Hayden v Heath (LegalGengar) 21st November

[IDareSay]

The applications in Hayden v Heath will be heard at 10:30 on 21 November. Anyone wishing to support LegalGengar can observe using the Court Video Platform and the instructions are on the attached notice. Please ensure that your camera and mic are off. Tap on the notice to open.

https://x.com/CharlesTerf/status/1987897057038983309?s=20

Many women here will be aware of Hayden and his legal cases.

It’s about time FT was branded a vexatious litigant. What a colossal waste of taxpayers money

That makes sense, does he still have an account on X? I think there is now a SEEN Police account run by serving officers who haven’t been fired.

His multiple personalities. Inclusivity: ‘innit.

Reading this post finally helped my brain work out something that's been at the back of my mind, occasionally niggling, me for a long time now.

Given they use the slogan Trans Women Are Women.
Why do they use the term "trans woman" ? e.g. above
Why don't they just say "woman" ?

Your post helped me figure it out.
Because they need the differentiator to be able to claim victimhood.
If the post above just said :
A woman has been subjected to appalling targeted harassment and......
Then they wouldn't be able to claim the victim points for trans.
Even the TWAW crowd need the differentiator between men and women.

But but I thought the lying flawyer was one of the country's leading legal brains?

Let's find out more about the leading legal brain!

Here's the site that gave rise to this pathetic attempt to silence someone:

https://grift.watch/stephanie-hayden-part-three/

A notable moment: Heath's KC suggested that Hayden apply to the Advocate pro bono scheme for professional legal help. The Master agreed it “would be good” if he were accepted. That says a lot about the state of the pleadings.

Haha that'll hurt. The judge said to the man who identifies as a lawyer that he's incompetent and lacks the professional skills to bring a proper claim.

For those wondering how the hearing in Hayden v Heath went this morning, whilst there needs to be some amendments to correct technical deficiencies with the pleadings, the claim survives in full. Treat any reports to the contrary with caution

The claim survives in full on a technicality that the judge has told him to stop pissing about and make an actual legal claim rather than one that's complete nonsense.

The point that the 'harassment' detailed is below the threshold required is pretty damning because ultimately Hayden can't magic up stuff that hasn't happened even if the claim is rewritten. The judge will see right through it.

It makes me wonder though at this point there's a significant issue - the judge is saying this claim is utter nonsense and no reflection of the law and it's deeply unprofessional. It makes me wonder if groundwork here is being made for the ability to ban Hayden from harassing others through court. The grounds could easily be made here that Hayden can only bring future claims if they are properly represented by a professional because at present he's using process as punishment. The fact that if this goes against Hayden, Hayden is liable for costs is significant too. No one is likely to take on a case of they know Hayden can't pay. The only route then is likely to be crowd funding as an individual or to lean in on the GLP.

The fact Lynsey is having a meltdown and effectively now looking to go after the judge is amusing. I am fairly sure that's only going to strengthen the case that these pair are using the law against law abiding citizens in a vexatious manner. Which goes back to my previous point about a possible imminent scenario where they get limited on what they are allowed to bring to court and how.

So far I'd definitely be looking at what happened as a significant blow to Hayden and honestly I think it's about more than just that the claim is bollocks.

Very impressed with the judge and grateful for Farrow's detailed notes.

At what point does someone became a ‘vexatious litigant’?

honest question. And isn’t Hayden at least getting there?

Honestly I'm inclined to believe it's at the point they eventually piss off the wrong person who is just doing their job in handling their claims and then gets harassed too. I know they've already gone after individuals in this scenario but eventually they'll do it to the wrong one. It's all about the inability to deal with being told no and not getting their own way.

At which point I suspect Watson will escalate.

It seems identitying as something, doesn’t make it true. Who knew?

Yep - it's like the Webberly interviews. There's no logic or consistency or rational argument - just whatever words seem to be best able to push an unjustifiable anti-women agenda in the moment.

Courts can impose a sanction that prevents a vexatious litigant issuing proceedings without the prior leave of the court. It is quite a high bar to get to that point but the more egregious and unfounded the claims, the higher the likelihood.

You'd think that with all the practice he's had, he could put claims together in his sleep. Poor old Tone, reality has hit him in the face again.

OMG how what would Watson escalating look like?

His argument would be that since people were acting unlawfully but the state was supporting them, it would be legitimate to take 'direct action' as 'injustice' can only be challenged in this way - you can no longer take on injustice through the system so it's legitimate to take it on outside the system. It would be about 'forcing the state to listen'...

I have a feeling that Gengar has stated this as one of his aims on Twitter. I hope this happens because it’s an absolute con for this to be allowed to continue. Hayden never pays what he owes and it is so clear that he does this for personal kicks, at everyone else’s expense.

Vexatious litigant status requires, I think, a minimum of two claims struck out totally without merit. A friend who was sued won after the particulars (but not the claim in itself) were struck out and I'm aware of another case where the final judgement was that the proceedings were an abuse of process. Most others have either been withdrawn, settled, or lost.

SH has, to date, filed three claims against me. I knew I was never going to recover costs (SH is not a person of means despite the public facade that no-one believes). But I have never paid anyone nor have I ever apologised. I'm obviously very supportive of Matthew and the landscape has shifted enough that the high court is now at the very least wary of new claims.

Although the criteria for VL status is prima facie strict, the Attorney General does have discretion to consider the dynamics of repeated litigation. SH is going to be SH and, at this point, there needs to be pressure on the judiciary to look at the totality of the litigation because they are allowing someone to repeatedly use the Scrounge With Fees scheme to, in my view, abuse numerous people through litigation knowing that they will never pay costs.

The judge yesterday started to grasp it all towards the end (she's only had one of SH's cases before her whereas Judge Nicklin was aware of most of them) and it's really not a bad outcome for Matthew. There are rarely grand wins in litigation and the claim is now essentially dead given that the March hearing will award today's costs to Matthew.

I see.

The attackers that targeted FILIA used similar arguments, didn't they? The police were investigating that, I'm sure arrests and charges are imminent........

We know that Watson is in that circle in someway yes. Glinner and a number of others already believe that Watson has taken part in various forms of harassment and intimidation.

Cutting off the court route for Hayden/Watson would mean that Watson will look to other methods so is liable to escalate in what he's already involved in elsewhere - purely because he has more time and this is his entire world. He has an obsession he's not just going to give up on.

Honestly, I don't see how it ends in any way other than he ended up imprisoned for something at this point because he's so invested in it and made it his entire being. He's an extremist who simply isn't going to stop. It's the what he gets imprisoned for bit that open to change.

I'm not sure it's Watson's style though, to come out of the legal shadows. Imo he'll just keep spaffing Judicial Reviews around, hoping one will stick. He's always looking for new people to focus on, saying he will "end" their behaviour. James Esses seems to be the latest one.

I'd say that actual protesting is more Fred Wallace's style.

The only escalation left for him is violence as hes done everything else, how like that escalation is i can't say

GB News in 2022

https://x.com/LegalGengar/status/2031314889294135651?s=20

high court proceedings against Matthew heath have been discontinued in full

does that mean the other person in this case will have to pay costs?