Subject: Stitch-Up In St. Albans.
From: Veronica
Date: 17/10/13 11:10 am
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Short Summary

At the time of writing (Thursday morning), the case resumes. Michael distinctly heard Judge Stephen Warner refer to today’s resumption as one for “sentencing”. This may have been a Freudian Slip (since Warner is so used to ‘sentencing’) – or it might have been meant. The point is that – as it stands – the case is not finished. The Prosecution need to make their final “arguments” (so far, all their arguments have been so full of shit, it’s impossible to write that word outside of double quotes), and Michael needs to make his final Defence arguments. Warner then needs to ‘sum up’ (which is a final set of “arguments” for the Prosecution …) … and then reject Michael’s Appeal, thereby finding Michael ‘doubly guilty’ … and probably increasing the ‘sentence’ … possibly even to a prison term. (This, by the way for a first NON-offence … even if it was!)

You get the picture … Warner is thinking about the ‘sentence’ even before the ‘guilty’!

The raw truth of what is happening is, now, fully apparent.

In fact it was apparent by Wednesday morning, because Judge Stephan Warner had, by then showed his true colours … during the afternoon of Tuesday, the day before.

After Monday’s Case Management Hearing debacle, Michael decided to sack his Solicitor. Basically for (a) Not following Michael’s instructions and (b) For ineffectiveness.

This (in theory) left Michael ‘without representation’ … which (as most will now know) … is no big deal in Michael’s case. However, under NORMAL circumstances, this would have created an IMMEDIATE ADJOURNMENT …  automatically really … to give Michael the time to brief someone else.

But, as I said, Warner & Co are out to ‘get’ Michael – by hook or by crook – the latter word being by far the most apposite, in this case.

Monday: “Not following instructions”

Michael’s instructions to his Brief, on Monday, was to DEMAND an adjournment of Wednesday, because more disclosure information has not been forthcoming from the Prosecution, and some had been dumped on Michael that very morning. This ALWAYS requires time for assessment, and time should have been automatically granted.

Nick Dent (the Brief) did not do that, and once again allowed Warner to steamroller him. (Remember: FIRST DUTY = To the Court, SECOND DUTY = To the Government, THIRD DUTY = To the Client!)

Thus, by Monday evening, ‘Wednesday’ was still ‘on’, giving Michael only Tuesday to assimilate anything & everything … and with some disclosure STILL missing.

TOTALLY, TOTALLY, UNFAIR … of course … but that’s the “name of ‘Their’ game”. Anyone who thinks “British Justice” is “the best in the world” has their head very firmly up their arse.

(It COULD BE. The mechanisms are there … in ‘Their’ written rules.  The problem is that ‘They’ make up the ACTUAL rules as they go along).

So, with only Tuesday available to ‘do anything’, Michael determined that the best plan of action was to go down to the Court, and submit a written Application For Adjournment … giving the Court as much time as he could to make other arrangements for the following day. (In the interests of fairness to the Court Staff? After all, it’s not their fault that the have an arsehole working there, and calling himself a Judge).

So that’s what he did … accompanied by a local supporter, called Matt.

They went in, and saw the Court Manager, and explained that they wanted to leave the Application For  Adjournment with Judge Warner. And possibly to discuss it with him, if necessary.  The Court Manager said, “OK … I’ll check the listings, and see if we can fit you in” (i.e. “did her job properly”).

Michael was summoned back about 3:30pm, and told that Warner will see him in Court 2. Matt confirms that he saw this listed on the computer screens.

When they got to Court 2, they found the way barred by a Mitie Security Guard and a Policyman. Both with arms crossed, and barring their way. They were told that they could not go in to the Court. They were told that this was “Judge’s orders”.

Michael & Matt then went back upstairs, to the Court Manager’s Office to make a complaint about this situation. The Manager (once again, doing her job properly) gave Michael the Complain Form, and left him to it.

A few minutes later the Policyman came ‘charging in through the door’ … thrust Michael’s Adjournment Application at him and said “I’ve been told to get you out of the building”.

Upon hearing this, the Court Manager (YET AGAIN … DOING HER JOB!), came out of her office, and told the Policyman that Michael was writing a complaint. Michael was then left to complete the complaint. Then he & Matt left.

Based on this, Michael then determined to submit a Recusal Application first thing the following morning.

Wednesday.

First of all, Michael’s Brief stood up and told Warner he’d been sacked, and would come off the record.

Warner  should then have … of his own volition … created an immediate adjournment, so that Michael could find another Brief.

But of course, as expected, he didn’t. He waffled on about that, but (as usual) then turned to Mr. Hadij, the Prosecutor, with (quite obviously) the full intention of just ‘carrying on’.

Meanwhile Michael swapped places with Nick Dent (who left), and set in the Advocate’s chair.

As soon as he was given the chance to speak, he read out his Recusal Application.

What SHOULD have happened then is that Warner should have got some other Judge to assess Michael’s Recusal Application … and the basis of the Law Maxim nemo iudex in causa sua “No-one has the right to be a judge in their own cause”.

OBVIOUSLY Warner did not do that, but assessed the Application himself, deciding (to everyone’s ENORMOUS SURPRISE … errr .. NOT), that he was perfectly fit to carry on as the Judge in the case!!!

Well bash me sideways with a wet kipper!!!! Megalomania knows no bounds, does it?

In doing so, Warner denied virtually all knowledge of the events of the previous day i.e. the barring of Michael & Matt by the Policyman (more surprises for everyone … errr … NOT!!).

Michael then read out an Application For Adjournment (denied, of course).

The Prosecution then submitted an Application to Re-Open their Case.

Opposed by Michael (request denied, of course).

The Prosecution’s Application to Re-Open their case was granted (of course).

(I think we had established the pattern? Yes? BTW: I predicted ALL of this to Michael the night before … including the 30 minute break/adjournment that Michael was – eventually - granted).

Right … so the Prosecution had two Witnesses. One was a ‘stiff’ individual called Dave Robinson, who was a ‘Facilities Manager’ for Mitie. He was the one who has asserted (via double-hearsay) that Nigel Carder was, indeed, a ‘designated Court Security Officer’. Robinson had brought with him a load of stuff from Carder’s Personnel File … all dumped on Michael in the last couple of days (according to ‘The Rools’ … each side must be allowed FOURTEEN DAYS to assess new information … not 30-fucking-minutes!!!)

The other Witness was Nigel Carder himself … brought back for more questioning.

I won’t go into details … except to say that all the information these two supplied was – in point of FACT- utterly irrelevant. Because no-one it PROVED that Carder had been DESIGNATED BY THE LORD CHANCELLOR.

Didn’t even come close.

But … was … of course … perfectly acceptable to Warner … as cast-iron proof!

Carder has managed to obtain a badge, issued by HMCTS, with his picture on it.

That’s good enough for Stephen Warner!

Let’s all make up some badges, with our pictures on it, and start throwing people around … and then claiming they must have assaulted us … because WE HAVE A BADGE!

During questioning, by Michael, of these two so-called Witnesses (many questions put to Robinson & Carder were answered as “I don’t know/Not my Department” …  Oh that’s fine”, says Warner … “You’ve had your answer Mr. Doherty”), Warner invoked a Time Limit on the questioning – thereby leaving Michael with many unanswered questions. In fact I would estimate that about 80% of Michael’s questions went “unanswered”, thereby leaving Michael to pick over the bones of what was, actually, answered.

Not easy.

During questioning BOTH agreed that they "Couldn't remember their Training". Ohh ... that's good ... innit? What was the point of their Training then, if they can't remember it? Ohh ... I KNOW!  So that they can make it up as they go along!

When I worked as a Till Tart, at Sainbury's (during my illustrious career), I would occasionally see a Supervisor standing, watching me, specifically.  She was watching my performance. Checking up on me. I didn't mind that - as such - however it did get a bit excessive i.e. FIVE TIMES in 18 months which was well above the average. But, THE POINT IS, I was checked.

When I worked as a Bus Driver, there would be 'anonymous passengers' on my bus. They'd be checking me. To make sure I was driving correctly. I didn't mind that ... because I drove my bus correctly.

So ... how come these so-called Security Officers allowed to let their Training fall into long-ago history? Why aren't there 'anonymous people', who go into Courts ... deliberately take NON-VIOLENT, BUT PROVOCATIVE - actions, to test the re-actions of the Staff?

And what about the Policymen? And the Judges, and Magistrates? How about putting them through the 'anonymous testing mechanism'?

Hmmm? Who wants THE RECOGNISED JOB of acting COMPLETELY NON-VIOLENTLY ... BUT SLIGHTLY PROVOCATIVELY ... to test the Policyman's re-actions? Bearing in mind that it would be an Official Test ... and that ... providing you were non-violent ... and could pull out 'Identification/Warrant Card' ... you would observe a look of fear on their faces, as they backed off? And then the fear increase as you tell them, it's all been recorded, and you'll be writing a report? Who wants that job? Anyone up for that?

And the same for Judges? And Magistrates? And ANYONE who has (or thinks they have) been given some kind of "authority"?

Why don't we have that? We do ... for Till Tarts & Bus Drivers. Is a 'Full-of-Shit Internal Yearly Assessment' really the same thing?

Back to the plickening thot.

It must be said … Michael did infinitely better than his previous Brief … Nick Dent.

Finally the Prosecution Closed their case for the second time (Gosh! How many times do they need?), and Michael took the stand, and gave evidence in his defence.

He replayed the CCTV that had been disclosed … which has a had the majority of a Sound Track added, from his Mobile Phone Audio Recording.

This Sound Track proves that the Witness Statements made (and Testimonies given) by all except Michael were chock full of utter baloney.

During replay, Michael stopped the playback and explained EXACTLY what was happening, at that time.

Eventually he got to the point of when the ‘assault’ took place and explained exactly what the CCTV showed … i.e. that Carder was leaning into him, and pushed Michael in the chest … and it is possible to just make out what happened as Michael’s knees buckled, and Michael’s body twists sideways, due to this blow.

He explained that his right arm was raised because he was holding his Mobile Phone to his ear (phoning Peterborough Magistrates Court to check on what he had just been told). Over Michael’s shoulder is his Laptop, and in his other hand are some books.

We are not sure which hand he had left, in order to create an assault.

We have to assume that Michael has at least three arms & hands … even though physical examination determines otherwise.

So, that’s it. Michael goes in today (Wednesday) with a 26-page Defence Summary … which will make absolutely no difference whatsoever.

BUT IT IS –ALL- MATERIAL for a Judicial Review & High Court Appeal!

And that’s the point.

(Michael is actually in the position of having so much evidence against these fuckers, it’s hard to know what to do with it all).

Summary

In order to reject Michael’s Appeal, which he will do – that’s for sure – Warner has to climb a number of hurdles. The two major hurdles are:

1.       Where is the proof that 'designations' from HMCTS, via their 'badge' ... is the EXACT SAME THING as 'designation' by the Lord Chancellor? What, SPECIFICALLY (... Mr. Hadij, Prosecutor, and Mr. Warner, Judge ...) allows this? Show that, and you've made your proof. Otherwise those 16 pages of baloney, that you ground out Mr. Hadij, count for NOTHING.

 

2.        "Laying information" to the Court is what Michael (and anyone else) is perfectly entitled to do, and that’s written down. That's the Law. Where, in that, does it say the IGNORANCE OF IT is LAWFUL? On the other hand, it is a maxim, in Law, that "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse for breaking it". Thus, in order to reject Michael’s Appeal, Warner has to agree that "the ignorance of Diane Pinter & Nigel Carder" IS an excuse. And that, henceforth, "Ignorance of the Law IS an excuse for breaking it". So, this would mean that – from now on – anyone accused of anything could say “Oh … I’m sorry … I didn’t know about that” … and then the Court would say “You didn’t know? Oh … well … on your way then … that’s fine! Sorry to have bothered you!

For those who are interested in details, I’ve placed Michael’s Complaint & Recusal Application below

Vxxx


IN THE ST ALBANS CROWN COURT

CASE NUMBER : A20130032



REGINA


V


MICHAEL DOHERTY


I am writing to make a complaint in reference to the actions of HH JUDGE WARNER at the Crown Court in St Albans.

On the 14
th of October, I attended a case management hearing in court. This hearing went on late into the afternoon after a late start. My solicitor was given specific instructions to make an application to adjourn the hearing on the 16th for a number of reasons, not least the failure of the CPS to comply with orders of Judge Warner on the 10th of September. That the CPS were to serve all material by the 24th of September.      

At the hearing on the 14th of October, the prosecution accepted that they had material still which ought properly to be served. Namely material related to the conduct hearing of the prosecution witness. In addition further items of disclosure were ordered by Judge Warner. My solicitor failed to follow my instructions and make an adjournment application. As a result I asked him to come off the record.

The late disclosure of evidence in the course of the criminal appeal by the CPS has been repeated, yet at no time has this failure been addressed by Judge Warner. Considering the further disclosure orders made and other material to be disclosed by the CPS, it would have been reasonable for Judge Warner to have managed the case and in the circumstances put back the trial date of his own volition. He failed to do so and I believe this has caused a issue with fair & reasonable preparation time for the defence to ensure a fair trial. I believe this failure to properly manage the case gives an appearance of bias as it puts the defence at a disadvantage and permits the CPS to repeatedly ignore proper disclosure standards.

As a result of my solicitor failing to follow my instructions relating to making a request for adjournment, I lost confidence in my solicitor and fired him. As a result I was left without legal representation and sought to make an application for adjournment for a number of reasons on the 15th of October 2013. I attended court as soon as I reasonably could around 2pm on the day. I believed in all fairness it was best to notify the court of the circumstances and the need for an adjournment to save the inconvenience for people attending court on the day in question.

I wrote down my application for adjournment and reasons and the Court manager agreed to see if the matter could be put into the court schedule. At approx 3:30 I attended the Court office again and was told to go to court room 2 where I would be heard. On attendance I found the very intimidating presence of a police constable and Court security guard barring my entry. They seemed agitated and stood in a very provocative manner with their arms folded across their chests.

I was told by them that my entry was being barred to the court on the order of HH Judge Warner. I felt very intimidated and couldn't understand why I would be called to the court to then be refused entry in this manner. I can only imagine it was intended to cause a scene or disturbance. I informed the individuals barring my entry that I had been told to come to the court and found what they were doing very strange in the circumstances. I also informed them that I would be raising the matter as an official complaint and returned to the court office to complete a complaint form and submit this.

The court manager on arrival had no idea why this had happened and happily gave me a complaint form. About 10 mins later the door opened very fast into the court office and the police constable and a female court security guard arrived. The Constable told thrust my application back into my hand and ordered me to leave the building. I asked him why and he told me that HH Judge Warner had ordered it.

At some point the court manager intervened and informed the Constable to leave me to complete the complaint form. It is important to note that when I asked the Constable if I had done anything that warranted me being removed from the court, he confirmed that I hadn't. 

The criminal case before HH Judge Warner relates to issues of public access to the courts. The Judge plainly didn't have the power to be ordering me from the court when I was doing nothing other than seeking the assistance of the court. In doing so he acted in a high handed manner and in abuse of his position, indeed his actions placed me in a situation where I was at risk of arrest and felt intimidated by court staff.

If Judge Warner did not have time hear the application, then I fail to understand why I was called to the court. Indeed if he didn't want to hear the application for adjournment (which is sound in it's basis) then this information could have been politely and professionally conveyed to me. I do not expect to have to suffer intimidatory actions from a Crown Court Judge who is expected to act fairly, honestly and without prejudice when dispensing justice. I am a reasonable man and my conduct on this day was reasonable in the circumstances to seek an adjournment.

The Judges actions to order my removal from the court building extend beyond his powers, they are ultra viras and I believe demonstrate a propensity for the Judge to act toward me in an unprofessional and abusive manner. I reserve the right to add to this complaint.

Please confirm receipt of my complaint and notify the court that this complaint has been received immediately upon receipt. I have CC'd the court manager into this email.

Yours sincerely,


Michael Doherty