Subject: Stitch Up in St. Albans ...
From: Veronica
Date: 10/9/13 8:09 pm
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

... being the sequel to "Stitch Up In Stevenage".

Tuesday 10th September, 2013 ... resumption of Michael Doherty's Appeal, after "half-time"

Didn't start too well for the Prosecution ... they received a request (from Michael's side) to disclose any information related to the Prosecution's Key Witness, Nigel Carder ... the psychopath who claims "Michael swung his arm at Carder" ... in relation to investigations into Carder's conduct.

It has come to Michael's attention that Carder has been involved in some kind of skulduggery, in the past.

I'm not allowed to explain that any further, but it is VERY SERIOUS, and there are witnesses to what Carder did. Witnesses who, it seems, would LOVE to see Carder "go down".

An allegation against Carder has been documented, but (as I understand it) hasn't yet been investigated. Again (as I understand it), the Investigators (Carder's Employers) are waiting to see the outcome of Michael's Appeal.

Nevertheless the allegation has been documented, and Michael's side requested disclosure.

This caused some embarrassment to the Prosecutor, who argued a bit with the Judge, but eventually Mr. Prosecutor agreed to accept a 1/2 hour adjournment, and kick-start the process of tracing the information requested.

So within 10 minutes we were all back out on the street ... for 1/2 hour or so.

Back inside, the Judge turned to a Written Submission of "No Case To Answer" written by Michael's side.

Up jumps Mr. Prosecutor, all flustered, and says "I haven't had time to read that!". Michael's Brief says "It was sent in reasonable time, and it's my understanding you received it" (it's beginning to look as though Mr Prosecutor's Clients, the CPS, are being a bit tardy).

So, within another 10 minutes we were back outside, while Mr. Prosecutor reads the submission.

All in all it's now about 11:30am ... and nothing has started!

Back in, we discover that Michael's submission contains something of a bombshell.

The charge (on which Michael was 'convicted', in Stevenage, was "Assaulting a Court Security Officer in the execution of his duty under Section 53 of the Courts Act"

And Michael has pointed out that IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED that Carder is a "Court Security Officer".

And with very good reason.

First of all, during the previous days ... i.e. during the Prosecution Case Presentation, we all heard Carder asked "Have to actually read Section 53?" ... to which he replied "No, I've not actually read it. I've just been told about it". And ... at another point ... say "I suppose I should read it, one day".

(Or words to that effect).

Michael has done disclosures which show Carder's qualifications fall VERY short of those required by "Legal" for someone to become a Court Security Officer. His CV shows about 4 qualifications ... 2 of which come from FIFA as a Football Match Steward. (Shades of Frank Spencer's "25-yards Breast Stroke Certificate!")

And Carder has always claimed (and signed things) as "Security Supervisor" ... which is NOTHING LIKE the same thing (as an "Officer")!

In order to become a Court Security OFFICER, the "Legals" say that he must have been "designated by the Lord Chancellor".

Anyone who has seen the arrogant psychopath Nigel Carder, would find it very hard to believe that he had been "designated by the Lord Chancellor".

So this question is very real, and this proof is very much required.

Simply because, if Carder is NOT a "Court Security Officer" then the charge is incorrect. And, if that's the case, the 'conviction' is incorrect ... and the whole thing flies out of the window.

So ... it was all then adjourned until the end of October when (again, as I understand it), either Nigel Carder will be re-examined on this issue, or 24-carat documented proof will be presented that "He WAS a Court Security Officer AT THE TIME".

Having seen Carder, having seen his arrogant, swagging, demeanour, and watched him lie as a second nature, I (for one) would be gobsmacked if they could come up with that proof.

It may be a 'technicality' but, If they can't make that proof, then the whole thing falls apart ... and there are SERIOUS QUESTIONS about how it got started, and ran, in the first place.

But it's quite obvious (at least to me), that they are trying very hard for a Stitch Up In St. Albans to complement the one in Stevenage. There are indications that the Judge & Mr. Prosecutor might very well be "Members of the Same Club" ... if you know what I mean ("Rolled-up trouser legs! ... and all that)

Vxxx