Subject: South Derbyshire Magistrates Court 3rd February 2014
From: Veronica
Date: 3/2/14 9:31 pm
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Bottom Line

Against a barrage of constantly telling me I was “Not allowed to speak (by the Clerk of the Court)”, I engaged him in about 12 minutes of dialogue … which resulted in:

1.       Case adjourned until 24th February … in order to …

2.       … allow time to raise a Crown Court Appeal against the conviction. (I claimed that the ‘conviction’ was unlawful).

I, therefore, claim success … at this stage of the game.


The subject matter is a Speeding so-called ‘offence’ of 37 mph in a 30 limit, clocked by a front-facing Speed Camera … which does not clearly identify the individual behind the wheel.

The case was ‘heard’ (must be in quotes, because it was a Hearing where no-one was actually listening) on 12th December last year, in Chesterfield Magistrates Court.

John (on this list) had been Summonsed … being the Keeper of the conveyance, and the only Legal Fiction Person named on the Insurance.

John went to Chesterfield, and refused to name either HIMSELF … or “the Driver” … steadfastly claiming that he was “a Man”.

He was ignored/shouted down … railroaded.

When asked to plead “Guilty or “Not guilty” he said “I refuse to plead”.

So … they ARROGANTLY (as they do) entered a “Not guilty” plea … and found him guilty … £745 Fine + 6 Points.

Someone had obviously had second thoughts, and sent John a letter saying that the SPEEDING ‘conviction’ was cancelled.

But (somehow?) this changed/morphed – as if by magic – into a conviction for “Not naming the Driver”.

And they arranged a Hearing for today, to call John into Court, in order to ‘arrange payment of the Fine’.

7 of us (friends/family) went … with me preparing to (Lay) Advocate.

We heard the case called, and all went in. I stood at the front, with John.

They asked if Mr. John XXX was present and I handed the Usher John’s Birth Certificate, saying “Yes, here it is!”.

(They didn’t like the look of that … there was a bit of an argument … but it didn’t get too serious. They kinda decided to ignore it … and move on … especially when I told then that the Birth Certificate couldn’t hear them …)

I was then asked if I was Mr. John XXX, and I said “No, I’m a transsexual”.

They then said: “What are you doing here?

I said “I’m a Lay Advocate for Mr. John XXX, with Power of Attorney”.

They then said “You can’t address this Court”.

And I said “Yes, I can

And thereon ensued a lot of argy-bargy between myself & the Clerk, as I told him that we considered there was “No case to answer”, and that the conviction he was referring to was unlawful, because it had been based on someone in Chesterfield claiming Power of Attorney to enter a plea, when no such consent had been given.

I said that, on the basis of that, it should have been committed to Crown Court to deal with.

The Clerk then said “They couldn’t do that, because it was a summary offence”.


(Summary offence = Hearing in Magistrates Court;  Indictable offence = Trial in Crown Court … dems de rools THEY MADE UP, when they created these Maggot’s Circuses. BUT NOT ***MY or OUR*** PROBLEM!!!).

However, the mention (by me) of “Power of Attorney” (or lack of it) + mention (by me) of “Crown Court” … allowed the Clerk to add 2 + 2 = 4, and asked me if we wished to raise an Appeal in Crown Court.

I walked to the back of the room with John, and we conferred with our backs to them all. We agreed to go for an Appeal, on the basis that Chesterfield has no right to ASSUME that they can just ‘grab’ Power of Attorney ‘out of thin air’ … and proceed to some kind of conviction.

John agreed … so we turned around, walked back to the front, and I said “Yes … we will Appeal”.

(Note: This was said by someone who was not allowed to address the Court … or to speak! My Law … which says I can speak … is obviously superior to their rools)

So the Clerk turned round to the three Maggots … the centre one being a raging PSYCHOPATH …  and told them to adjourn until the 24th February, to allow time for us to raise an Appeal.

The PSYCHO, then repeated that out loud … as well as shouting at John to “Take his hands out of his pockets”. John remained calm, and kept his hands IN his pockets … WELL DONE JOHN!!!!

The PSYCHO then shut up. I think the Clerk tried to gain John’s attention by referring to him as Mr XXX , but once again John kept his stance, and just looked blankly at the Clerk.


After having tried these two last-gasp attempts at getting ‘joinder’ … they gave up.

And we all walked out … and went home.

We will now be starting the Appeal to Crown Court.


Don't take any shit.


I made a mistake ... but I got away with it.

They asked me if I was a Solicitor/Barrister/Member of the Law Society. I said "No, but I'm versed in the British Constitution & LAW"

The Clerk said: "You have to be member of the Law Society"

I just carried on anyway ... but I should have said "Are you saying that someone charged with an offence cannot defend themselves?"

The Clerk would have been forced answer "Of course they can".

I should have then said "Are they free to choose their own defence, of must it be chosen for them?"

The Clerk would have been forced answer (probably after a bit of hesitation): "Their defence is their choice".

The next question should have been: "If they are not particularly erudite, can they be represented, by someone of their own choosing?"

The Clerk would then have said "They can choose representation, by someone from the Law Society"

I then say: "Show me where it is stated that the Law Society has that EXCLUSIVE right ... something they never even claim for themselves ... as I'm sure you know what a Litigant-in-Person is".

At that point the Clerk would have been well & truly stuffed. (I have a slight regret at not stuffing him, as I could & should have done. I'll do better next time)