ever pursued to court, but my semi-educated guess (“semi” because I have not been involved with the Bar for over a decade) is that whoever presents it in court (unless doing it for free or on the cheap) will probably want a brief fee of perhaps £5,000 (at least) and (at minimum) £500 per day refreshers. Maybe £10,000 and £1,000 per day. It can be seen that, even at the lower estimate, a 2-week hearing (10 days in court, which this well might be) is going to cost £9,500 for Counsel’s fees alone.
Solicitors’ fees also vary widely. When I myself worked (overseas) for law firms (as an employed lawyer), the firms charged for my work at anything up to USD $500 (or about £400) an hour (I myself didn’t get that, sadly, the firms did); and that was over 20 years ago. I suppose that Stuchbery’s solicitors will not be very expensive, but will probably still charge maybe £50 an hour at absolute minimum. Solicitor case preparation might take hundreds of hours. 100 hours @ £50 p.h. = £5,000.
Then there are what solicitors term “disbursements”, i.e. the expenses of the case such as issue fees, witness expenses, whatever.
You can see how £20,000 can be quickly exhausted…
However, even if Stuchbery’s solicitors (solicitor?) can launch the proposed matter and fund a couple of weeks in court (and don’t forget that the solicitor, if in attendance, will also be charging for his time there), there is the matter of what happens if Stuchbery loses. No, that is not left to chance. The lawyers for the proposed defendant, Robinson, will in that event have to have their costs covered too. Even if they only come to the same level as Stuchbery’s (which I doubt), that puts Stuchbery (and possibly others who have funded the claim) £20,000+ in the hole. It could be a great deal more. Maybe even hundreds of thousands.
Stuchbery is an Australian citizen, maybe also a German one now (I do not know). He has no real property in the UK or, as far as I know, even in Germany, where he now lives. He has no, or no substantial, monies in the UK (or anywhere?). He does not have a substantial income or a full-time job.
On the above facts, and if Robinson applies in court for that, Stuchbery is almost certain to have to provide “security for costs”, i.e. [see above] monies “paid into court” (into a court-controlled account) to cover Robinson’s costs should Stuchbery lose his case. Likewise, on the above facts, that would almost certainly have to be the whole of Robinson’s likely outlay in defending the case. Certainly tens of thousands of pounds. Possibly over £100,000.
If Robinson applies for security for costs, if the court agrees with the application, but then Stuchbery cannot come up with whatever sum is demanded (I cannot think that it would be lower than £20,000; probably far far more), then the claim (the case) will be struck out, possibly with costs awarded to Robinson.
Stuchbery will probably have to raise £40,000+ even to start his case.
I think that my readers will understand better now why I think that Stuchbery has no chance of success regardless of the merits of his case (if any).
Presumably, Stuchbery does understand that, in a case like this, witnesses (he himself, Robinson, others) will have to give evidence, be cross-examined on that, all the while with Stuchbery staying in the UK, perhaps for weeks or even a month or more.
Many will have seen the newspaper reports, not all accurate, about the result of the Crown Court appeal from Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which ended today. Already the malicious “Campaign Against Antisemitism” supposed “charity” (Zionist propaganda, snooping and repression organization) has been spinning fake news. Gideon Falter, its Chairperson, has been quoted as saying that the verdict by a Crown Court judge in the appeal “sets a precedent” and means that “holocaust” “denial” (i.e. critical examination of the “holocaust” narrative) is now effectively illegal in the UK. That is of course nonsense.
Firstly, this was a decision by a Crown Court judge and so sets a precedent only in the most marginal sense.
Secondly, there will now almost certainly be a further appeal, on point of law, to the Divisional Court and, perhaps, yet higher. There are points of law in the Alison Chabloz case which are of general public importance and might even have to be considered by the Supreme Court in due course.
Thirdly, the learned judge [H.H. Judge Hehir] emphasized in his judgment that “anti-Semitism” is not a crime in the UK, and that “holocaust” “denial” is also not a crime:
“We emphasise that anti-Semitism is not a crime, just as Holocaust denial is not. Nor can the fact that somebody is a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite prove that anything she writes or sings is grossly offensive”
Alison Chabloz is expected to appeal her conviction and sentence further, initially to the Divisional Court. The fight for freedom of expression goes on!
Many readers of this blog will have read of my experiences with the malicious and extreme Jew-Zionist organizations, “UK Lawyers for Israel” (UKLFI) and “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” (CAA), the memberships of which overlap in part. For example, the abusive Jew-Zionist solicitor Mark Lewis, who has now fled to Israel, is a leading member of both.
I dare say that many ordinary people on, for example, Twitter, have no idea that sometimes, when they see a veritable tweetstorm or at least tweetsquall —such as that backing Lewis during his recent Disciplinary Tribunal hearing (he was found guilty anyway)—, they are actually reading tweets which are part of a barrage put out and/or at least loosely coordinated by those two groupings. Below, two blog articles which reported on my experience of these organizations:
The CAA Pressured the DPP/CPS to Prosecute Jez Turner and Alison Chabloz
1. Jez Turner
In 2015, Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) of the London Forum made a speech in the street, in Whitehall, London. One sentence mentioned the Jews, in such manner as that they should be removed from the UK. The CAA, which had agents at the scene, reported Jez Turner to the police there and thereafter. Eventually, the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] considered whether any offence of incitement might have been both committed and as to whether any prosecution was a. likely to result in conviction, and b. in the public interest. The CPS decided not to prosecute. Note that a prosecution under [the relevant part of the] Public Order Act 1986 requires the assent of the Attorney-General. In other words, Jez Turner could not have been prosecuted privately by the CAA for the alleged offence.
The CAA made application to the High Court for a judicial review of the no-prosecution decision made by the CPS. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), as head of the CPS, was the Respondent. On the eve of the relevant hearing in 2017, the DPP/CPS agreed to look again at their decision, thus avoiding a defeat but at the same time giving in to the demand of the CAA. After some time, the CPS announced that Jez Turner would now be prosecuted. He was, in 2018, in the Crown Court, no less than three years after he made his speech. He was, arguably, unlucky in his jury and possibly (I was not personally present) in his judge. He was given a full year in prison, of which half would actually be spent incarcerated (he was recently released). All for making a humorous speech in which one sentence said that the Jews should be (again) expelled from England.
2. Alison Chabloz
In the case of Alison Chabloz, who sang satirical songs, some of which mocked the Jew-Zionists, she was accused of having breached the (“bad law”) Communications Act 2003, s.127, in having, allegedly, posted online the said songs. The CPS refused to prosecute her or, rather, did not; with the time-limit of 6 months looming, the CAA took a private prosecution. Leaving aside the legal and technical argument on the merits, the CPS had the right to take over the case and, if it did, to drop it or to continue it. The CPS decided to take over the prosecution and continue with it (though it in fact substituted other charges for the original ones…). The offence is summary only. Alison Chabloz was convicted at trial in 2018 and given a sentence of (depending on how it is read) a total of 12-20 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 2 years, plus community service “serf labour”, a financial penalty of £700, and a 1 year ban on use of “social media”. Note, however, that Alison Chabloz is appealing both conviction and sentence.
3. Nazim Hussain Ali
Mr. Ali led and spoke at an anti-Israel rally in London. The CAA individuals hung around, in their usual fashion, tried to catch Mr. Ali saying something or other, then (as in the other cases mentioned here) reported him to the police. The CPS refused to prosecute and so the CAA took a private prosecution. The CPS took over that prosecution and discontinued it. The CAA then wanted to have that decision judicially reviewed. It was. They lost.
The judgment is worth reading in full, but the most relevant parts are:
“The DPP took the view that, in all the circumstances, the words used were not “abusive” within the meaning of that provision, so that a prosecution was more likely than not to fail.”
and
“As the [legal precedent] authorities stress, article 10 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] does not permit the proscription or other restriction of words and behaviour simply because they distress some people, or because they are provocative, distasteful, insulting or offensive.”
and
“this is a public law challenge, and this court can only intervene if the decision to take over the CAA’s private prosecution and discontinue it made by the Decision-Maker was irrational, i.e. a decision to which no properly directed and informed CPS decision-maker could have come. In my judgment, it cannot be said that it was irrational.”
My Thoughts
This was a big hit against the CAA. The CAA is an organization which for years has been making inflated claims, both in its own name and via sometimes pseudonymous and abusive Twitter (and other) accounts run by its leading members, notably Stephen Silverman (who styles himself “Head of Investigations and Enforcement”!).
Under its own name and under the real names of its leading members, but also under other account names, the CAA has for 4-5 years been threatening not only “anti-Semites” and “holocaust” “deniers” (historical revisionists), but anti-Zionist dissidents in general with unspecified police and other action, also sending, from pseudonymous Twitter accounts (etc) threatening and harassing tweets (etc) to and/or about individuals. Some people were constantly taunted online and even offline with threats about knocks on the doors of houses, arrests, prosecutions, trials, terms of imprisonment. Almost all figments of the sick imaginations of the CAA members in question.
Women in particular were targeted by a number of online social media accounts controlled by various CAA persons, and in particular by Stephen Silverman of Essex and his associate, one-time/sometime “film critic” Stephen Applebaum, of North London. The pair have been somewhat muzzled of late —having been exposed and had their real names etc exposed— and now mainly tweet (slightly less overtly venomously) as @ssilvuk and @rattus2384).
Another leading Jew-Zionist (at least in his own estimation) is one Gideon Falter, who apparently graduated from Warwick University in law, though if so did not carry through to becoming a solicitor or barrister. Falter, Chairman of the CAA, seems to have family money (his parents are said to own a house in a well-known street in St. John’s Wood, London where houses sell for anything up to £40 Million). He seems to spend most of his time on CAA or other Zionist activities. I suppose that that is one way in which, he may imagine, he validates his existence.
Falter has given evidence in several cases, but his evidence has not always been accepted as veracious. In the case of Rowan Laxton, in 2009, which therefore preceded the establishment of the CAA by 5 years, Falter gave evidence which, while accepted by the magistrates, was (at least impliedly) not accepted by the Crown Court judge at the appeal (rehearing), at which hearing Laxton was successful. He was fully reinstated at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is now H.M. High Commissioner in Cameroon: https://www.gov.uk/government/people/rowan-james-laxton–2
Laxton’s career success must be bitter for Falter, who has also had his testimony in other “anti-Semitism” cases strongly challenged…
Over the 4+ years since its foundation, the CAA has not been very successful. It has attempted to bring to trial (either by privately prosecuting people, or by making malicious allegations about them to the police and/or professional bodies) quite a large number of potential defendants. Most have either not been prosecuted or have been acquitted, or have been successful on appeal. A few people have been prosecuted for saying or writing rude things (quite likely justified anyway) about individual Jews (I noticed a few cases about landlords and property developers etc…). Most of those cases resulted in fines being handed down, by local magistrates, in the order of £50 or £100. Rather petty.
The larger scalps taken by the CAA are few, even if one includes the handful of successes by the UKLFI group: Jez Turner (now released after having spent 6 months in prison), Alison Chabloz (who is appealing now), a few minor harassment cases. The CAA failed to get the CPS to prosecute me for tweeting truth, and was too frightened to try to prosecute me privately, though UKLFI did get me disbarred in 2016 (8-9 years after I had anyway ceased Bar practice!).
The CAA has been —and I believe still is— under investigation both by the police and by the responsible officers of the Charity Commission. It has been criticized extensively by the more “Establishment” part of the Jewish power structure in England, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Chronicle. It recently suffered a considerable blow when one of its most active members, Mark Lewis, the venomous Jew-Zionist solicitor, fled to Israel after the conclusion of the Disciplinary Tribunal case brought against him by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority.
The finances of the CAA “charity” are opaque. I suspect (educated guess) that two particular Jew millionaires, indeed billionaires, have contributed to the CAA, and for them a few tens of thousands of pounds a year is a bagatelle. However, even the ultra-wealthy are probably unwilling to give much to an organization which consistently manifests failure.
I should love to know how many Jews are members of the CAA (are any of its members non-Jews? Maybe there are a few doormats here or there). My guess would be hundreds rather than thousands. It has appealed for donations, run pledge drives etc, and recently tweeted to recruit a half-time-working “communications” person at a salary of £12,500-£15,000 a year. Hardly sumptuous. The CAA Twitter account was inactive from 20 December 2018 until 11 January 2019.
I have no idea what, if any, costs will be payable by the CAA in relation to the latest defeat in court, but I hope that they will be substantial.
The latest defeat by the CAA, and Mark Lewis’s flight to Israel (where he has said, repeatedly, on radio and TV, that Jews should all leave Europe), must mark the beginning of the end for the abusive and fake CAA “charity”.
Objectively speaking, it may be that the CAA has done much to stimulate “anti-Semitism” in the UK…
Good luck to Alison Chabloz in her upcoming appeal!
Below, a very recent tweet thread in which Stephen Applebaum of the CAA, under his most recent pseudonym, @rattus2384, and with other Jews, attacks the father of a 16 year old girl allegedly targeted by yet another Zionist. [click for full thread]
The CAA’s sting seems to have been largely drawn. The CAA Twitter account has tweeted only once (on 11 January 2019) since 20 December 2018. Gideon Falter has not tweeted since 5 September 2018 (except for two retweets, on 6 November 2018 and 7 December 2018). Both Silverman and Applebaum/Rattus have been somewhat muzzled of late. Now that they have been fully unmasked and exposed, they have evidently decided that they have to be more circumspect online. The CAA star is fast-waning.
Update, 18 July 2019
Well, like the cockroach, the CAA is still embedded…Having failed to have a Palestinian activist resident in the UK prosecuted [see above], the CAA Jew-Zionists try to get him another way, by having his professional regulator (he is a pharmacist) “investigate” his political life and then perhaps haul him before a disciplinary tribunal. This is what “they”, meaning (((they))) do…(for my own experiences, see below the CAA tweet…)
“Al Quds Day” leader Nazim Ali, who blamed “Zionists” for Grenfell Tower tragedy to face regulatory investigation following complaint by CAAhttps://t.co/vJRAm5s8xz
— Campaign Against Antisemitism (@antisemitism) July 18, 2019
The UK professions now all have new, or fairly new, “Codes of Conduct” for the members of whatever profession is being “regulated”. These have been drafted by “Zionist” lawyers in almost all cases. Should the individual member of a profession be anti-Zionist, lo and behold, (((they))) make “complaint” about the “hate speech” or whatever that the individual is said to have uttered. A covert Zionist takeover, and an attempt to control the private and political life of the people affected.
Where “they” are, there can be no real freedom.
Update, 5 November 2020
The “Campaign Against Antisemitism” prevailed on the General Pharmaceutical Council to “prosecute” Nazim Ali. “Lawfare” misusing the professional regulations. Nazim Ali might have lost his shop, business, profession, decades of work, all because a pack of Jew extremists pretended to be “offended”.
As it was, the disciplinary case against Nazim Ali was heard mostly in the first week of November 2020. The result, given on 5 November 2020, was that the tribunal held that what Nazim Ali said in 2017 was not “antisemitic” but that it had been “offensive”. He was given an official (quasi-judicial) warning.
Ha ha! The CAA Jews thought that they were going to at least ruin and bankrupt Nazim Ali now that the police and CPS were not going to charge him with anything criminal. Instead, he was just given a warning.
The CAA cabal took Nazim Ali’s matter to judicial review, and the High Court decided to remit it back to the Tribunal, which found the case proved against him on two charges, but simply repeated the warning to Ali.
In other words, the CAA put out huge effort for effectively nothing. They are, however, claiming it as some kind of major Jewish victory…
The Jew-Zionist solicitor, Mark Lewis, was recently found guilty at a Disciplinary Tribunal on several charges brought by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority. My blog has carried the following articles about him and about some of his egregious behaviour, which behaviour has been manifested for a number of years, certainly since 2013:
Lewis and his partner/carer Mandy Blumenthal (Lewis has also referred to her, in a British TV interview, as his “wife”), “made aliyah”, i.e. emigrated from the UK to Israel, in late 2018, after he had been found guilty by the Disciplinary Tribunal. At that hearing, Lewis’s Counsel told the Tribunal that Lewis “had no assets” except for his clothes, a mobility scooter and a private pension [said to be worth £70 a week]. Lewis had an income (salary, payable only until March 2019 when his notice period expires) of £10,000 (pre-tax, per month), and was also in receipt of Disability Living Allowance benefit, which he was exchanging (with Motability) for a car.
According to the published judgment of the Tribunal, the financial penalty imposed upon Lewis, the relevant part of which was a fine of only £2,500, was reduced from £7,500 precisely because of his impecuniosity. He was said to have no real property and to be living in rented property in London.
In this very recent podcast, Lewis was interviewed from his location in Eilat, the Israeli resort on the Gulf of Aqaba. Why is this relevant? Well, in an interview of 2011 with the London Evening Standard, Lewis said this:
“I was devastated,” he says. “I’d been turned down for so many jobs, I’m thinking to myself, I can’t go on any more, you can only get so many knockbacks. I’m giving in and going to my flat in Israel and retire in Eilat.”
In the recent podcast, Lewis goes on to say that, while he has no intention of applying for the Bar of Israel (because of his poor Hebrew), he may be servicing “clients” which he claims he still has in the UK; he even implies that he may be making (as solicitor-advocate, presumably) court appearances in English courts! Well, that would not at present be possible, unless he has been approved by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority as a sole practitioner (which he did not say he has been), or unless Lewis acts as a member of a law firm in England (which I doubt that he is or will be). Otherwise, Lewis would only be able to deal with legal matters the substance of which is outside the UK. He certainly could not appear in English courts.
In the podcast, Lewis talks about how he can work from Israel on UK work, using computers etc, and about how “there are planes to get you to court appearances”! Once again playing the “big shot”, this time once more the “top lawyer” who flies in to London or wherever else in order to appear in court on some important case. Hardy ha ha…big talk from someone whose own Counsel said at the Disciplinary Tribunal hearing that Lewis should not be fined much because “he has no assets” (except for his clothes and a mobility scooter!)…and whose recent flight to Israel was gratis, courtesy of the Israeli emigration authorities.
Incidentally, the podcast interviewer introduced Lewis as “one of England’s most distinguished lawyers”! Is there any limit to “their” lies and gall?!
Implications
So in 2011, Lewis owned a flat in Eilat, Israel…Does he still own one there? If so, he may have deliberately misled the Disciplinary Tribunal. Of course, it may be that he does not now own property in Israel and therefore did not mislead the Tribunal. He may simply have been in Eilat on holiday, staying in rented property or in hotel accommodation. It does raise questions, though…
See tweet below: are Lewis and Mandy Blumenthal already on the way back??
So basically you are saying that you feel disabled passengers that need an ambilift are only suitable for the back row seats even when paying for the most expensive fare bracket? Funny how no other airline does that.
Well, it appears that the egregious Lewis has now joined what appears to be a firm of Jewish or mostly Jewish lawyers based in London. I thought that he and his “partner”/”carer”, Mandy Blumenthal, were fleeing British “antisemitism”? Lewis made a big fuss about going to live in Israel, only a month or so ago!
So…the UK is OK as a place to make money for him while he lives in Israel? Or is he actually back in UK? If so, full-time or part-time (or, er, not at all…)?
The firm in question seems to operate from 2A, Norland Place, London W.11. Norland Place is a small cobbled mews side-street in Notting Hill, as seen in the estate agency photos below (and on Google Earth).
According to Companies House, Mark Lewis was appointed a director of Patron Law Ltd on 23 January 2019. According to the 2-page pdf document attached to the filing document, Lewis gave his “Country/State where usually resident” as “United Kingdom”.
So did Lewis lie to the public and Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal in giving his (then upcoming) residence and/or domicile as “Israel”? Or has he made a false declaration to Companies House in stating that his “Country/State where usually resident” is the UK? Surely they cannot both be true?
Update, 30 January 2019
I will be based in Israel. Technology and flights mean I can live here and work there.
Lewis has apparently been retained by two minor UK Jewish “celebrities” and is threatening to sue on their behalf somewhere around 70 people, all or almost all Corbyn-Labour supporters on Twitter. As in the notorious McAlpine case (with which Lewis was not involved), Lewis is demanding that those tweeted by him supply their real names and contact details as a preliminary to “settlement” (surrender) or legal action.
“@Rattus2384” (aka @grubstreetsteve) is in fact Stephen Applebaum, a prolific Twitter user (troll) from North London, who is a member or supporter of the “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” (CAA), as is Lewis. Applebaum’s tweet puffs Lewis to absurdity. He fails to mention that Lewis’s own Counsel at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal a few months ago asked for Lewis to be let off lightly because Lewis “has no assets except for his clothes and a mobility scooter”!
“The UK’s most successful defamation lawyer”? Ha ha!
Update, 3 March 2019
Lewis pretending that his (honorary) “Doctorate in Law” was not given to him by his old poly just for being briefly sort-of “famous”…
You aren’t familiar with the Data Protection Act and GDPR are you. So simply revert to ad hominem attacks. I guess my doctorate in law was an award for stupidity.
Some of Lewis’s Tweets, Part of the Recent Case Against Him
Update, 4 March 2019
Meanwhile, some people [see the Jewish Chronicle link, below] find it hard to let go of the laughable illusion that Lewis is a “top lawyer” (in this case, “high profile lawyer”), despite the fact that “his employment was terminated” by his last three (if not four) employers (in acrimonious circumstances in at least two of the cases), despite the fact that Lewis was described by his own Counsel at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (which found him guilty of professional misconduct) as someone who “has no assets” except “his clothes and a mobility scooter“! Lewis also has effectively no income now, since his £7,000 net monthly salary from his last employers, Seddon’s, is cut off this month (the last month of his notice period).
Lewis, now resident in Israel but connected with a small law firm in London, has however been instructed to pursue tweeters on behalf of two unpleasant Jewesses also prominent on Twitter. I shall watch the progress of the actions (if proceedings are ever actually issued) with interest.
Below, another testimonial for the “top defamation lawyer”, Mark Lewis! Oh, no, wait…
PLUS @MLewisLawyer don’t forget that I have a LONG memory… I no longer recognise the Mark that acted for me anymore, what happened to your integrity? ???
Seems that some Twitter Zionists and others have not quite got the news, and think that “Mark Lewis Lawyer” is something more than a poisonous and near-insolvent bully impotently tweeting and threatening from his wheelchair or mobility scooter in Israel! Others, however, seem to be better informed…
But you're always one step ahead. Karma will get@MLewisLawyer.
I think that Karma is already having its effects on Lewis…
Update, 12 March 2019
The Jewish Chronicle hedges its bets now, referring to Lewis merely as “high profile lawyer”, no longer “top defamation lawyer” etc. The bastard’s £7,000 (net) a month from his former employer, Seddons, expires this month, so he may soon be feeling the pinch.
As I have said in the past, “Mark Lewis Lawyer” is a fraud, not worth his salt as a lawyer, but just someone who (and it is typical of “them”…) publicizes himself, talks a good game, but then only performs in simple open-and-shut cases (such as the Katie Hopkins/Jack Monroe case), which a child could litigate.
Ooooops I mustn’t forget to mention that my Phone Hacking litigation Case, is in full Swing …NO THANKS TO YOU YOU @MLewisLawyer. Just Saying ☺️ Looking so Forward #RupertMurdoch#NewsOfTheWorld#TheSun and OTHERS 😁💪🏿
Lewis is (quelle surprise) well-known to horrible “Blairite” MP (Common Purpose drone, expenses cheat, gay online dating site user, Labour Friends of Israel member, Remain and anti-Corbyn conspirator etc) Chris Bryant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Bryant
who won £30,000 from the News of the World in 2012. You cannot say that Bryant does not maximize his opportunities as an MP…
One of the amusing and ongoing aspects to the “Mark Lewis Lawyer” situation is the number of those on Twitter (mainly Jews, but not solely) who still seem to think that Lewis is “top lawyer”, “top defamation specialist” etc. They also tend to be those who imagine that libel actions can be brought at the drop of a hat, and without consequences if lost. They rarely know the law at all. Here’s one, inciting Lewis to sue an unnamed person (who seems to be in South Africa, at that!)
Sue him for libel Mark!
— (((LucilleGrantWriter)))🇮🇱 🇺🇦🔯 🟢⚪🟣 ♀️ (@L_D_Grant) June 23, 2019
People like tweeter (((LucilleGrantWriter))), obviously Jewish (again…), never seem to think how Lewis (whose Counsel told his Disciplinary Tribunal that “he essentially has no means“, and that “his only assets are his clothes and a mobility scooter“) might sue anyone in England or elsewhere on his own account!
Come to think of it, I have heard nothing, and seen nothing in the msm or legal websites about the proposed defamation actions being threatened by Lewis of behalf of UK-based Jew-Zionist “celebrities” Tracy-Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley (“Riley”? The only Jew I ever heard of with such a name was Sidney Reilly! In his case, he just invented his nom de guerre. Still, there it is.).
Under the law as it now is, libel actions in England have to be brought within a year of the date of publication. I seem to recall that the alleged libels (by Labour Party members and supporters, nothing to do with me, in case the reader is unaware!) were tweeted around November or even October of 2018, so time will run out within a few months. My guess? More Jewish Zionist bullying tactics, and there never will be any such libel action by those Jewish women.
Update, 10 July 2019
I never miss being in the UK, but I wish I was there tonight to watch #Panorama “is Labour Antisemitic?” and the rest of the series “Is the Pope Catholic?” and “Do bears defacate in the woods?” BBC 9pm @BBCPanorama@UKLabour
Lewis was born and brought up in the UK, educated here, lived and worked here, scarcely been anywhere else for most of his life, yet has no more real connection with this country than if he had just got off the boat from wherever his clan originated. There we have it. In a nutshell.
Seems that Lewis’s ex-wife, Caroline Feraday, has also fallen on hard times, living in a “Nowheresville” in California with her young daughter (Caroline Feraday is now a single mother). She says that she is unable to raise a mere $10,000 [£7,700], despite having some kind of (“office bod”?) job, and so has turned to GoFundMe. Strange. She was featured, in the past (in newspapers), a decade ago though, as having property of considerable value both in the UK and Brazil (in Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro) as well as (since 2013) in California.
Surprisingly, she has, and within only one day (at time of writing), managed to raise nearly $2,000 of the $10,000 for which she asks.
[above: the latest picture of Lewis, looking a little peaky; taken in London, February 2020]
Update, 10 July 2020
The reader will have noted that one-time wannabee “celebrity”, Caroline Feraday, who now lives in a obscure tract development in California, was, not so long ago, begging for money via GoFundMe, because her neighbour was, allegedly, harassing her [see above].
In fact, some mugs were still donating money to Caroline Feraday, via GoFundMe, only a month ago: https://uk.gofundme.com/f/legal-fees-dealing-with-stalkerharassment, yet the tweets below show clearly that she has recently spent out USD $10,000 on a sunroom or windows for her house (the sunroom or windows apparently not delivered or constructed):
Before lockdown I paid @SunroomsWindows for a job which should have been done in March. They’ve repeatedly lied and clearly don’t intend to fulfil, yet have taken 10k of my money, they’re are out of contract, told me they’d start today and just didn’t show. I’ve been too patient
.@SunroomsWindows are literally the MOST dishonest company I’ve ever dealt with. I don’t cry about much, but to have given them so much trust over and again and then no show broke me today. The world just seems too full of liars and tw*ts right now.
“Dishonest“? “Liars“? “Tw*ts“? Look in the mirror, if you can bear it! Ha ha! To my mind, this comes close to fraud: taking money from kindhearted mugs because she claims to be in desperate need, yet paying out the very sum she originally sought ($10,000) for her legal fees in order to buy special windows!
Update, 24 July 2020
Now Lewis is again retained by other Jews and/or Labour Party or ex-Labour Party members and/or employees to sue the Labour Party (which —under doormat for the Jewish lobby, Starmer— has rolled over) and, I believe that I read, Jeremy Corbyn personally.
We are back in “pound of flesh” territory…
Meanwhile, there has been a backlash, not only from Corbyn supporters, but from those who do not like or trust Lewis:
Donations to 'Jeremy's Legal Fund', to support his possible libel battle against John Ware, continue to surge.https://t.co/hLFOnoZcg5
— The London Economic (@LondonEconomic) July 24, 2020
Legal fighting fund started for Corbyn reaches £120,000 in first 24 hours https://t.co/j3jp28TM6I
I just checked: as of date and time of writing, that legal fund, which at first was aiming at a target of £20,000, has reached over £163,000, with about £30 coming in every minute! https://uk.gofundme.com/f/47gyy-jeremy039s-legal-fund
What about Lewis?
The same maniac #MarkLewis who represented me back in the day re my phone hacking claim and litterally did fuck all but court the media, and YET my NEW Lawyers took under 3 Months to settle the same claim this Year. Lewis needs to be disbarred, he’s no Lawyer he’s a warmonger
Well, of course Lewis cannot be “disbarred”, because he is not and never has been a barrister! He is a solicitor, though one whose behaviour has been more than merely questionable over the years.
Update, 28 July 2020
People continue to tweet about Lewis and his behaviour. Jews tend, generally, to corrupt the legal system of any country that “hosts” them. Lewis is a prime example. An abuser…
Other Zionist Jews have always supported Lewis on Twitter. There’s a whole cabal of them.
Mark Lewis told a court he was living on £75 a week – he doesn’t sound very successful to me. pic.twitter.com/VxL4dTjwmO
What sort of person gets disciplined and fined by their own Professional body the SRA for 'truly awful, nasty and dreadful' messages sent to Jewish people ?
Lawyer Mark Lewis
What sort of person hires such a lawyer to take action against 'antisemitism' ?
I still remember a few years back when #MarkLewis was caught out on Twitter for buying up 1,000’s of Twitter accounts to give the impression he had a larger following. Pathetic Man
UK people are very naive about Jews. They often fail to see how Jews are totally different from English people. A Jew will put up a “big” front, no matter what, at all costs; they regard it as a speculative investment. The more honest ones admit it. Look at the book about the Korda brothers, Charmed Lives, by Michael Korda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Korda
This is what Lewis has always done, “created a legend” (in the old KGB sense); meaning a not entirely true and/or inflated CV.
Lewis of course is a small operator in that respect. Certainly compared to major Jew frauds such as the late and unlamented “Robert Maxwell”. The very verb “to big up” is of Jew origin.
So we have Jew solicitor Lewis, whose own Counsel at his 2018 “trial” asked for mercy on the basis that he owned only a mobility scooter, his own clothes, and £70 a week from a private pension, yet Lewis is now again posing as the big international lawyer!
When Lewis sued a former firm (where he was a “consultant”, doing “phonehacking” cases) he claimed to the tame (Jew-infested) UK Press that he was expecting to receive a “six figure sum”. Result? The case failed, in effect. Settled without Lewis receiving anything. Typical of him.
Lewis did have a good position for a couple of years at Seddons, a well-known firm of London solicitors. That ended in late 2018, the year when Lewis was found guilty at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal.
Much of the circa £10,000 a month (c.£7,000 net) which Lewis was paid (Seddons continued to pay him to the end of his notice period in March 2019) seems to have gone on presenting a wealthy front to the world and especially the Press. Renting an expensive apartment etc. He also had expensive cars at one point years ago (though later blagging a free car via Motability, once he realized that he could get Disability Living Allowance). Yet poor people, without much income, have had Motability cars taken away, in many cases…
Lewis is very (((typical))), let’s leave it there…
Update, 29 July 2020
TV stars Tracy-Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley drop libel claim over Twitter post https://t.co/pDEjIFdj4c
People may not be aware that Mark Lewis has settled an anti-Semitism case before this, without it reaching court. I am sure @CraigMurrayOrg will be delighted for Jane Heybroek. Jake Wallis Simons accepted that Mr Murray is not an anti-Semite, on the steps of the court 1/2
— leftworks #WeAreCorbyn (@leftworks1) July 29, 2020
Rachael Riley and Tracey-ann Oberman's legal team forced to settle with Jane Heybroek in embarrassing libel defeat. Legal TEAM? You mean the 1 Lawyer #MarkLewis a WarMonger. They were NEVER going to win. I Hope that Lewis. #Riley and #Oberman get Bankrupt https://t.co/NWtN5V05hv
And the Guardian of course manages to leave out the interesting information that Jane Heybroek, who had promptly deleted her retweet, was the only one targeted for a libel case, despite previous hints from the two celebrities that legal action could be taken against 70 people.
Ah, that was what I wondered about previously: out of the “70 potential defendants” targeted by the Jewish women Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman, it seems that only one claim got to court— and that that one has now failed.
I do not know whether the two unpleasant Jewish women are planning to sue others. I doubt it.
Lewis even now tries to talk a big game to the newspapers, as always, but where are the “bigger fish to fry” of which he spoke today? Is he back on those drugs that he testified (at his 2018 Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal —which he lost) caused him not to know what he was doing or writing? That is what he himself testified, i.e. that he was incapable and incoherent.
Why on Earth would anyone retain Lewis? On the other hand, he is cheap, in the sense that he operates on the no-win, no-fee basis, backed by speculative finance (litigation insurance). They hope to take assets from defendants who lose at trial, or monies from intimidated defendants who might decide to settle at an earlier stage.
People are so easily conned, nicht wahr? I still see tweets from people who imagine that Lewis is some kind of defamation superstar. His successes have been in simple cases where the defendant was unwise and self-willed, like the “Jack Monroe” (“Bootstrap Cook”) action against columnist, now ex-columnist, Katie Hopkins. Well, now we see what happens when Lewis is up against real libel specialists…
Update, 20 March 2023
Yes very much an ex-husband, this wasn't even the worst thing he did. Twice he was spotted very much with other women, once coming out of a hotel in the morning with one, and another at an airport going away for the weekend together when he very much told me he was home.
If that was Lewis (and I think that Caroline Feraday has only been married once), then of course he would not be able to “storm off” now, unless he put his wheelchair into overdrive.
Time heals all wounds, one way or another…
Update, 16 September 2023
Here's Mark Lewis formerly of UK Lawyers for Israel, attendee at launch of extremist Herut UK, getting into bother for retailing untrue evidence.
Well worth reading, the following tweets describe part of a recent case catastrophically badly-handled by “Mark Lewis Lawyer”. Quite apart from his evident professional negligence, it is clear to me, reading it all, that Lewis was also flagrantly dishonest. He really should be struck off the solicitors’ roll.
I might add that the heroic and ultimately victorious Claimant, James Wilson, is in my opinion far too kind to the Jews and/or part-Jews who defamed and hounded him, but that is another question.
Since one of the Defendants’ solicitors, Mark Lewis (@MLewisLawyer) of Patron Law (@LawPatron), is mentioned in the statement, I am tagging him here. If he wishes to reply, I’ll post his reply below my statement.
This is the email where Mark Lewis (@MLewisLawyer) of Patron Law (@LawPatron) refuses in principle my offer to settle for nominal damages and zero costs with Mr Cantor
Wow! Mark Lewis acted for Daniel Miller and Nina Power against Luke Turner. Lewis’ clients lost in spectacular fashion. Mr Miller is now bankrupt. I am not sure about Ms Power.
It is awful the same will happen to Mr Mendelsohn and Mr Cantor!
Mr Justice Nicklin said this about Mark Lewis (@mlewislawyer) misleading the court: “It is likely that this error occurred because he [Mr Lewis] had simply failed to carry out sufficient (or any) research or to take adequate instructions from his clients.”https://t.co/ECvQB8yqpnhttps://t.co/T7SlclxAjl
Here’s another example of an unhinged letter from Mark Lewis (@mlewislawyer).
Big question: did Mr Cantor insist I had to give Lewis a pile of cash before Mr Cantor would settle? Or was it Lewis himself insisting on that? What do you think? Cui bono? pic.twitter.com/vOeBqyznpD
When Mr Mendelsohn gave evidence at trial, it became clear he was unaware of some of the conduct of, or positions adopted by, his solicitor Daniel Berke.
He honestly thought Berke had complied with the pre-action protocol. In reality, there was almost no compliance!…
In my case, Mark Lewis’ completely bananas position was that mediation had to follow meaning and strike out hearings. I assume he’s never bothered to read the pre-action protocol! @MLewisLawyer
Because Mark Lewis is a self-publicizing Jewish/Zionist bully who is also not a very good lawyer, as many of his clients over the years have discovered; neither is he an honest one.
Also @supergutman, I am doing my absolute level best to avoid forcing the sale of Mr Cantor’s house to pay my costs.
Mark Lewis seems to have washed his hands of Mr Cantor in terms of helping him meet my costs.
What’s desperately sad about the position is that Lewis has talked openly about being belligerent, ruthless, hitting people, and taking homes off people.
Something has gone terribly wrong here in that it is Lewis’ own client who is set to lose his home. pic.twitter.com/DrsPF1FV2P
It is weird that the anonymous pro-Israel trolls have started having a go at me again after judgment in my case.
If the trolls actually cared about defending Jewish people, there is a vulnerable man called Eddy Cantor who is set to lose the home he and his family live in. I need… pic.twitter.com/Iaxc3zmeAg
“It is weird that the anonymous pro-Israel trolls have started having a go at me again after judgment in my case. If the trolls actually cared about defending Jewish people, there is a vulnerable man called Eddy Cantor who is set to lose the home he and his family live in.
I need help to stop that happening. He is set to lose it because Mark Lewis did not work out that Mr Cantor had equity in his home. Mr Lewis therefore thought Mr Cantor had financial immunity in the litigation.
I worked out Mr Cantor had equity in his home by looking it up on the Land Registry and asking him. Rather than having a go at me, the trolls could have go at Mr Lewis to encourage him to step in to stop Mr Cantor losing his home.“
“Famous” (self-publicizing) “libel specialist” Mark Lewis Lawyer: both dishonest and incompetent, as I have blogged for several years. He has never sued. Admittedly, partly because my present —and for several years past— impecuniosity makes me effectively “unsueable”, but he has never even tried to apply for an injunction/restraining order against me. He knew that he would lose. He prefers to sneak around helping the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” (he was a founder member) to make malicious lying complaints to police (etc) about me.
Mark Lewis and his partners at Patron Law are refusing to say whether they will pay my costs.
It is causing terrible stress to their former client Eddy Cantor who is set to lose his home.
I’m going to give some information about Patron’s partners.
“This is Patron’s partner Alexander Zivancevic. He was fined £15k by a Tribunal because he lacked integrity. He paid money from a client into his own personal bank account.“
Another one of them, of course…
Mr. Wilson has discovered that, when the usual Jew-Zionist pack scores a hit against a non-Jew, the (((usual))) Press pack (inc. LBC radio and Talk TV etc) go overboard on it, but when the Zionists (eg “Campaign Against Antisemitism”) fall down, the mass media is silent. I have seen it time abd again.
Of course, one must not say that the Jewish influence over the mass media is stifling truth in the UK; that would be, apparently, not only “antisemitic” but “grossly offensive”…
Jewish Zionist extremist Jonathan Hoffman (of “Sussex Friends of Israel”) has now set up a petition to the effect that the verdict and sentence in the Mark Lewis case should be declared “null and void”.
So far (at time of writing), only 224 persons have signed the petition supporting Lewis. That’s about 1 out of every 300,000 people in the UK, or to put it another way, 1 out of about every 1,200 Jews in the UK.
Hoffman seems to imagine that all that is required to void the proceedings and result of them is for the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal to make a declaration! The couple of dozen other Jew-Zionists (several of them lawyers!) who have tweeted similarly appear to be under the same delusion.
In reality, the Tribunal panel member objected to was only one of three, and was not even the Chairman of the panel. If Lewis thinks that the verdict or sentence should be set aside, he need only lodge notice of appeal by 3 January 2019. No doubt the Administrative Court will do exactly as he and/or his extremist “claque” and clique of supporters would wish (ha ha!— I am of course being heavily ironic or satirical, and quite possibly sarcastic…).
Again, I fail to see what even Lewis himself would gain from either any successful appeal (highly unlikely though such success would be) or from some unilateral act of hara-kiri by the Tribunal.
Lewis was not struck off the solicitors’ roll by the SDT; he was not even suspended. His £10,000 costs penalty (which the Tribunal implied would almost certainly not even be collected by the SRA by reason of his impecuniosity) has been crowdfunded, as has his fine of £2,500. The SDT finding and sentence does not stop Lewis from working as a solicitor, if (a big if!) he can get any law firm to employ him, or alternatively if he complies with the necessary regulations to practise as a sole practitioner.
In reality, Lewis was leaving the UK for Israel anyway. One can see why (and it is not because he and his ghastly partner/carer are in the slightest afraid of British “anti-Semitism”): Lewis has a progressive/degenerative medical condition, MS, which has worsened in the past few years. He is unable to walk properly and has either to use a mobility scooter, or to be pushed in a wheelchair, or (until he left for Israel) to drive himself in the car supplied to him (thanks to the “antisemitic” British taxpayer…) by Motability in lieu of Disability Living Allowance.
Lewis had not attended his place of work (at Seddons, the London law firm) since March 2018, by reason of his medical condition, which was made worse by some kind of traffic accident. He became unable to write. When Seddons heard of the complaints against Lewis to the SRA (or when the upcoming Tribunal hearing was publicized), Seddons terminated Lewis’s employment, in September 2018, on 6 months’ notice, though presenting it at the time as if the reason, or sole reason, for the termination was that Lewis was emigrating permanently to Israel.
While of course I do not know the details of Lewis’s billing performance etc at Seddons, he was on a pay package of £10,000 a month (gross), presumably (educated guess) with the possibility of a bonus or percentage if he exceeded that amount of billed work over a period. In Tribunal, it was said by Lewis’s Counsel that his assets as of November 2018 were just his clothes, his mobility scooter and a pension which was worth £70 a week or less. That, and his £10,000 a month pay, payable only until March 2019.
Reading between the lines, one can see that, while Lewis’s assiduous courting of the “occupied” UK mass media brought Seddons publicity (a mixed blessing, I should have thought!), Lewis obviously was not bringing in or doing much billed work. In short, he was not worth his salt even before he stopped actual work (or even attending his office) in March 2018. Seddons seem to have treated Lewis rather well, inasmuch as they carried him totally for six months before terminating his contract, and then carried him for another 6 months (until March 2019), despite his being just a dead weight to Seddons, a useless person and in fact a liability to his employers. To be frank, I was astonished to read, in 2015, that a well-known firm such as Seddons had taken Lewis on. I expect that they lived to regret it.
To return to the main point, Lewis had already decided to leave the UK for Israel. He knew (probably years in advance, as I did when Jew-Zionists made malicious complaint against me to the Bar Standards Board, an analogous situation) that he was going to be “put on trial” at Tribunal and that Seddons would probably not keep him on, so he (again, educated guess and I may be mistaken) kept it quiet from Seddons as long as he could, to keep getting the £10,000 a month (before tax, assuming that he paid it, so about £7,000 a month net).
Lewis now has little future as a lawyer, but that has really nothing to do with the verdict of the Tribunal. Lewis never denied posting the violent and crazed messages wherewith he was charged. Indeed, he justified himself in respect of the non-Jew victims, though he was willing to crawl a bit to the father of the 18-y-o Jew victim.
In other words, Lewis’s behaviour was exposed at Tribunal, and even were he to appeal and to win any appeal (unlikely anyway), any potential employers or clients will be aware of what he wrote; also aware that Lewis has been and presumably still is sometimes non compos mentis by reason of either his medical condition, or its effects on the brain, or the medication used in respect of that. I would not want a lawyer like that; few would.
Lewis has also stated that he will not be making application to join the Bar of Israel.
I can only assume that Lewis will be living off a number of income sources while living in Israel:
his partner/carer is apparently a buy-to-let parasite in the UK and/or has other business interests; she has stated that she will be buying property in Israel;
Lewis will still be able to get some UK Disability Living Allowance (paid for by all those “antisemitic” British taxpayers…) in Israel, indefinitely. Yes, only up to maybe £100 a week or so, but hey!…;
I have no idea what disability benefits Israel offers, but I suppose that there are some;
Lewis has a £70 a week private pension, apparently;
Israel offers considerable “Aliyah” (emigration/immigration) benefits (see Notes, below), which, by the way, include a one-wayfree flight to Israel, financial help, housing benefit etc;
I would not be surprised to discover that his Jewish Zionist supporters in the UK will be covertly remitting him some charity monies informally; indeed, it is not beyond the possible that some wealthy Jews will remit him larger sums, who knows?
This individual, Lewis, is the Jew Zionist who, having conspired behind the scenes against me for years (certainly since 2013, possibly since 2011),
was one of the Jews covertly behind the malicious complaint about me to the Bar Standards Board by “UK Lawyers for Israel” (where he is or was a leading member);
was involved in the malicious complaint against me to Essex Police by the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” (where he is still an “Honorary Patron”, oddly described as Dr. Mark Lewis, maybe because he was given an honorary degree by his alma mater, Middlesex Poly/Uni, a few years ago); and
repeatedly tweeted about me that I was or am “a sad unemployable git” and “failure as barrister, failure as human being”!
Now look who’s talking! An incoherent, medicated, washed-up, foul-mouthed, disgraced and twice-divorced Jew Zionist, living in Israel on benefits, on charity and off his “partner/carer”, and incapable of doing anything except tweeting and being pushed around in a wheelchair.
When the cabal called “UK Lawyers for Israel” made their malicious complaint against me (in 2014) to the Bar Standards Board, one of their leading lights was Mark Lewis. One of the “Patrons” of UKLFI was one Baroness Deech, a Jewish Zionist and life peer, whose parents were from Poland, though she was born in the UK. The “baroness” was also, at the time of complaint against me in 2014, the head of… the Bar Standards Board!
When the BSB decided to “prosecute” me at a Bar Disciplinary Tribunal (for a small number of tweets about society), the “baroness” was still in post.
When the Deech person ceased to be head of the BSB, and before my Tribunal hearing was held in late 2016, another person took over as Chairman of the BSB, but he was a former British diplomat who just happened to be a former ambassador to Israel, and whose interests and other work included “restitution” of property seized in the 1930s and 1940s (and now claimed by Jews wanting “restitution” —or huge compensation— from European states and companies)!
When I made the point, both before my Tribunal hearing and at the hearing itself, that “justice must not only be done but be seen to be done” and that the whole decision-making process in my case was fatally-flawed, both a High Court judge (on preliminary application) and the Tribunal chairman (a retired Circuit Judge) turned me down, on the basis that the fact that “baroness” Deech was both a Patron of the organization which complained against me and the most important official of the organization deciding on whether I should be “put on trial” or not, was not relevant!
Needless to say, no Jews ever tweeted to say how unjust this all was. Typical…
In other words, my Bar Disciplinary Tribunal case and hearing (though conducted relatively fairly on the day by the retired judge chairing it) was a “stitch-up” from the very start. The result was, in reality, never in doubt because of the Jewish Zionist influence and the perceived “need” to kow-tow to “them”. Yet the Zionists on Twitter etc now say that Mark Lewis was judged unfairly at his similar Tribunal because one of three SDT panel members once made a few anti-Israel remarks!
Lewis shown on Israeli TV, saying that “they [British people] wanted us out of England, and we are glad to be out of England.”
Hopefully he will not come back, but I bet that he is still getting part of the Disability Living Allowance that he was being paid in the UK, though he has had to give up the free Motobility car that the “antisemitic” British taxpayers provided for him even when he was dragging down £10,000 a month as a partner in Seddons, the London law firm!
Allegations that Mandy Gargoyle made implied threats to people and even tweeted photos of their houses…
You are completely lying.. Her account was suspended after she reacted to an ex member of the BNP and Mandy Blumenthal (convenor of the CAA) posting her old home online and threatening to pay a visit.. WHO is telling you this?? pic.twitter.com/sKoYalr1Ve
— Team Phoenix 🔥 #followthephoenix (@LeftPhoenix) January 2, 2019
4 January 2019
Seems that Mandy Gargoyle should have been investigated by the UK police…
Dear Mark Hopkins/Mandy Blumenthal. Sally has never sent his mooring address to anyone because she doesn't know where it is you silly twits. Whereas it was in fact YOU who doxxed Sally's old home in broad daylight and threatened violence. You are truly a bunch of loons. pic.twitter.com/d9H5eMZz4B
— Team Phoenix 🔥 #followthephoenix (@LeftPhoenix) January 4, 2019
Update, 13 January 2019
Hoffman’s absurd online petition to the SRA demanding (ignorantly) that the SDT or SRA “overturn” the verdict in the Lewis case has now effectively come to its end, with 411 signatories. 411 out of about 250,000+ Jews in the UK (and about 65,000,000 non-Jews).
Some of the tweets Lewis sent to Alison Chabloz. He must be psychotic, or maybe the MS not only afflicts his body but affects his mind…or was it the drugs?
Update, 23 October 2019
Seems that Lewis’s ex-wife, Caroline Feraday, has also fallen on hard times, living in a “Nowheresville” in California with her young daughter (Caroline Feraday is now a single mother). She says that she is unable to raise a mere $10,000 [£7,700], despite having some kind of (“office bod”?) job, and so has turned to GoFundMe. Strange. She was featured, in the past (in newspapers), a decade ago though, as having property of considerable value both in the UK and Brazil (in Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro) as well as (since 2013) in California.
Surprisingly, she has, and within only one day (at time of writing), managed to raise nearly $2,000 of the $10,000 for which she asks.
Regular readers of this blog will have noticed that I have recently blogged several times (see Previous Blog Posts on Mark Lewis, below) about one-time supposed “top lawyer” Mark Lewis (supposed to be such at least by an uncritical Zionist-influenced msm). The Jew-Zionist solicitor has now emigrated to Israel. His years of self-publicizing and abusive behaviour have finally resulted in his being brought to justice: he has been found guilty on charges brought by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (though the sentence was far too lenient). No matter. He has finally been brought into a measure of well-merited disgrace; at least some —a very small percentage of— his abusive activity has been recognized officially and he has been, so to speak, branded or tattooed accordingly.
He will almost certainly not now practise law again. In England and Wales, a solicitor engaged in UK-centred work has to be either a partner or other member of a firm of solicitors (or the legal department of a company, government office etc), or must be approved and properly regulated as a sole practitioner. Lewis is neither, and has already stated that he will not be seeking Admission to the Bar of Israel. There are also other factors here.
In my opinion, the story spun by Lewis and promoted (and/or not challenged) by his friends in the UK Jewish Zionist lobby including those in the Press and on TV, is largely a construct. I don’t just mean about his abusive social media presence, but his “back-story” in general.
Lewis was brought up in Manchester. A recent documentary about him (covering his medical treatment in Israel etc) interviewed some old woman one-time neighbour who had helped him much when he was young. She said that Lewis’s father had abused him as a child, physically. Was that when he himself became an obstreperous bullying lout?
Later, Lewis attended what was then Middlesex Polytechnic, rather than Oxford, Cambridge, any London university college or even the University of Manchester. The reason is unclear. Maybe he was not so good academically, maybe he had other reasons; as a fair judge, I do not discount that possibility: I myself was offered places at Oxford, Reading and University College London, but chose, for several reasons too collateral to waste space on here, to attend a less-prestigious university (Westminster). In England, these things are sometimes given undue weight. For example, the highly “successful” billionaire, Lord Ashcroft, attended what was at the time called, apparently, Mid-Essex Technical College.
Lewis commenced articles as a solicitor in 1988 but little seems to be known about his first 13 years as a solicitor (certainly I myself know nothing of it). Lewis eventually joined a firm of solicitors in Manchester as a partner, in 2001, at the age of 35. The events between then and his leaving that firm in acrimonious circumstances are opaque but it is not disputed that by or about 2009 he was either divorced or separated from his first wife, and had left that Manchester firm. He gave a newspaper interview in 2011 in which he seemed to be saying that he had had a near nervous breakdown, during which time he had a “punk” hairstyle, dressed in like manner and (if I recall aright) had a ring through either his nose or his ear. He also drove an open-top sports car. At the age of about 44…He himself has said that his earnings in or about 2009 were only about £9,000. The Disciplinary Tribunal heard that in fact he had spent nearly a year unemployed.
“Lewis was having a crisis. “I’ve got peroxide blond hair, an earring and am wearing skinny jeans to the office because I don’t give a f**k. Everything has gone wrong. Apart from losing the house and everything else, I’ve also got MS. It’s horrendous. I could have claimed benefits, but I chose not to.” [Evening Standard interview, 2011]
Lewis added, in that same interview:
“I was devastated,” he says. “I’d been turned down for so many jobs, I’m thinking to myself, I can’t go on any more, you can only get so many knockbacks. I’m giving in and going to my flat in Israel and retire in Eilat.”
Lewis joined the small London law firm, Taylor Hampton, which over the years has had mixed reviews. Even so, Lewis was only taken on as a “consultant”, i.e. a kind of semi-freelancer working on commission. This firm handled most of the briefly-notorious “phonehacking” cases. Lewis got a retainer of £6,000 gross per month. Later, he (as before) fell out with his employer and ended up years later suing them for, as he grandly told the Press, “a seven-figure sum”, but had to settle for virtually nothing in the end. The senior partner of the firm testified, diplomatically, that he “was unsure what work Mark Lewis had been doing” on the occasions when he actually attended the office!
There is a pattern here: Lewis talking big, swaggering around in showy but cheapish clothes (such as his infamous £149 Zara orange short overcoat…), telling the Press all about what huge work he is doing, what a legal star he is etc, as in a 2013 interview with an online legal site called, perhaps not so accurately, “Superlawyers”!
“I keep getting offers for my story, which is amusing,” Lewis says. “Hollywood has started talking. I guess we will soon find out who does the story. It is rather funny to see discussions as to which actor will play me in a film.” [Superlawyers interview, 2013]
So uncritical were the interviewers that their article started with:
“Don’t be surprised if a film is soon made about Mark Lewis, a media law, libel and privacy lawyer with Taylor Hampton Solicitors in London. Think All the President’s Men, except, instead of a newspaper uncovering the dirty tricks of politicians and lawyers, you’d have a lawyer helping uncover the dirty tricks of certain newspapers. Instead of the president of the United States resigning (along with collateral damage), you’d have the largest circulation newspaper in the country folding (along with collateral damage).”
The interviewers were perhaps unaware that the “superlawyer” being interviewed by them lived at the time in one room (a London “bedsit”)!
Another leitmotif of “Mark Lewis Lawyer” (his one-time Twitter handle), along with big self-promoting talk, is a deflated balloon at the end. So
Lewis was going to sue and did sue Taylor Hampton for £1M-£2M, but ended up with little more than a kick in the rear;
likewise, he posed as the great libel specialist: members of the public are probably unaware that defamation is not, in actuality, a very difficult area of law intellectually (and judging purely from those of his cases I myself read about, such as the elementary “Jack Monroe”/Katie Hopkins matter, the law was straightforward and the facts simple);
he made up a lot of nonsense when he married Z-list one-time “celebrity” Caroline Feraday (most famous perhaps for having been sacked from her BBC Radio London job via a text message!); Lewis was, they both told their tame “journalists”, going to service his American clients from their new Hollywood home, while she had been cast in an American TV sitcom, and was also writing a book in which “several studios” were interested. Why do people make up such lies? And did Lewis actually have any American clients? Possible but doubtful. A New York Times profile mentioned three possible cases with a New York nexus. As he soon discovered, he was not permitted to offer legal services in California, being unqualified in any US state. He seems not even to have known that! Or was it all just a farrago of lies and nonsense? (the marriage soon collapsed, within about a year: I am speculating, but wondered whether the pair had not in fact unconsciously or semi-consciously conned each other, the one posing as the great celebrity lawyer and the other as the famous celebrity radio and TV presenter…);
as a partner at the well-known medium-sized London law firm, Seddons (from 2015), on a retainer of £10,000 a month (gross), he —as at his previous firms— stopped going to the office, in this case in April 2018, apparently following a traffic accident (I myself am rather shocked that someone in his physical and mental condition was even allowed to drive a car);
oh, and there of course never was a Hollywood film about Lewis and/or phonehacking. In fact, tweet threads from 2013-2014 between Lewis and American lawyers revealed not only that they suspected that he was trying to get work in California while unqualified, but that they had never previously heard of him! Phonehacking was a purely UK obsession (now superseded by technology, of course).
A further leitmotif of the Mark Lewis case, along with how credulous the msm is or was about Lewis (often calling him “renowned libel lawyer”, “foremost media lawyer” etc), has been how ready they were and still are not to print anything detrimental about him, such as reporting the recent Tribunal verdict…Guilty…
The Disciplinary Tribunal Judgment
The judgment can be read in full via the link I have provided. I have examined some of the evidence, and in at least some detail, in my previous blog posts about Lewis.
Lewis told the Tribunal that he now —in the Judgment’s summary– “had no assets…owned no house…owned no car, just his clothes and a mobility scooter which he valued at about £1,200.” Also:
“He had no job. His employment was terminated by Seddons [in] September 2018.”
Note that last: not “he resigned”, but “his employment was terminated by” [his employers]…
I suspect that Seddons are relieved to be shot of him. “Never went to the office after April 2018…unable to write because hand paralyzed” (because of MS) etc…all that and also violently abusive while medicated (or while not medicated, as I myself discovered around 2013!). Not exactly a welcome addition to any law firm, I should have thought. [#WashedUp…]
The Judgment continues:
“The Respondent [Lewis] received a Mobility Car in lieu of Disability Living Allowance.”
He appears to have given up his contemptuous dismissal of State benefits, on display in that narcissistic 2011 interview…yes, you cannot judge others until you have walked a bit in their moccasins…
Lewis’s own Counsel asked the Tribunal to take into account the fact that “[Lewis] was someone with no means at all”…
Another point made in the Judgment is that the £10,000 costs awarded against Lewis will in all likelihood not be collected, because in hardship cases like his, the Authority does not press for them. In any case, the Judgment sums could never be collected from him now that he is in Israel permanently (supposedly). I believe that I read somewhere that the monies (over £13,000) collected on Lewis’s behalf by (mainly) Jew wellwishers on crowdfunding sites will be refunded. Possibly. Or maybe the donated monies will keep him and Mandy Gargoyle in hummus and pitta bread for a while.
I wonder if this report (below) was true? If so, someone made a pretty silly decision back in 2002 …but that was about a decade before she made an even sillier one (getting involved with “top lawyer” Lewis)
[For those who are unaware, Gideon Falter is, or wants to be considered as, a leading UK-based Jew-Zionist. He has given “disputed” testimony in a number of civil and criminal matters.
Falter has not been convicted of anything (as far as I know)].
In fact, since it became known that Lewis was abusive to a Jew (rather than non-Jews only…) his support from Jews generally has largely dried up. Et tu, Brute?
Link below: Lewis tried to get money this way too! Maybe the company below would like to redesignate him now as a Great Israeli Speaker, now that he is an Israeli citizen (though he was almost incoherent the last time I saw a clip of him making a statement…)
The Jewish lobby has managed to turn up one member of the SDT panel who was not a complete doormat for Israel, and the whole cabal is now screaming and screeching about how Lewis was unfairly judged and how the Tribunal should “reconsider” its verdict etc. The behaviour of these screeching creatures is itself likely to create “anti-Semitism”!
I am wondering what the “claque” wants. After all, Lewis was not struck off the roll (as he surely would have been, decades ago…), nor even suspended. The fine was small and covered by crowdfunding. As for the costs (also crowdfunded), they will not be pressed anyway.
So what this clamour is for is to make some kind of Jewish Zionist propaganda point. Lewis will still be unemployed and unemployable even if the SDT verdict and sentence is overturned (it will not be). Lewis will still be perambulating along the Corniche (or whatever it is called) in Tel Aviv, whether on his mobility scooter or pushed in his wheelchair, whatever transpires re. any appeal.
Lewis has no reputation left, surely, not in the London legal community. I cannot see any law firm actually wanting to employ him. His best bet is for one of the Jew Zionist billionaires in the UK (or Monte?) to stake him to the tune of a hundred grand or so. Perhaps he will strike lucky that way… Come to think of it, if his fellow Zionists (“standing with Israel” from North London armchairs and Twitter accounts) value Lewis so much, they can all send him a fiver a month. Surely he has 100 admirers? Oh…
Lewis has the right of appeal (to the Administrative Court), and 21 days from 13 December (when the Judgment was published) in which to lodge an appeal. So until 3 January 2019. I doubt that he will appeal, though. It would surely be pointless (even were he to win) and might result only in another multi-day “trial” with a similar result.
Jewish Zionist extremist Jonathan Hoffman (of “Sussex Friends of Israel”) has now set up a petition to the effect that the verdict and sentence in the Mark Lewis case should be declared “null and void”.
So far (at time of writing), only 224 persons have signed the petition supporting Lewis. That’s about 1 out of every 300,000 people in the UK, or to put it another way, 1 out of about every 1,200 Jews in the UK.
Hoffman seems to imagine that all that is required to void the proceedings and result of them is for the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal to make a declaration! The couple of dozen other Jew-Zionists (several of them lawyers!) who have tweeted similarly appear to be under the same delusion.
In reality, the Tribunal panel member objected to was only one of three, and was not even the Chairman of the panel. If Lewis thinks that the verdict or sentence should be set aside, he need only lodge notice of appeal by 3 January 2019. No doubt the Administrative Court will do exactly as he and/or his extremist “claque” and clique of supporters would wish (ha ha!— I am of course being heavily ironic or satirical, and quite possibly sarcastic…).
Again, I fail to see what even Lewis himself would gain from either any successful appeal (highly unlikely though such success would be) or from some unilateral act of hara-kiri by the Tribunal.
Lewis was not struck off the solicitors’ roll by the SDT; he was not even suspended. His £10,000 costs penalty, which the Tribunal implied would almost certainly not even be collected by the SRA (by reason of his impecuniosity), has been crowdfunded, as has his fine of £2,500. The SDT finding and sentence does not stop Lewis from working as a solicitor, if (a big if!) he can get any law firm to employ him, or alternatively if he complies with the necessary regulations to practise as a sole practitioner.
In reality, Lewis was leaving the UK for Israel anyway. One can see why (and it is not because he and his ghastly partner/carer are in the slightest afraid of British “anti-Semitism”): Lewis has a progressive/degenerative medical condition, MS, which has worsened in the past few years. He is unable to walk properly and has either to use a mobility scooter, or to be pushed in a wheelchair, or (until he left for Israel) to drive himself in the car supplied to him (thanks to the “antisemitic” British taxpayer…) by Motability in lieu of Disability Living Allowance.
Lewis had not attended his place of work (at Seddons, the London law firm) since March 2018, by reason of his medical condition, which was made worse by some kind of traffic accident. He became unable to write. When Seddons heard of the complaints against Lewis to the SRA (or when the upcoming Tribunal hearing was publicized), Seddons terminated Lewis’s employment, in September 2018, on 6 months’ notice, though presenting it at the time as if the reason, or sole reason, for the termination was that Lewis was emigrating permanently to Israel.
While of course I do not know the details of Lewis’s billing performance etc at Seddons, he was on a pay package of £10,000 a month (gross), presumably (educated guess) with the possibility of a bonus or percentage if he exceeded that amount of billed work over a period. In Tribunal, it was said by Lewis’s Counsel that his assets as of November 2018 were just his clothes, his mobility scooter and a pension which was worth £70 a week or less. That, and his £10,000 a month pay, payable only until March 2019.
Reading between the lines, one can see that, while Lewis’s assiduous courting of the “occupied” UK mass media brought Seddons publicity (a mixed blessing, I should have thought!), Lewis obviously was not bringing in or doing much billed work. In short, he was not worth his salt even before he stopped actual work (or even attending his office) in March 2018. Seddons seem to have treated Lewis rather well, inasmuch as they carried him totally for six months before terminating his contract. To be frank, I was astonished to read, in 2015, that a well-known firm such as Seddons had taken Lewis on. I expect that they lived to regret it.
To return to the main point, Lewis had already decided to leave the UK for Israel. He knew (probably years in advance, as I did when Jew-Zionists made malicious complaint against me to the Bar Standards Board, an analogous situation) that he was going to be “put on trial” at Tribunal and that Seddons would probably not keep him on, so he (again, educated guess and I may be mistaken) kept it quiet from Seddons as long as he could, to keep getting the £10,000 a month (after tax, assuming that he paid it, so about £7,000 a month net).
Lewis now has little future as a lawyer, but that has really nothing to do with the verdict of the Tribunal. Lewis never denied posting the violent and crazed messages wherewith he was charged. Indeed, he justified himself in respect of the non-Jew victims, though he was willing to crawl a bit to the father of the 18-y-o Jew victim.
In other words, Lewis’s behaviour was exposed at Tribunal, and even were he to appeal and to win any appeal (unlikely anyway), any potential employers or clients will be aware of what he wrote; also aware that Lewis has been and presumably still is sometimes non compos mentis by reason of either his medical condition, or its effects on the brain, or the medication used in respect of that. I would not want a lawyer like that; few would.
Lewis has also stated that he will not be making application to join the Bar of Israel.
I can only assume that Lewis will be living off a number of income sources while living in Israel:
his partner/carer is apparently a buy-to-let parasite in the UK and/or has other business interests; she has stated that she will be buying property in Israel;
Lewis will still be able to get some UK Disability Living Allowance (paid for by all those “antisemitic” British taxpayers…) in Israel, indefinitely. Yes, only up to maybe £100 a week or so, but hey!…;
I have no idea what disability benefits Israel offers, but I suppose that there are some;
Lewis has a £70 a week private pension;
Israel offers considerable “Aliyah” (emigration/immigration) benefits (see Notes, below), which, by the way, include a one-wayfree flight to Israel, financial help, housing benefit etc;
I would not be surprised to discover that his Jewish Zionist supporters in the UK will be covertly remitting him some charity monies informally; indeed, it is not beyond the possible that some wealthy Jews will remit him larger sums, who knows?
This individual, Lewis, is the Jew Zionist who, having conspired behind the scenes against me for years (since 2013, if not before that),
was one of the Jews covertly behind the malicious complaint about me to the Bar Standards Board by “UK Lawyers for Israel” (where he is or was a leading member);
was involved in the malicious complaint against me by the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” (where he is still an “Honorary Patron”, oddly described as Dr. Mark Lewis, maybe because he was given an honorary degree by Middlesex Poly/Uni a few years ago) to Essex Police; and
repeatedly tweeted about me that I was or am “a sad unemployable git” and “failure as barrister, failure as human being”!
Now look who’s talking! An incoherent, washed-up, foul-mouthed, disgraced, twice-divorced Jew Zionist, living in Israel on benefits, charity and off his “partner/carer”, and incapable of doing anything except tweeting and being pushed around in a wheelchair.
Hoffman’s absurd online petition to the SRA demanding (ignorantly) that the SDT or SRA “overturn” the verdict in the Lewis case has now effectively come to its end, with 411 signatories. 411 out of about 250,000+ Jews in the UK (and about 65,000,000 non-Jews).
Update, 7 March 2019
More about the “Mark Lewis Lawyer” whom his Jew-Zionist cronies on Twitter etc always refer to as “top lawyer”, “top defamation specialist” and such nonsense; “Mark Lewis Lawyer”, such a “top lawyer” that his income is now zero and his sole assets are his cheap clothes and a mobility scooter! Sacked by his last three (or four) employers. Oh, and here is another dissatisfied former client…
Maybe that’s how you got the extra £1 Million from #RupertMurdoch ? @MLewisLawyer … I’m not done ! So you know
Seems that Lewis’s ex-wife, Caroline Feraday, has also fallen on hard times, living in a “Nowheresville” in California with her young daughter (Caroline Feraday is now a single mother). She says that she is unable to raise a mere $10,000 [£7,700], despite having some kind of (“office bod”?) job, and so has turned to GoFundMe. Strange. She was featured, in the past (in newspapers), a decade ago though, as having property of considerable value both in the UK and Brazil (in Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro) as well as (since 2013) in California.
Surprisingly, she has, and within only one day (at time of writing), managed to raise nearly $2,000 of the $10,000 for which she asks.
Following the publication of the above article and updates, Lewis arranged to be a “partner” (a flexible term) at a small, mainly if not wholly Jewish law firm based in mews somewhere in or near Notting Hill, in West London. He seems to spend most of his time at his flat in Eilat, Israel (though at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal in 2018, Lewis’s Counsel told those judging him that Lewis had no property…).
Lewis was retained by two notorious Jew-Zionists (an actress and a daytime TV game show presenter) to hunt down and sue ~70 Labour Party members alleged to have tweeted libellous matter. So far, no case has actually come to court, as far as I know.
Lewis also, with others (I understand from an account read that there were three law firms and also six barristers on the winning side, if I understood correctly), was recently instructed in an employment case in the High Court at London, and where the claimant was awarded substantial damages, with about a million pounds of legal costs awarded or (as I think) agreed. So presumably he will get a good cut of that.
[above: Lewis interviewed recently in London by an Internet (YouTube) “TV station”]
Lewis only had to pay a third of the fine considered by the SDT panel because:
“In its full decision published this week the SDT said it eventually came to the conclusion that a reprimand would not be a strong enough punishment and that a fine would be the most appropriate outcome. However, it reduced the fine from an initial estimate of £7,500 to £2,500 on account of Lewis’s financial struggles.”
The disciplinary panel judging and sentencing Lewis considered that:
“In mitigation, the tribunal accepted Lewis’ submission that he had limited means. He did not own his own house and [his] monthly expenses exceeded his liabilities.”
[“…expenses exceeded his liabilities”? The Law Society Gazette either needs a (literate) sub-editor or one with better hearing, unless the SDT panel themselves do not speak English properly! No matter. Illiteracy is par for the course in online newspapers…]
The Law Society Gazette says that the SDT panel added that:
“Although his former firm Seddons is paying him £10,000 per month before tax this was due to end in March [2019].”
What’s this? The “top lawyer”, “top libel and reputation specialist” etc has “financial struggles”? When for most of the past decade he has been tweeting and telling newspapers all about what a big success he is, with his classic cars and international client-base?
Either Lewis is not quite the “top lawyer” and huge success he has been claiming to be for the past 7+ years, or he was “economical with the truth” at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal. One way or another he has been telling what the Cockneys call “porkies”! That’s not very kosher!
So the “top lawyer”, with his supposed millions from the “phonehacking” racket and well-publicized libel cases etc, does not own his own house? (in London, that is— he does have or had an apartment in Israel, according to a newspaper article several years ago).
Still, the fact that the SDT thinks that someone getting (after tax) pay of about £7,000 a month is “financially struggling” says more about London law firms than about Lewis, arguende! (that pay is in fact considerably less, in real terms, i.e. taking inflation into account, than I was once paid, when active as an offshore lawyer many many years ago).
So much for the “top lawyer” who now seems to be (to use one of Lewis’s insults to me) just “an unemployable git”!
The way Lewis managed to bamboozle the UK msm and so the poor duped UK public into believing that he was —or even still is— a “top lawyer” etc reminds me rather of the front once put up by another Jewish Zionist, the not so late and certainly unlamented “Robert Maxwell”, who has now also “relocated” to Israel, though he is not quite in a position to enjoy it. Maxwell never fooled me (even when I was in my late teens, in the mid-1970s); neither did Lewis.
19 December 2018: A few more thoughts
I just realized that the “British” Press, which for years has been publishing Lewis’s self-publicizing bull and pronouncements on legal issues as if he were a cross between Lord Denning and Oliver Wendell Holmes (with a dose of George Carman), has not seen fit to report on the supposed “top lawyer” being found guilty of online abuse; neither, therefore, has the (Jewish-Zionist-owned or strongly influenced) UK msm reported the fact that Lewis was let off lightly because he
was under the influence of prescription drugs (or so he testified to the Disciplinary Tribunal: strange that his unprovoked online abuse aimed at me —see previous blog posts— started years before he was on any experimental trial in respect of his MS condition and therefore before he was on the drugs used by his advocates in Tribunal to mitigate his bad behaviour);
“is of limited means” and “is struggling financially”.
Only the specifically Jewish “community” Press (eg the Jewish Chronicle) and the legal profession’s newspapers etc reported the outcome of Lewis’s “trial”. Quite a contrast with what happened to me in 2016 (anyone interested should just Google “Ian Millard barrister”…)!
“They” certainly look after their own…
And a further thought yet…
If Lewis is “struggling financially” and has no real property in the UK, it must (?) be presumed that he never did get the £1 Million or more damages he claimed from his former firm (he was a “consultant” there), Taylor Hampton.
Lewis claimed the money in respect (mainly, it seems) of various “phonehacking” cases prior to his departure (supposedly to live in Los Angeles) in 2013 (see previous blog posts about that particular piece of Lewis BS…).
Either Lewis failed in his case against Taylor Hampton solicitors, or he settled for a very very great deal less than the “seven figure sum” he briefed about at the time to the tame UK Press…
The managing partner of Taylor Hampton solicitors was reported by the legal press as having testified that he “was unsure what work Lewis actually did” while engaged (on what seems to have been a generous retainer) by the firm, which countersued Lewis in that case (which seems to have settled at the last minute on a non-disclosure basis).
More Lewis BS, in other words…thank God we seem to have seen the end of him.
In fact, the practice of not arresting or charging those caught with various “illegal” drugs has been going on for years in the UK. The Thames Valley force may have extended it to a previously unheard-of extent but the rot (if that is what it is) set in decades ago, when some police chiefs decided that the terribly-valuable time of their officers was wasted in arresting persons found in possession of small amounts of cannabis. Subject to correction, I believe that it was London Metropolitan Police officer Brian Paddick [see Notes, below] who, as Borough Commander of the bandit country which included Brixton, first introduced the policy.
Let’s pause right there. A police officer —fairly senior, so be it— decides, arbitrarily, that he is not going to enforce a law, or not always going to do so. There are arguments to be made in favour of decriminalizing some (or all) now-generally-illegal drugs, but that is a decision for the legislature, Parliament, to make, not a police officer.
Now there has always been a measure of “police discretion”, as when (forgive any possible anachronism around a policeman actually patrolling an area and so actually being in a position to catch someone doing something forbidden) a policeman finds a child “scrumping” (technically, stealing) apples or pears from an orchard or garden, that policeman then deciding to deliver a stern on-the-spot warning rather than arresting the child. Likewise, the motorist getting a ticking-off from a traffic cop rather than a speeding ticket for travelling a few miles per hour over the set limit. However, the examples given are minor crimes by any estimation. Possessing forbidden drugs may be considered minor by some, but not by most, even today. That becomes even more so when the drugs are “harder” than marijuana.
There is the other point that a distinction can be made between a policeman deciding to exercize discretion in a particular case, and a policeman (at higher level) deciding not to enforce certain laws as a matter of his own decision and in the geographic area under his command.
This is of course a grey area, but it is troubling when a police force decides, on its own initiative, to abrogate the plain words of valid legislation. True, there are many laws still on the statute books which are no longer applied, crimes which are no longer prosecuted, but they are mostly those which have fallen into desuetude by reason of effluxion of time: one good example of a crime which has not been prosecuted for several hundred years (if ever) is that of “entering the precincts of Parliament while dressed in a suit of armour”. For other bizarre examples, see the links in the Notes, below.
Those old crimes, still technically criminal but never prosecuted, are an amusement. What, however, about things which are not crimes at all, but which the police, under the influence of political correctness or pressure (usually from the Jewish lobby) have decided to treat as crimes or quasi-crimes? Another grey area? I have blogged previously about how Jew-Zionists made malicious complaint against me to Essex Police (about 2 years ago, in late 2016/early 2017):
In that case, the police were notionally acting in pursuance of a wrongheaded, badly-drafted but technically valid and quite recent law: Communications Act 2003, s.127, but were trying to stretch its ambit so that views expressed which were dissenting, dissident, controversial and (according to some Jews, at least) “offensive”, became “grossly offensive” and so could in principle be caught by the Act.
In “my case”, the prosecution never happened because (it now appears) the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] (and at a high level, in Whitehall…) took the commonsense view that a successful prosecution was both unlikely to succeed and not in the public interest. Leaks from the police, however, now make plain that some of their officers were completely in the pocket of an aggressive Jewish-Zionist cabal (the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA”); one police officer in particular seems to have acted effectively as an advocate on behalf of the CAA to the CPS, advocating for me and others (persons unknown to me) to be prosecuted. He lost his professional objectivity completely, it seems; thankfully (for me and for the rule of law) he was over-ruled. Bitter herbs for him, perhaps.
The “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA” is now itself the subject of various police investigations around misuse of its charitable status; also, as some readers will be aware, one of its leading members, Stephen Silverman, was said (it was admitted) in open court (and by the CAA’s own lawyer) to have been an anonymous (pseudonymous) and sadistic Internet troll who stalked various women online.
More recently, in Summer 2018, I was harassed by a police constable based at Barnet, North London (which is effectively occupied territory), at the behest of a Jewish woman who had been firmly put in her place by Andrew Torba, CEO of the online GAB platform. That Jewish individual had demanded that Torba remove various accounts from his GAB platform (which is based in USA and Caribbean) and she had had the gall to threaten Torba online and publicly with “Scotland Yard”! Torba posted all the conversation on GAB and told her in very blunt terms to, er, “get lost”! Many GAB and Twitter account-holders also told her to “get lost”!
I was accused of having reposted one reply to that woman from Torba (which repost would in fact not be a crime in the UK anyway), but that did not stop PC…well, let’s just call him Plod…from sending me an (undated!) “Warning Notice” re. “harassment”, which under English law has to consist of at least two incidents, both of which have to be unlawful, whereas here was one (alleged) incident and that entirely lawful even on its face!
It was clear to me that the Jewish Zionist woman complainant, smarting from the whipping given to her online by Andrew Torba, had decided to make an entirely malicious complaint against me. I should add that she is or was a member or supporter of the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” and at one time used to tweet prolifically and negatively about me. The point is that the police should have realized that her complaint was both malicious and had no basis at all in law. They did not. They chose not to. Very alarming…
It is worrying when the police not only do not know the law they purport to be applying, but actually try to continue to insist that what is not the law actually is! Plod not only telephoned me at least once, but emailed me intimidatingly (as he thought) and, as said, sent a semi-literate, undated and completely ineffective (legally ineffective) “Warning Notice” to me.
What made that incident worse was the feeling that the police in Barnet were running wild and were not acting properly under law. I heard (though this was never confirmed) that “the said Jewish woman” is the ex-wife of one of the “Shomrim” faux-police or private Jewish police, who are based, it has been said online (correctly or not), at the building(s) of the Barnet Police! A private tribal militia operating out of London police stations? It would have been thought incredible only a few years ago.
I could have taken the above-mentioned matter further via official complaint against PC Plod, who, in my view, came close to committing “misconduct in a public office”, but contented myself with writing a detailed letter both to the Borough Commander in Barnet and to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Even then, after some time, Plod harassed me via email once more! Only when I provided a face-saving way for him to get lost, did he.
I perceive a degree of drift here: the police deciding not to apply some laws on a blanket basis, in other cases as good as making up the law as they go along. Taken further, those tendencies could together collapse the rule of law in the UK entirely.
Ian Robert Millard 