Monday 29 January 2024

RDH in Court- Day One

Richard D Hall has appeared in court and I went along to support him and report on proceedings. The case was held at one of the highest courts in the land, the Royal Courts of Justice in London. I got there early to maximize my chances of getting a seat in the public gallery. I was also worried that Marianna Trench would bring in a school of her deep-sea bottom feeders from the BBC to hog them all; as it turned out, she never even showed up. As it was, so many people were there, all on Richard's side, that some couldn't get a seat. My good friend and comrade Dr Nick Kollerstrom was there, and I should have guessed he would be; he is an ace at analyzing legal dramas, for example see: The Royal Courts of Justice was built in the 1870's and is a grand and striking building; but, I think, ugly and intimidating. It has a very bad energy. It reminds me of Dracula's castle or Barad-dûr. The courtroom itself was quite small and the public gallery was mixed in with the counsel benches. The security at the main entrance was similar to that at an airport. I had to empty my pockets and step through a metal detector. All potential weapons cannot be taken into the courts... including sharpened spikes no doubt! Richard turned up dressed in a dapper grey suit with waistcoat, the first time I haven't seen him wearing brown or black. I wasn't sure how he would react to my presence because, as you know, he and I have had our differences; but he greeted me warmly and thanked me for coming. He had no barrister with him and was defending himself, typical of his style. His counsel was a McKenzie Friend who is a retired solicitor.
The hearing only lasted about an hour and three quarters and was actually quite simple. I didn't take down any written notes because I wasn't sure how it would look to do so, but I didn't need to really. This was not Richard's trial, just a preliminary hearing establishing the rules of the future full trial, but it is vitally important as I explain here: The claimants' barrister began by explaining why he thinks all Richard's evidence should be struck from the record. This was, he said, because all the facts of the Manchester Arena attack have been established by other proceedings such as the Manchester Arena Inquiry. He also provided some reports from Martin and Eve Hibbert's doctors. The facts don't need to be disputed because the facts are legally agreed upon already; that was the purpose of the Inquiry. Richard countered by saying that the facts were not all agreed upon, in fact a significant proportion of the population are "conspiracy theorists" who share his views on many subjects. The Inquiry was not a proper legal ruling anyway. He then provided a "skeleton" of his own research. The judge had been given a "bundle" of more that he could study outside the court. Viewers of Richplanet TV will be familiar with this information, for example see: Martin Hibbert sat at a bench on the back row; a space had been cleared for his wheelchair. In front of him were two of the claimants' counsel's solicitors and the barrister himself occupied a solo seat on the front row next to Richard and his counsel. I gather there is a reason for this formation because the barrister insisted upon it. Mr Hibbert himself remained silent throughout; in fact no witnesses were called at this hearing. His daughter Eve was not present. Richard spoke with authority and drive; he explained how his evidence has every bit of legal validity and should be presented at the trial. He comprehensively discredited the claimants' counsel's case. None of his defiance has slipped an inch. There's no doubt he won the performance competition. The judge did not announce a ruling and said he would have to consider for a while. Hopefully Richard should receive a verdict in two weeks or less. What will that ruling be? Well, obviously I hope it will be in favour of Richard and in any fair judiciary it would be; however, we all know other forces are at work in the establishment. If the judge rules in favour of the claimants then we can safely say there is no doubt at all that the forces of darkness have marked this proceeding and they are trying to rig the process beforehand so that Richard cannot win. Anyone can beat the world's best athletes in a marathon if you make referee break the legs of all the other competitors. Nevertheless, we should hope for the best. See here for a HPANWO Radio interview with Nick Kollerstrom about this subject:
See here for more background:


Rhiannon said...

My understanding is that the claimant's case is in regard to harassment and not about whether the Manchester incident was a genuine terrorist attack or a pre planned government operation. Therein lies the issue for Richard. I fear no matter how compelling the case he may make that it was the latter, this is not the claim that has been placed before the court so any argument on these grounds is irrelevant. I am afraid I do not share your optimism Ben. This is going to make a lot of money for the lawyers but little else.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Rhiannon, obviously I hope you're wrong, but to be realistic, it's true the legal system has rarely benefited the common man. As Michael Ellner said: "Lawyers destroy justice..." We can only wait and see. My heart goes out to Richard. I know I've had my issues with him, but he does not deserve this!

Anonymous said...

This case mirrors the Alex Jones Trial regarding his claims on Sandy Hook. AJ lost that case through the impact it had on the victims because of his claims.

I think Rhiannon has nailed it, that this is very much a claim for damages because of the effect Richard's claims have had on the victims subsequent lives following his comments and accusations and those of others repeating/amplifying it (which Richard also admitted in this hearing by saying many 'conspiracy theorists' share his views).

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Hi Anon. The parallels between the Alex Jones lawsuit and Richard's are very obvious and you're telling me nothing original by pointing them out. In fact it was I who first predicted when I covered the Jones case in some articles and videos that this kind outsourced lawfare was a new tactic that they would try in other countries. I just thought they'd hit David Icke first, instead of Richard.

Also we all know exactly what the allegation is the claimants are making against Richard; this has been explained in detail in several BBC TV and radio shows. What I dispute, as I do with Jones, is that their cause is a just one and it is has no ulterior motives. Again, I have explained this in the background publications.

Anonymous said...

I was there, and one of the people removed for not receiving a chair to sit on, despite being perfectly hapy to stand for the proceedings. Much of what I read in your blog seems accurate. I'd like to enquire further into this bit :

'Martin Hibbert sat at a bench on the back row; a space had been cleared for his wheelchair. In front of him were two of the claimants' counsel's solicitors and the barrister himself occupied a solo seat on the front row next to Richard and his counsel. I gather there is a reason for this formation because the barrister insisted upon it'

What do you surmise was that reason ?

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

I'm not sure. Perhaps it is because it gives a certain appearance to the judge, and jury in trials where there is one. The claimants' barrister may have learned this in his training or from experience. Probably somebody who practices law could tell us.

Sorry you couldn't find a seat. They should have known there would be all those people there and added more. Maybe they didn't want too many of Richard's supporters in the court.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the reply. I'm slightly bemused by that arrangement myself. It'll be interesting to see from any transcript that might appear, what the claimant had to say for himself, as they were (in my opinion) somewhat tucked away , out of sight of the Judge, stationed behind the 'G-Team', unlike RDH, who was at the front , addressing the Judge directly.

And I'd also be interested to know who the 'G-Team'are, & whether the person sat next to the claimant had a family/personal connection with them, or whether they were there in there acting in a professsional role of 'minder'.

Let's see.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Those are good questions. Obviously the claimants' legal team will keep their strategy very confidential. Who knows who else was there to take notes. There was at least one member of the press. It's interesting Marianna Spring did not turn up. (I would have refused to answer if she had asked me any questions.) I'll see if I can track down some of the video coverage of courtrooms and see if that formation is normal, but those will not be British. Transcripts of proceedings should be made available. Certainly all the lawyers involved will want to see them. There's no reason why they should not be published. The Helen Duncan trial ones are in a entire book!

Paul said...

I don't think David Icke has Gone after anyone personally. Rdh is an investigative journalist by anyone's definition given his output, and has a right to test a hypothesis. Question is when does that become harassment? These days hurty words seem to carry more weight than bombs

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Hi Paul. I don't think either David or Richard have "gone after" anybody. A few people think they have, including somebody else who sued David a few years ago, again unfairly in my view. The question over the definition of harassment has indeed become confusing and indistinct, maybe deliberately so the state can take action against people who say things they don't like, either directly or through this new tactic of outsourced lawfare.

Anonymous said...

Hi Ben
I was there too - good write up.
I'm not great at recognising people but I wondered if one of 'the G-team' might have been Chris Metcalfe - a longterm mate of Hibbert - one of them looked like him to me.

Hibbert's wife, Gabby is shown here;

I didn't see her.

Hibbert has two brothers, I'm a bit busy right now to track down photos of them, but I wondered if one of them may have been among his group.

The judge must be in a bit of a bind with this decision - it could set a precedent which could be used against msm investigative reporters in the future - all those Panorama undercover investigations, etc could be jeapordised.
And if 'Harrassment by publication' is held against Richard in this case, it would have serious implications for the media at large - half of the stories in the tabloids are published on flimsier evidence than Rich pulled together on the Manchester event.

I find the clip of Ruth Murrell (at 32.39 in his 2nd film on this topic ) trotting about on platform heels when supposedly just having suffered a shrapnel wound through 15cm of thigh flesh, to be the killer blow for the official narrative - in about 6 months of posting a link to this specific section of Richard's work on social media, NOBODY has yet come back at me in defence of the official story, apart from one who claimed 'adrenaline/fight or flight' - to which I retorted that 'she is neither fighting or fleeing, but relaxed, unconcerned & sauntering', and I dedn't get a reply to that!

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Thanks, mate. I'm glad I went along. I made a deliberate effort not to look too much at the claimants' benches. I was aware of the need to appear calm and attentive. I dressed smartly, but not over the top, and kept my eyes mostly forward. Hibbert was sitting behind me. Obviously it makes sense that he might want some of his friends and supporters with him like Richard did.

The judge may well understand the common law precedent that might emerge should he rule in Richard's favour. It would actually be similar to the Helen Duncan case that I've covered in detail. What if the judge had allowed her to perform in court? It would have changed the law, but much more; science, religion, society altogether.

As somebody who spent twenty-three years in the emergency services, I can see that so much about the official story of Manchester Arena makes no sense. We are all right to ask these questions. No court can stop us thinking about this.

Anonymous said...

I have a fair bit of experience with explosives - pyrotechnics mainly, but I also know a bit about munitions.
Even before seeing Richard's work on this event, on the night it happened I was watching photos, videos and accounts being posted on twitter, and I couldn't understand how an explosion which supposedly killed 22 and injured a load more with high explosive & shrapnel caused absolutely no damage at all to the building - no glass broken particularly - that was obvious on the night.
And the sound wasn't right for a HE, on the video clips people posted from inside the main auditorium - too slow a sound - not enough 'crack' for a detonation shockwave
And all the photos of 'victims' looked dodgy to me - I've seen what 'moulage' and crisis actors look like, and that's what everything looked like - kind of fake. There wasn't anything I could find that looked anything like a real injury.

So I figured there was some deception, but it was only after really looking closely, via Richard's work, that I got my head around just how deep this rabbit hole was.
There are still details I don't quite understand, but I'm near 100% sure the official narrative is nonsense.
And the more the instigators and participants lie, the deeper the hole they dig for themselves.

The Public Inquiry was a total sham - still no photographic or video evidence put into the public domain showing what happened. Just claims by the Judge that he'd seen that evidence and was satisfied. That's not a 'Public' inquiry - that's establishment of a narrative by a highly paid state-appointed official. That alone stinks enough for me to cry foul on the whole thing.

I even understand that many of them were probably well-intentioned with their involvement - to get some potentially very dangerous people off our streets, to tighten up laws around event security and secure bigger budgets for anti-terror operations - but there probably are a thousand (as is claimed) or more people 'injured' psychologically from that event - kids and adults who will suffer PTSD for life from something which didn't even happen as they think it did.
This is what pisses me off - the state appear to have committed an actual act of terrorism on it's own population, using psychological warfare techniques and this is really messed up.

They've gone way beyond the point though where they can ever admit any fakery - it would be catastrophic for the establishment, the media, the emergency services, etc.

How they're going to get out of the hole they've dug for themselves will be fascinating.
I'll be very surprised if the judge doesn't prevent Richard presenting all his evidence in the full hearing - I figure he didn't want to announce that with a court full of witnesses.

But if he does allow it, I can imagine Fibbert's team dropping the case - that would be incredibly embarrassing for them, the BBC, Spring and many others, but not half as embarrassing as a big, messy case being played out in public with all the awkward details getting put under even more scrutiny.
They've already managed to promote Richard's work, which had really been a fringe 'conspiracy theory', to a huge national audience who would never have otherwise even been aware of it - idiots!
'The Streisand Effect' in play there, I would say.

Anyway, we shall see what transpires.

Anonymous said...

Transcripts of hearings are expensive and only available if at all if the hearing was officially recorded. Anyone can take notes and do so verbatim if they know shorthand. What was the judge's name ?

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

It was recorded. I can't recall the name of the judge. The case was classified as "King's Bench Master Division", but I've no idea what that means.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Thanks for the info on explosives, Anon. I also came to be suspicious of this event from watching Richplanet. Also my own experience in the emergency services. The common law angle is one I've thought about. It ties in with my research on the Helen Duncan case, the psychic medium who was forbidden from practicing in a courtroom, even though it was vital in proving her case. Should the judge rule in Richard's favour, it will open a massive can of worms relating to other legal mysteries.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

NB: I should clarify something I said yesterday that may cause confusion. When I said "the hearing was recorded", I don't mean any of us made an amateur recording of it. None of us did! That is strictly illegal and warrants a contempt of court charge. I meant the officials at the court were making an official recording.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for clarifying, Ben. :-)

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Ever had a debate with a Facebook idiot? I just did!

Trying to suggest the MA attack never happened is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. 22 people died. That’s almost two dozen families who will never see their loved ones again after what should have been a lovely night out. Hall needs psychiatric help.

Ben Emlyn-Jones:
Is that some kind of treatise? If so then I could say: "Trying to suggest 2+2=4 is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. 2+2=5. Do you have any idea how much emotional pain you inflict on people when you deny 2+2=5? These 2+2=4 believers all need psychiatric help." DOES THEREFORE 2+2=5?

Dude, if you support this maniac we cannot be friends. That bombing happened, people died. Families WERE devastated. Police, Fire and Ambulance crews attending that scene WERE traumatized. I know what it’s like (I attended the 7/7 bombings.) So, don’t fucking tell me this was a psyop, or fake attack. This incident was very REAL. This Hall chap needs to be given the mental health treatments he obviously so desperately needs.

Ben Emlyn-Jones:
You do realize nothing you've said proves Richard wrong. Insulting people and throwing rhetoric around is NOT AN ARGUMENT! The message that it's heartless to question the official story of event because it's "disrespectful!" and "hurtful!" is an old one. It didn't work with 9/11 and it won't work now. Are you not concerned that the government and media are lying to you on this level!? If I have to pretend to believe something I don't to remain friends with you, then I refuse. That's a pity; I never apply that constraint to other people... But so be it. Goodbye.

Ben Emlyn-Jones We’re done. Get help.

Ben Emlyn-Jones:
Then 2+2 really does equal 5. Well done, O'Brien! As it happens I'm not 100% certain Richard is right. He might be wrong. But the truth can NEVER be found by launching lawsuits to bankrupt somebody; and then hurling insults, rhetoric and guilt-trips at everybody who even suggests that there is a case to answer... What's more, YOU KNOW IT!... DON'T YOU?... Farewell!

Anonymous said...

The judge was called Richard Davison. BBC is sometimes useful...

Anonymous said...

Yes i noticed this at the time that this kicked off at exactly the same time as Alex's court case and the onlineharms Bill agenda was ramping up. UK and US hand in hand

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Thanks for the info on the judge, Anon.

Other Anon, I predicted they'd try the same thing in another country after AJ got stung. I just thought they'd pick on David Icke first. He's been sued before.