Sonia Poulton - clearly not what most call a real journalist

[jjbd]

Fools and their money are soon parted
I've noticed they're all pleading persecution and poverty.

But yet she claimed she was so successful in everything she did!

As for "This is unprecedented for me...." I thought she had been fighting Court cases for years.

[honestbroker1]

Fools and their money are soon parted
I've noticed they're all pleading persecution and poverty.

But yet she claimed she was so successful in everything she did!

As for "This is unprecedented for me...." I thought she had been fighting Court cases for years.

Well, this is 2017

https://convictedtrolls.com/tag/sonia-poulton/

[jjbd]

Fools and their money are soon parted
I've noticed they're all pleading persecution and poverty.

But yet she claimed she was so successful in everything she did!

As for "This is unprecedented for me...." I thought she had been fighting Court cases for years.

Well, this is 2017

https://convictedtrolls.com/tag/sonia-poulton/

Yes thanks hb - the whole sordid mess has been going on for years so I have no idea how now is " unprecedented"?

see also by sal » Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:31 pm on this thread.

[jjbd]

Sonia Poulton
@SoniaPoulton
Whatever the outcome of today, I could not have wished for a better barrister to represent me than Richard Munden at 5RB. So blessed. The Fighting Fund did that. Thank you. #FreeSpeechSoniaPoulton https://soniapoulton.co.uk/fighting-fund
2:38 pm · 30 Apr 2021

[honestbroker1]

She does seem to have some high-powered legal-types defending her:

https://www.5rb.com/member/richard-munden/

[jjbd]

UPDATE - April 28, 2021

What an experience and a journey this is.

In recent times, I’ve seen some of the worst of humanity and some of the best.

When I launched my Fighting Fund at the start of this month (see post below), I did it with great fear and trepidation.

To make such personally sensitive issues so public, was hard to do. It made me feel vulnerable.

And you know what?

I’m glad I did it. The response has been amazing. It touched me deeply - and that has empowered me.

I really needed that strength and particularly given all the constant moving parts that are going on around me and involving me.

Here's one example.

This Friday I have a remote hearing. It is in the High Court and is open to the public.

An ex-MP is suing me for defamation (which I deny) and I, in turn, am countersuing him for harassment - and two of his associates, too.

The ex-MP, who will be representing the Lib-Dems at the next election, hopes to be returned to Parliament.

It is his desire that we don’t have a full court trial regarding our litigation.

His wish, and which we are opposing this Friday, is to give him a summary judgement and to also strikeout my harassment claim.

Of course I am opposing it all.

I believe this is a matter of public interest and requires a full trial so that the facts can be fully examined.

As an ex-MP, with the aim of being an MP again, and, I, as a journalist who reports on corruption and abuse within the British Establishment, I can’t see how it can’t be in the public interest not to have a full trial involving two people who are in the public eye. That is transparency and we need that more than ever these days.

But these things are not up to me.

All we can do is the best we can - and trust that whatever the outcome, I am exactly where I am meant to be.

Now here’s the great stuff. That Fighting Fund I launched, and to which many of you were able to respond....

Well, thank you. I mean that with bells on.

It has changed so much for me, including much that I can’t even talk about right now - but I will.

But it means the Sun, Moon, Earth and Stars to me. And anything else of great worth you might want to fling in.

I’m a ‘jobbing journalist’. My income comes in and it goes straight back out again.

I have not become financially wealthy from doing my work and that is fine by me. It is not my priority to have excess money.

The only thing about money is you are forced to realise the importance of it when your problem is one that money can help to resolve. Such as, for example, being able to secure fantastic representation.

I’ve had the absolute pleasure of being able to take guidance from Richard Munden of 5RB who will be representing me at the hearing. To be clear. When it comes to barristers - and particularly defamation, harassment and data – 5RB is right there at the top of the legal food chain. Including representing JK Rowling, Meghan Markle, Wayne Rooney and so many others.

And Richard, in such a short period of time, has gone above and beyond to assist me. I feel blessed and appreciative.

That level of expertise, given everything that has been going on around me, is the type of representation I need.

So much to say, so much that has to be held off for now.

But somethings are vital to say...my gratitude for the financial donations, the wonderful emails, messages, tweets and inbox messages is beyond mere words.

People coming together to show me what my work means is one of the most heartwarming experiences I’ve had in years.

It actually gave me light when much around me seemed troublingly dark and sinister. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

My Fighting Fund is ongoing because it has to be.

If I’ve learnt anything over the last few months it’s that if you are to be in with even a winning shout of justice, you have to find a way to fund it. I refused to launch a crowdfunder, or similar, because as previously explained it would certainly be attacked and probably closed down.
Instead, I gratefully receive donations to the following:

PayPal (details below)

Bank:
SV Poulton

Barclays

Account No. 03215652

Sort Code 20-25-25
The IBAN is: GB64 BUKB 20252503215652

When it comes to support, I must again say thank you to Brand New Tube who have been incredible.

I have done two seasons of my Friday night livestream - The Raw Report - produced by them and their kindness and support in this has been brilliant. Beyond brilliant. Out of this World. I love those people and will repay their kindness and support.

And then there is you. Helping me out. In all sorts of ways. From financial, physical and material to psychological and emotional.

Stuff like that keeps people going. Thank you, dearly.

If it is a matter of public interest and the transparency that "we" need - why does she say: "It has changed so much for me, including much that I can’t even talk about right now - but I will."

She has received enough money to hire a top barrister yet she never says what exactly is going on.

[jjbd]

Sonia Poulton: Prove My Views Are Not Fake!
Posted on April 30, 2021 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

Sonia Poulton Video Statement

So, there was a hearing today in Hemming v Poulton. The hearing began with Sonia agreeing to pay me £279 in costs. I then left, and wanted to wait until after the hearing to write about the other matters. Under the Civil Procedure Rules, a large of documents passed into the public domain. The hearing was an application by John Hemming to strike out or summarily judge Sonia Poulton’s pleadings as deficient. Poulton, to some extent, agreed and cross-applied to amend. Defences she still relies upon however, are an allegation she cannot be sure that views on her collaboration with Shaun Attwood were not purchased.

At the outset, I should say that I am a party to these proceedings and so my point of view is naturally selective and focused on my best case. However, since Sonia Poulton has been tweeting all day, a few balancing facts are in order.

Are you donating to Sonia? Did she tell you it is all about Truth? #Truth? Really. Check out this from her defence –


An extract from John Hemming’s defence asking him to prove that the views on her video collaboration with Shaun Attwood are not fake.

If I were a professional journalist I would rather settle than run this as part of my defence. To be clear, Sonia expanded on this in a witness statement that was used in the hearing and therefore became public domain under the collateral use rule –


Sonia accused Shaun of fake views.

Sonia has no hard evidence anyone faked views, but speculates Shaun did because some of his videos had relatively low views for his subscriber base.

Sonia raises a number of other defences including Public Interest and Truth. However, she is not trying to prove that John actually committed a crime against Baker, only that Esther Baker said he did, which position John argues under the repetition rule. So if Sonia wins, no one will know anything more about Baker’s allegations than what was decided in Baker v Hemming, that is, Baker’s allegations are untrue.

Sonia is counter-suing myself, John and a third man for harassment. The ‘harassment’ amounts to articles criticising her and also complaining about her lawyers. Although it would have been possible to apply to strike out, I take the view that a trial would be beneficial. I therefore did not oppose the amendments to pleadings save one matter that I consented on. Sonia caved on that before the hearing. It is possible to plead total rubbish and still survive a strike-out application. Esther Baker’s defence to the harassment claim brought against her by a child abuse victim survived until trial. Then she lost on nearly every count.

This case continues. Sonia’s having to pay me costs does not mean I win the case. However, given the likely revelations at the trial, she is likely to regret bringing it even in the (I hope) unlikely event she does.

John was represented by Matthew Hodson of Hardwicke Chambers, extremely skillfully. One amusing point is Sonia’s failure to do basic research. In her fundraising campaign and in her pleadings she argued her statements were in the public interest because Mr Hemming was a politician who had intentions to stand again. As Hodson points out –

“It should be noted in passing that the Claimant is not intending to stand for parliament again. He has made this public on repeated occasions and it has been reported on by the Daily Mail and on the Claimant’s own website. Again, the Defendant is quick to make statements about the Claimant without verifying their accuracy (and that same mistake as to the Claimant’s parliamentary intentions is repeated in her pleadings in this case).”

Not only had Poulton not bothered to check up to date facts about the cases in her video before being interviewed, she did not even check her facts when defending being sued. She is supposedly a professional journalist. Even if she wins, the facts are unlikely to assist her career – a career in which even David Icke has been somewhat critical of her professional conduct. Ms Poulton has turned on her former collaborator but, if she had such suspicions, this supposedly ethical and fearless journalist did not share them with her viewers until being sued. Nor is this aspect of her defence mentioned on the fundraising campaign.

Judgement on the applications was reserved.

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=7913#more-7913

[jjbd]

Esther Baker
Woman technologist
@Esther9982
Replying to
@ObjectUK
I think Mr Hemming appears to have forgotten that he is still being sued by me for calling me a liar and a fantasist, and stating that the police believed him not me.

Mr Smith appears to have not forgotten that I am suing him for similar but different statements relating to it

[jjbd]

Sonia Poulton
@SoniaPoulton
If you would like to catch up/know more about my court hearing yesterday, @ObjectUK
magnificently live tweeted all day. Thank you so much to them and all who have shown me support at this time. I’m deeply grateful. #FreeSpeechSoniaPoulton https://soniapoulton.co.uk/fighting-fund
6:59 am · 1 May 2021·Twitter for iPad

[jjbd]

UPDATE: May 9, 2021
'The Hearing'

I can’t believe it’s a week since the High Court hearing regarding my case involving an ex-MP. I’m still shell-shocked by proceedings.

In particular, how much was said in open court about what has happened to me, and those around me including those who hire me and those who legally represent me, by an ex-MP and his associates.

There was the email the ex-MP sent to my former solicitor (and described by the judge as ‘troubling’) which the ex-MP’s own barrister said: “talks about what he can do in terms of adversely affecting prospects” regarding my former solicitor’s political career. There was the issue of my pregnant barrister quitting three hours after she was directly threatened and a video that contained an ‘implicit threat’ to me. And these were just for starters.

Many people tweeting struggled to believe what had been happening regarding me over the last few months.

From my perspective, I felt personally vindicated.

I even felt if the whole proceedings stopped there I would be able to live with it given HOW MUCH was said in open court.
Of course, others did not come out of it so well. No wonder at least one of the people involved claimed he wasn't staying for the hearing. Who would want to hear that sort of stuff about themselves revealed to the general public? Must be excruciating.

For my part, it’s a weird thing to hear yourself and your work being discussed in the High Court and to be scrutinised to the degree that I heard at the hearing. Mostly, I was happy with it. There were basic things I would’ve corrected but nothing that cannot wait until a full trial.

Fact is, despite how my enemies seek to portray me, I have been reminded by my supporters how proud I am of what I do - and I intend to continue. I just needed some time out first.

I have much more to say about the hearing and I will once the appropriate legal stages are completed. We are currently waiting for the judge – Deputy Master Bard – to give us his decision whether the ex-MP has succeeded in his application.

Which are: 1. To give him summary judgement against me in his claim that I have defamed him and 2. To strike out my harassment counterclaim against him and two of his associates.
I have always been clear. I seek a full trial so the facts can be fully revealed and examined. I believe it is in the public interest given this involves an ex-MP and a journalist who works for the public interest.


As it became clear in the hearing, I have not done the things I have been accused of. Despite the ex-MP taking to Twitter the day after the hearing and continuing to lie that I want to repeat false allegations. I certainly do not and that was not what my brilliant barrister Richard Munden was arguing for. (Who, incidentally, was utterly magnificent to watch such a pro in action. Can't fully articulate how grateful I am to you lovely people who funded such tremendous representation).

The hearing was remote and well-attended. Members of the public had come to me and I passed them to the Court Clerk who arranged access to the meeting. I am so grateful that there were all those witnesses there including journalists who are following events.

Witnesses are important because they notice strange things like the person who was caught filming at the outset (despite it being Contempt of Court to do so) and such things like the ex-MPs barrister apparently using 'Alexa' to answer questions. We all heard that because the voice sparked into life during proceedings much to the concern of the judge and those present.

The implications of all this and more to be explored fully at a later date. But, for now, here are some of the other things we took a way.

The Judge made it clear throughout that there were issues arising from both the claim and counter claim that were unsuitable for summary judgement and strike out and, in fact, he told us at the end of the hearing that he ‘was minded’ to give us his judgement there and then and give us the reasons why later. He asked our legal representatives to consult with us about what we would prefer.

Turned out it was one of the few things that the ex-MP and I agree on and we both chose to have the answer and reasons at the same time. Deputy Master Bard said it would be 2-3 weeks.

So, for now, this update is more of a ‘hello, I survived that and my mind has been blown by what I have witnessed and experienced’.

I also want to continue to send thanks to everyone who has helped me by donating, by sending supportive words, by posting public support, by tweeting (Object! – the campaign group – live tweeted the hearing all day in a stunning and committed fashion), by being at the hearing, by reporting on it and having the details be known. All of it helps a person when they have felt under siege.

Throughout this dispute, my opponents have tried to intimidate me with the fact that the ex-MP is a millionaire. I have been repeatedly warned to ‘give up’ ‘quit’ or be ‘overwhelmed’ due to my lack of funds. They told me this in blogs, they told me this in videos and they told me this in emails.

In fact, at the hearing, the ex-MP’s barrister tried to use my Fighting Fund - the one many of you donated to - against me. (I was shocked. Not). He said it was a campaign based on the truth - which was apparently problematic. Well, yeah, duh. That’s our thing around here. As much of an issue as it may be to some.

To be clear, my Fighting Fund is not – and never was – just about this current case. I explained at the beginning that it was about establishing a legal fund that would protect me as my work tackling injustices became even more well-known, my enemies became even more powerful and what I stand for became even more troubling for some people.

So, yes, so much more to say. It was a truly eventful hearing including the judge making clear that he had issues with the ex-MP emailing him at 5.30am on the morning of the hearing with videos and irrelevant quotes about me. (“Not an altogether desirable course of action”). Moves like that don’t impress judges and it tells the rest of us so much more about the people involved.

So, thank you all. I appreciate you for getting me this far. My fund is ongoing. Details are below. As soon as news comes through about the judge's decision, I will update you. Have a great day!

[jjbd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgQbkQEC2M8

[jjbd]

Hemming v Poulton: Partial Strike Out and Poulton Faces New £500,000 Claim
Posted on June 11, 2021 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

Judgement was handed down in Hemming v Poulton today. Ms Poulton is presenting it as an unqualified success on her fundraising page. In fact Hemming succeeded in having parts of Ms Poulton’s amended Defence struck out. Deputy Master Bard struck out all of Ms Poulton’s Defence of Honest Opinion and parts of her Truth defence, with further amendments likely on both sides and no end in sight. Her harassment counter-claim survives although that is not a high bar in a fact sensitive statutory tort. The hearing also dealt with a counter-counter-claim (in effect) by the 4th Party Darren Laverty. Despite the best efforts of Ms Poulton’s barrister Richard Munden of 5RB, who filed an 18 page Skeleton Argument, unrepresented Laverty got permission to bring a £500,000 (half-million) libel claim against Poulton. Finally, it was also confirmed that Ms Poulton is under police investigation for revealing the names of two underage child abuse victims in a video interview.
Sonia Poulton Video Statement

Sonia Poulton has issued an inflammatory and misleading ‘official statement’ on the dispute. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.

Your author did not participate in the hearing today as he was working, but had it on in the background at times (like the radio!), except when having connection problems. The judgement was only an initial procedural one, but one thing that amused me was that despite Poulton engaging an expensive lawyer to rewrite her pleadings the judge still struck out parts of it. She is also not trying to prove the Truth of Esther Baker’s allegations. Anyone on hashtag #Truth is going to be disappointed.

The judge criticised Sonia’s pleas on meaning.

Judge strikes out the plea of honest opinion in the absence of specification of what that opinion was.

After the hand-down the judge dealt with an application by the 4th Party Darren Laverty to bring his own Part 20 Counterclaim (some might say, a counter-counterclaim), for defamation and harassment. Laverty has claimed to be a victim of some forms of abuse as a child and was a core participant at IICSA – the child abuse inquiry. The basis of both claims is that Ms Poulton keeps calling him a child gang rapist for an alleged rape when he was 11. He was never charged or convicted and has some evidence that tends to show it never happened. The police interviewed him in the 1990s and he gave the name of the alleged victim. As far as he is aware, the victim confirmed it did not happen. #BelieveTheVictim.

The harassment claim was refused but permission was given for a libel claim against Poulton for an interview she did with James English that is on YouTube. The judge found it was likely to cause serious harm. Mr Munden, Ms Poulton’s barrister, was refused permission to appeal on the basis such an appeal would have no reasonable prospect of success, but can ask the High Court (the appellate court) for permission.

The Laverty judgement was oral and not written. However, one thing the judge did was to criticise both sides (not their lawyers) for ignoring the issues and trashing each other generally in their statements. This is unlikely to enhance Ms Poulton’s reputation as a professional journalist. Mr Laverty was subject to the same criticism but he is not a TV / video broadcaster for his day job.

Finally, one revelation which was confirmed was that Sonia Poulton is under police investigation for naming two child abuse victims. The children, who were tortured by their mother and lover according to a family court finding, have lifelong anonymity. So, if Poulton named them that could be a serious matter. The matter is presently with the CPS who say that, “case is currently being reviewed”. It is important to note that the fact of the police investigation and CPS review does not prove guilt. Ms Poulton is innocent until proven guilty. This blog would not normally name mere suspects on grounds of confidentiality, however, Ms Poulton’s co-accused Shaun Attwood named himself in a public video, and Ms Poulton’s involvement was confirmed during oral argument at the public High Court hearing today. In her witness statement, which has passed into the public domain having been referred to at a public hearing, she says as follows –
Sonia Poulton Statement

Sonia claims we pressured the CPS. We did not actually know until a video by Chancer a few weeks ago. Details which might identify the children even tangentially blanked out by MHN.

For the avoidance of doubt, we had no contact with the CPS until afterwards. We did not know about it until a video by Chancer quoting Shaun Attwood (here) about being interviewed. Mr Attwood’s video is, incidentally, mistaken. The CPS say there have not been charges, it is being reviewed. The police say investigations are ongoing. The only reason I contacted police or CPS was after seeing Chancer’s video as this blog (unlike some) actually checks its facts before publication. I also only used proper channels – I have not spoken to the prosecutor or police officers directly and I do not have their names.

It should also be made clear that the allegation is naming two children – no other form of abuse is alleged and the fact of the investigation in no way proves guilt. However, she does admit to naming them, and if not criminal, it is a further example of Poulton’s unfortunate approach to deeply complex and sensitive issues. Leaving aside the legal issues, what about the distress this could cause to the victims she named?

So, a fair summary of the hearing is in fact this –

Poulton defence to libel partially struck-out but survives
Poulton harassment counterclaim survives
Laverty counter-counterclaim for £500,000 for libel given go ahead

Costs reserved until the 28th.

For balance, Sonia Poulton’s version of events about this hearing is on her fundraising page here (archive). It is worth noting that the text of the fundraising page refers not just to this case, but to, “legal issues that arise as a consequence of my work as a journalist and broadcaster working to expose corruption and injustices and raising awareness to matters of public interest”. This wording is wide enough to include using the money to pay for her defence to criminal allegations arising from her journalism. Whether readers choose to donate is up to them.
The text of the counter-counter claim. form

The counter counter claim survives. The harassment claim failed but the defamation claim for a cool half-million made it.

for correct formatting see http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=7945

[jjbd]

Celebrations on twitter

BRANDNEWTUBE
@brandnewtube
BROADCASTER AND JOURNALIST OF 30 YEARS - SONIA POULTON AWARDED COSTS IN CASE AGAINST EX MP AND CO - THIS CASE COULD HAVE MASSIVE IMPLICATIONS FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH

So does she just keep the "fighting fund" donations or will she pay them back?