Subject: St. Albans Crown Court - Day 2
From: Veronica
Date: 23/8/13 8:10 pm
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

I wasn't there for most of it.

I only caught the last 5 minutes.

I'd gone up to Cambridge, on a spying trip, to see whether or not there was a CCTV that would show a better view of the incident. There was one that was fixed high up on the wall, and should have captured the 'incident' in much more detail. We suspect that the footage for this camera has been 'deleted' by the Security Guard who complained of assault ... because (apparently) he was the one in charge of it. The fox is in charge of the hen-house.

The Prosecution's case is now complete (having had all their so-called Witnesses cross-examined).

So the whole thing was adjourned until 10th September.

What will happen, on the 10th, is that Michael ... who has done nothing so far except sit behind his Brief ...  prodding his Brief with the occasional 'note' ... will take the Witness Stand ... to be cross-examined.

This will be a Day to Remember ... as Michael will explain ... WITH EVIDENCE ... exactly what happened ... since a hell of a lot of important detail has been glossed over by the Prosecution. (As they do ...)

And, in this case, the 'devil is totally in the detail'. For example, the hand that Michael was supposed to have used to 'punch' the Security Guard ... was actually holding Michael's Mobile Phone ... to Michael's ear.

But then, the Security Guard says he "Anticipated being punched, was wearing expensive spectacles, and stepped backwards out of the way". (Except that the CCTV doesn't show him stepping backwards ... but  ... ho hum ...)

So there was no 'physical connection' ... according the guy who supposed to have been 'hit'. (Actually, there WAS a physical connection when HE pushed Michael ... in the chest)

But the Security Guard's 'best mate' Security Guard says he "Saw Michael swing a punch" .... ummmm ... except that ... before ... in Stevenage ... he said "He couldn't see Michael's hand ... only his arm & wrist".

A 'punch' requires a 'closed fist' ... as far as I know.

However ... this is all 'bye the bye'.


Because the Security Guard, who has alleged to have been 'assaulted', says that he was ejecting Michael under "Section 53 of the Courts Act".

When asked (on Day 1 ... when I was there) if he had actually read Section 53, he said "No".

The first Witness on Day 1 was a woman who is an Usher. She said that she had told Michael that he "Had to contact Peterborough, and make an Appointment".

Michael's Brief then pointed out to her that Michael DID NOT have to make an Appointment in order to LAY INFORMATION.


The "laying of information", for a Private Criminal Prosecution, occurs when the Indictments ARE HANDED OVER TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT.


AND DATE/TIME THEM with a Court Stamp.

This is important ... because ... if the Private Prosecution goes ahead ... IT IS 'TIMED' FROM THAT TIME/DATE.

The Application can be HEARD sometime later (maybe a later DATE). If accepted as an Application the DATE/TIME goes back to when it was "laid" i.e. handed to the Court Clerk.

This can be crucial in the case of a Common Assault Indictment where (apparently ... according to Michael) there is a 6-month Time Limit. Thus, if you turn up on the Last Day (of the 6-months) and HAND OVER THE INDICTMENTS ... even if the Application itself isn't heard, and accepted, for another week ... you still made the Time Limit.

So on Day 1, in St. Albans Crown Court ... THAT POINT WAS MADE, IN COURT, TO THE VERY FIRST WITNESS.

Any 'judgement'  ... in a Court of Law ... MUST be based on as many FACTs as possible.

So here are FOUR of them:

Fact 1 (Intent):

Michael went to Cambridge Magistrates' Court (Star Chamber) on the 7th August last year, to attempt to LAY a Private Criminal Prosecution.

Fact 2:


Fact 3:

... is one that does not seem to gained much traction … possibly because it is the most ESSENTIAL fact … is that IT WAS PART OF THE FUNCTION OF CAMBRIDGE MAGISTRATES COURT TO GIVE MICHAEL AS MUCH HELPFUL ASSISTANCE AS THEY POSSIBLY COULD.

Another way of saying that is: What Michael attempted to do WAS A PART OF THE COURT’S BUSINESS. He was attempting to PLAY HIS PART in the Court’s Business for that day. Thus all waffle (on Day's 1 & 2) about ‘disrupting the Court’s business’ was – de facto – NULL & VOID … ab initio.

One CANNOT – under any circumstances – be DISRUPTING A COURT’S BUSINESS (as per Section 53) by PLAYING ONE'S ASSIGNED ROLE IN THAT PROTOCOL (or ATTEMPTING TO … as Michael was).

Fact 4:
It has never been in the remit of Cambridge Magistrate's Star Chamber (or any other Star Chamber)  to be UNHELPFUL IN ANY WAY … let alone THROW YOU OUT … let alone FORCIBLY.

Those are THE FACTS.


And those FACTS create a Judgement, in Law.

Which, put simply, is: OUT OF IGNORANCE OF THE LAW, The Clerk of the Court refused to accept Michael's Indictments ... which she had no right to do. Only the basis of her stomping off, Mister Security Guard immediately 'escalated' the situation ... because he knew ... by squeezing a goat's testicles ... what Michael was going to do (i.e. 'turn nasty'). Mister Security Guard also operated OUT OF IGNORANCE OF THE LAW.


And, OUT OF IGNORANCE, they ALL broke the Law ... except Michael.

So ... if the Crown Court Judge (Warner) RULES ANY OTHER WAY THAN TO ALLOW MICHAEL'S APPEAL ... and thereby quash Michael's Conviction ... the Judge would be saying: "Ignorance of the Law IS an excuse that absolves the Clerk & Security Guards from all wrongdoing ... when they forcibly ejected Michael ... breaking the Law as they did that".

An allowed Appeal would, of course, maintain what we have all been told: "Ignorance of the Law is NO EXCUSE".

And, since they broke the Law when they forcibly ejected Michael, every claim they make to anything at all (e.g. 'assault') is 'out the window'. As many High Court Judges (Lord Diplock, Lord Denning, etc) have said: "You can't build a claim out of nothing".

So that's the situation as it stands.

Michael will, I sincerely hope, be making those points when he stands up and speaks on the 10th September.

Please Note: THERE ARE ONLY 15 SEATS IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY ... and they don't allow people to stand.