Glinner- Hayden update

[DialSquare]

Just received this by email from Graham.

Such good news for all those whom Stephanie attacks. Thanks for the update Graham and your comments Louise. I'm another one who is very happy for my crowdfunding money to stay where it is.

Item in the press today rightly preserving the anonymity of those who attend court and also request copies of court orders. S Hayden had asked for details of the person's identity. www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/non-party-applying-for-copy-of-court-order-can-keep-anonymity/5114129.article?utm_source=gazette_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Early+advice+pilot+%27lost+opportunity%27+%7c+SRA+reports+%c2%a3149m+of+suspicious+activity+%7c+Mother+in+law_10%2f31%2f2022

caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2022/2693

Thank you, Xenia.

The Claimant, I am satisfied, regularly monitors what is said about her on the KiwiFarms website. As a result, she became aware of the KiwiFarms Post shortly after it was posted and took immediate action. For someone who complains about harassment, visiting the website on which this alleged harassment is posted is not altogether easy to understand. The Claimant told me, at the hearing, that she does not post on the KiwiFarms website “in any guise”.

Priceless.

Priceless.

Indeed! 😂

Congratulations!

Well surely, now that there is Surrey Police precedent, one need only assert that a post from X or Y on KF caused hurty feels, and the police can swoop in, seize Hayden's computers and bobble hats, and search to see if it is correct that Hayden does not post under any guise. I mean, fair's fair and all.

Indeed. I nearly posted the same quote. There comes a point when someone risks becoming a vexatious litigant who might be banned from litigation without court consent even.

It is more generally an interesting issue as to which documents are the core court file to which anyone might have access in most cases and which are not.

I needed a laugh today...

The Claimant told me, at the hearing, that she does not post on the KiwiFarms website “in any guise”.

Are we sure about this? I thought I'd seen posts by Hayden on Kiwi Farms. Might be wrong.

Don't KiwiFarms critics complain that it's bad because it finds out identifying details of people? Yet they're saying it should be routine to identify anyone obtaining a public document because... because it's different when they want someone doxxed?

Graham, @Glinner you have suffered so much from this Mccarthist bullshit.

There is a big pint waiting for you from me.

The court judgment is simply about what the law states about disclosure of people who attend court in person or the online equivalent of obtaining court documents. As you are not required to say who you are before all those present if you turn up at court to watch a case to be consistent we should not impose similar requirements on those requesting a document by way of letting everyone know who has requested the document. So the fact in other contexts and situations the rules or practice of someone might be different is not relevant to the court's decision. (I had never heard of KiwiFarms until today)

Ask yourself WHY the Vexatious One wants/needs to know the identity of the person asking for info. Why on earth does the VO care who it is?

There is only one possible reason: because the intent is to harass and threaten that person.

Made me laugh to see VO described as an "activist" on transgender issues. That is absolutely not true. This person harasses people purely on their own behalf, appears not to have any trans friends whatsoever, and is not in any way associated with any actual trans rights campaign, group, scheme, etc.

Indeed @Ladyof2022 Just look at what Caroline Farrow is still being put through.

Just to be clear (in case anyone hasn't been following this), this is the same case. Hayden told the Surrey Police that Caroline had posted the court order on Kiwi Farms, which proved to be untrue. Hayden has therefore been trying to find out who obtained the court order, perhaps hoping to show that it was Caroline, and that Caroline had then passed it on to someone else to post on Kiwi Farms.

Meanwhile, I'd be very interested to know if Associated Newspapers are going to pursue Hayden for the £29k Hayden owes them.

Ahhhh, thanks for clarifying that @RoyalCorgi I have been following the Farrow case (and been gardening there too).

The whole sorry mess reminds us all that one should never post anything one would not want read in a court of law. And that includes the vexatious one.

It can be quite chilling of free speech to litigate too much - it is a known Fair Game tactic of the Scientology for example and when people are so fixated on one issue that spending huge amounts of time on it or it is a life's work those are very difficult opponents to have as they are like a dog with a bone and never give up.

The whole sorry mess reminds us all that one should never post online anything one would not want reposted on a website which can (could) be accessed by anyone without having to register first.

Are we sure about this? I thought I'd seen posts by Hayden on Kiwi Farms.

Not under their own name, there are plenty of posters on the Hayden thread suspected by others of being Hayden and Hayden's orbiters. But who knows.

Indeed but isn't that why some people get declared "vexatious litigant" to provide some small measure of protection against this? I don't know how bad it has to get before this happens, it is a mystery to me why no judge so far has lost it with Hayden and taken the necessary measures to set the ball rolling in that direction. Couldn't remember which case or which judge but there has definitely been at least one where the judge noted with disapproval the litigious nature of the person.

Person X, whose identity must remain a mystery, is obviously a terrible, terrible, individual buying and sharing documents that expose Hayden's debt.

As I understand it, they were summoned by the Daily Mail to account for their means a month or so ago (more public information). It's crucial that all assets, such as a £1500 damages award won by default because the vulnerable defendant was a no show, are declared. I am sure that Hayden has been transparent and behaved with integrity concerning their finances with such information declared.

The judgement, as I read it, is judicial speak for STOP WASTING COURT TIME AND GO TO THE POLICE.

That's great common sense from the judge.

In related news, KF.net is up and running again.

I liked how another failed case, Hayden v Dickenson, was used to show that the KF post didn’t meet the bar for harassment.

Just out of interest, how much does a return flight to Cape Town cost? 🤔

Isn't this all irrelevant since the Farms (last bastion of free speech Inc) isn't a web forum in UK jurisdiction.

Xenia surely you've heard of Kiwi Farms - you'd love it! (Once you get used to the er robust US posting style)