In court tomorrow

[BitterAndOnlySlightlyTwisted]

Hayden versus Associated Newspapers.

The Judge? Go on guess. Mr Justice Julian Knowles.

Remember him? I couldn’t be happier.

This is according to contacts at the NZ fruit farm

"The concepts of men and women are socially constructed". Come again?
It sounds as though Hayden may well be a Chartered Legal Executive then.

Can someone explain what it was that was happening in court today? I get that it was pre something? What happens next, does Hayden have another date in court?

I always thought Cilex were quite strict with criminal offences too. Maybe that's why Stephanie stopped being regulated by them.

@Usernameedited thank you. Why would Hayden stop with Cilex - that's unusual? If Hayden was a solicitor, I don't see why they wouldn't say so.

I don’t think Hayden was actually called Hayden in 2012, mind you.

They were lucky not to get done for that. Solicitor is a protected term and holding yourself out as one when you're not is a criminal offence.

Usernameedited

I'm rather confused, as a result of what Hayden themself has said.

Apart from knowledge, which anyone can acquire given enough motivation, does Hayden have any qualifications which allows them to practice law, more than any lay person?

Or, did they have those qualifications, but can no longer practice as before, because of their crimes?

I can see that, arguably, there are reasons why this individual might be in conflict with CILEX.

Hayden isn't regulated as a solicitor, barrister or legal exec at the moment and the convictions would make at least the first two difficult. I would hazard a guess they've been just doing unreserved stuff where anyone can do it. The law degree is obviously a help, because most people want to see at least some knowledge of the law and a degree is an obvious way to do that. But if they're doing purely unreserved stuff that you don't have to be a regulated solicitor, barrister or legal executive to be, then I think it's the same position as for any lay person. I might be wrong though.

I'm astounded at that. Calling yourself a solicitor incorrectly will always get the Law Society down on you like a ton of bricks! And anyone offering property law advice is regulated so Hayden should be registered with one organisation?

All of the regulatory bodies: uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-633-7078?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)

You can't represent a client in court without being regulated though which Hayden is claiming?

Name change was in 2018. The law degree was obtained in the name that no longer exists. So apparently it's OK to own one'd "deadname" when it suits then disown it when it does not.

I’m referring to the name used before the one that was used until 2018.

There have been at least 3.

You can represent people at things other than court.

Then you can let it be known that you “represent people.”

Well you could be a Mckenzie friend. That's quite common in the County Court. Some of them charge a fair bit of money too. No need to be regulated (or even to be a lawyer). It's pretty common to give/get permission to speak in court - most judges would grant it if the alternative was a stressed out litigant in person.

Allegedly 7 names

Wow. That’s a lot of names to keep track of! Especially if you are prone to memory problems!

Can you imagine how that might affect you, psychologically, to keep switching names like that. How would you know who you really are.

Lord - I’d be saying ‘was that me?’ And it think that was one of my names...’. Also, on a technicality, is a ‘deadname’ only the one your poor parents gave you or any one that doesn’t match the ‘gender’ you feel at the present?

So could you have a dead name and some previous names/aliases?