Thank you for your contribution. See bottom of page for more details, see below for ways to donate.
NOTE: If you are donating a large sum, then bank transfer is preferable because it avoids a commission fee.


Bank : Barclays
Account : Richard Hall
Acccount No : 83571793
Sort Code : 20-26-23

IBAN NUMBER : GB82BUKB20262383571793


P.O. Box 97144
Merthyr Self Storage
CF48 1PQ

Note : Make sure packages are very well sealed.


Richard D. Hall - Legal Fund Bitcoin Wallet : bc1qymj6kwjv5geep20eknw3fakmegrflglm4lu5g7

CURRENT SITUATION - Updated 22/2/2024

Video Update 22/2/2024

I (Richard D. Hall) appeared at a High Court Hearing on Monday 29th January 2024. The Hearing was to determine the outcome of the Claimant's Application to accept without question the official narrative of the Manchester bombing, and thus prevent me from presenting any evidence which challenges the official narrative at a trial.

An article by Iain Davis can be found here.

The Judgment can be found here.

I will make some points about the Hearing

Point 1 : At the Hearing I presented video evidence which was filmed at the scene of the Manchester incident, in the City Room, filmed 4 minutes after the blast. It showed a woman, Ruth Murrell, walking without impairment or any visual injury - who it was claimed had a nut or bolt travel all the way through her leg (15cm), and out of the other side. I also showed the merchandise stall completely in tact, which was just yards from the blast and in direct line of sight. This evidence is not specifically referred to in this Judgment, and was not shown at the Public Inquiry. I also showed images at the Hearing, of the City Room shortly after the blast, showing that no visible building damage was caused, and no blood is visible on the floor, and windows were not broken etc. This evidence is also not specifically mentioned in the Judgment. The evidence is first hand video and CCTV evidence from the crime scene.

Point 2 : None of the CCTV evidence which is relied upon by the Claimants, which would demonstrate they were present at the Arena, has been released by the Public Inquiry to my knowledge, and has not been seen by the Court, nor by myself. I submitted an Application to the Court to have this CCTV evidence released. I submitted a second Application to the Court to have the 2017 medical records of the Claimants released for a surgeon to view, (I first requested medical records in January 2023). Both of the Applications have been rejected in this Judgment. With regards the CCTV evidence, what was relied upon, were statements made by two people who claim to have seen the CCTV evidence, but no footage or images have been provided.

Point 3 : I spoke about many other evidential points, some of which are explored in my films, and also the BBC's actions against me in relation to the timing of the Claim.

Point 4 : I am awaiting a copy of the Hearing transcript.

Media Coverage

I have submitted a complaint against the BBC about their article on the summary judgment Hearing. Their article implies that I have lost the case, which is not true. It also fails to mention any of my arguments or evidence which were put forward at the Hearing.

Ben Emlyn Jones was present and has posted this account (slightly modified).

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 gang 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. 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 28% of the public say they think the real truth about the Manchester Arena bombing is being kept from the public. The Public 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 here. 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: (coming soon).

CURRENT SITUATION - Updated 24/11/2023

Video Update 24/11/2023

CURRENT SITUATION - Updated 16/6/2023

Video Update 16/6/2023
Claim and Defence Documentation

CURRENT SITUATION - Updated 09/5/2023

Firstly THANK YOU to everyone who has so far donated to my legal fund. I am very grateful to you.

I have received notification that a legal claim has been filed against me in the High Court.

The claim is seeking damages and an injunction for harassment and breaches of the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018.

Note that there is no claim of libel or defamation which has been incorrectly reported across most of mainstream media.

I have until the 1st of June 2023 to submit my defence.

Iain Davis has written an excellent article covering the issue here,

My book is available free here ...


Richard D. Hall

CURRENT SITUATION - Updated 25/4/2023

As you may know, the BBC and all mainstream media have recently produced further hit pieces against myself and in particular my work covering the 2017 Manchester Arena incident (but without discussing the content of the work).

The BBC has criticised me for 'profiting' from the Manchester Arena incident because I published a book about it. I have therefore decided to give the book away as a free download here …

Please download the book (right click and save link as) from the link and send it to everyone you think may be interested in the content.

You can find reviews (scroll down) about the free book from this link,

It is clear from their recent articles that the legal action they have described, which they say has been submitted to the High Court against me (but I still have not to date yet received notice of), has the intention to censor/remove my book permanently and remove all my videos on this subject - as well as attempting to hit me with a 'damages' claim.

The associated films and lecture can be watched from the links below. I advise you download and re-distribute these also, as it appears that the intention is to censor all my work on this subject, which consists of no more than hard evidence and honest opinion.

UK Critical Thinkers videos on the subject can be found here ...

" Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see "