My response, based on reading what the Solicitor reported on (I
think it's a) her website ... see the links here:
Primarily it's on Page 2, above.
It seems to be obvious (to me, at least) that Warner thinks the
"laying of information" is an 'option' that a Maggot's Circus
That it can either accept the information ... or not ... as it
Perhaps (on the 10th) you could make the point that Laying
Information ISN'T optional ... what is optional is whether or
not the Application's Indictments are SUBSEQUENTLY accepted and
Someone who thinks a dream constitutes 'valid evidence'
obviously needs to be guided gently by the hand.
(Googling "Judge Stephen Warner" brings up a link to a report that
he allowed someone's dream as 'evidence')
The reason why I wrote that (above) is due to the conversation
between Judge Stephen "I like to warn" Warner, Nick Dent
(Michael's Brief), and the Prosecuting Barrister.
The upshot (to my way of thinking) is that The Clerk refused to
accept the "laying of information", because she didn't realise
that she had to accept it, and the Security Guard just weighed in
(big'n'beefy) not really having the faintest idea why. Thus they
both BROKE THE LAW ... due to their IGNORANCE.
Judge "I like to warn" Warner has now got to decide that their
AN EXCUSE for them breaking the Law.
If he can't do that, then he has to accept Michael's Appeal.
The 10th of September is going to be very interesting.
On 30/8/13 10:38 pm, Michael Doherty wrote:
Hi all a quick update on the ONGOING appeal,
As you know I was on appeal for a 'dodgy' conviction relating
to an alleged assault of a court security officer in Cambridge
The appeal was held on the 20th & 21st of August in St
Albans Crown court and adjourned at the point the prosecution
closed their case until the 10th of September. The Judge a Mr
Warner was I'd say rather partial to the prosecution, though
I'll withhold my judgement until the case has completed.
I am thankful to a large FULL public gallery on both days and
the comments of support from those who came to witness this
sham for a second time. It is quite amazing the effort of the
CPS into a case which at it's height is an allegation that I
DID NOT HIT anyone... a 'technical' assault which rests on the
bogus claims of another court security man and a PCSO that I
'intentionally' threw a punch..
The fact the security was shoving me violently in the chest at
the time seems to have escaped all their observations, but
it's plain to see in the CCTV.
I wouldn't bore you anymore, however a retired solicitor
managed to attend on parts of both days and wrote up some
excellent comments which you may view via the links below;
My best and hopefully see some of you on the 10th of
September, 10am at St Albans Crown Court... Once i've cleared
this fit-up out of the way, I'll resume my updates on the
continuing criminal prosecutions of the police...