You may wonder what this article is about. Why am I
mentioning those two names in the same breath? I have very different opinions
of both men, obviously. The reason I bring them both up together is because of
an element of both of their cases that is disturbingly similar. Brand has just
been sentenced to ten and a half years in prison due to four counts of rape and
sexual assault. Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckzd6dl18dmyo.
See here for background: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2026/10/russell-brand-trial.html.
That might not be the end of it; he is currently under investigation because of
yet more suspicions. What's interesting is something happened a number of years
before the criminal case began that is directly relevant to both it and the
lawsuit against Richard D Hall. In June 2014 Russell Brand visited a masseuse
called Sylvie Berki together with his then wife Jemima Goldsmith. Ms Berki
subsequently went to the police and accused Brand of sexually assaulting her
during the massage. The police investigated and did not consider the accusation
valid for action so Berki went to the papers. Brand and Goldsmith then took out
a court case against Berki to shut her up. The obvious claim would be that of
defamation, but they decided not to try that and went on to accuse Berki of
harassment instead. This is for several legal reasons. Firstly, the courts are
far more likely to grant injunctions based on this charge than that of libel;
but also with harassment there's no need to prove veracity... The truth is no
defence. Source: https://www.instagram.com/reels/DfYJIkXo4lf/.
Sounds familiar? See the background link below. The claimants against Richard D
Hall also did not choose to sue him for libel; if they had done so Richard
would have been able to plead fair comment and then the claimants would have
had to prove that he was lying. Instead they chose harassment, I think for the
same reason as Russell and Jemima. They won the case and Ms Berki was not only
gagged for life over this matter, she was forced to pay the Brands £50,000 is
costs and damages. She failed to pay so she was then declared bankrupt. It's
incredibly dishonest and, indeed, honesty is a handicap in the modern legal
system, it seems. I'm pleased to say there is a now a movement in the judicial
profession to close this loophole, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlJHtEgb9pI.
If this drive succeeds it will hopefully set up a common law precedent in
opposition to "Eve's Law". Richard's trial is not the first time the legislation has been abused. It's a pity nobody thought of campaigning
on this issue years ago.
See here for more background: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/07/rdh-lawsuit-mini-portal.html.
See here for more background: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/07/rdh-lawsuit-mini-portal.html.






