Subject: Southern Derbyshire Maggots Circus Report, Monday 24th ...
From: Veronica
Date: 26/2/14 11:07 am
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

… otherwise known as “the Lion’s Den”.

Went “as expected” … i.e. was completely the opposite of what was reasonable.

When we arrived, the case was listed for a Circus of Magistrates.

But (as I expected), they were ready for us this time … so they very quickly moved to case to a Circus with a District Judge.


On the 3rd February we were given until Monday 24th to initiate an Appeal against a faux ‘conviction’.

We applied for the Appeal, and – last Saturday (22nd) - a letter arrived – FROM THE CROWN COURT – saying that the initial stages of the Appeal would be heard on the 14th March.

That being the situation … the case had moved from the Maggot’s Circus to Crown Court. Thus the Maggot’s Circus, in Southern Derbyshire, was either:

(a)    No longer involved … OR

(b)   If they wanted to keep some kind of ‘hold’ - they would need to adjourn until sometime after the 14th March.

Whatever the situation, it had to be one or the other. And it had to be some kind of Rubber-Stamp Job in the Maggot’s Circus.

However, you would not think so, the way we were treated.


In short, we arrived and pointed the Usher to the original Listing, and said we are here for that case.

The Usher started to pull out some kind of ‘form’ (from a pack of them), and said: “In that case will you fill out this?”.

I said: “No”, and walked away.

She went: “Oh?” … and walked away as if she were sulking.

Then we were told the case had been moved to another Circus Room … so we went and sat outside it.

I could see it listed as “Remand Court”.

Another Usher came out, and we went through the “Are you … “ business (as usual). I showed her the Berth Certificate (as usual).

So SHE started sulking!

I showed her the letter from the Crown Court, and managed to transfer it to her unwilling hand, saying “You may not have had time to go through your post, but this explains the situation. You know that a case can’t be running in two places at the same time”.

 She said: “I don’t know about that … I’m not legally trained

You just couldn’t make them up, could you?

A few minutes later she comes out with the bullshit: “The Clerk is too busy at the moment. It’s a very busy Court!”, and throws the letter back at me.

So, I went downstairs, and got it photocopied.

I went back upstairs and, the next time she re-appeared, I handed her the photocopy, and said: “I’ve had this copy specially made for you. You can give to the Clerk when he has time … for example when they break for lunch. No, I don’t want it back. You can keep it. I made it for you”.

She disappeared, and came out, saying: “I’ve been told to tell you that, unless the Legal Fiction Person Named is here, then the case will be heard without anyone being allowed to speak. You can sit at the back, and see what happens, but you will not be allowed to speak”.

So, I thought: “Fine … let’s all go then, and let’s get on with the Private Criminal Prosecution against the original Maggots in Chesterfield”.

Unfortunately, I was overruled by the gentleman who was the ‘subject’ of all this … even though my intuition was screaming: “Get the hell out of here!”.

He said: “Well, let’s wait and see what happens”.

I said: “NOTHING is going to happen … NOTHING that we can make any difference about … we’ve been told. There’s absolutely NO POINT in us being here. They will do, what they will do”.

Fuck it! WE WERE AHEAD OF THE GAME … they had the letter … and we were free an clear! And we could have stayed that way, by leaving when I said so.

But no! We sat there, and went to the “Coffee Machines Area”, and sat down.

Suddenly the Usher appeared, threw the letter on the table, and said: “I need to give this back to you for a minute”.

I said: “Exactly which minute?” … but she walked away.

I WAS FURIOUS!!!! From being 1 – 0 up, and looking at an “away win”, we were now back to 1 – 1!!!

(SHIT!!!! I wish people would LISTEN TO ME!!!!!)

Finally it was agreed that we should try to give the letter back to the Usher.

I said: “That’s impossible now. You will never get that letter back into her hands. THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY SHIT-SCARED OF IT. We should have left when we had the chance”.

Anyway, one of our number did try. The Usher came out, and when approached with the letter, she scuttled away … like a frightened rabbit.

Never seen someone so afraid of a sheet of paper.

So, we left the letter tucked into the Listing Notice, and went home.

And I made an arrangement to meet Michael Doherty, in Luton, that evening.

Which we did, by driving down from Derbyshire (and eventually went back to Derbyshire).

Michael has provided lots of useful information, which we are now progressing … largely regarding the Crown Court Appeal. BUT … ALSO … the possibility of creating a Private Criminal Prosecution – against the Chesterfield Maggots, “somewhat along” the following lines:




Misconduct in Public office contrary to The Common Law


On 12TH DECEMBER 2013 you DEFENDANTS NAMED sat to hear Case Number 301300238654, and conducted proceedings. During those proceedings you were told that you had no jurisdiction to arbitrate the matter, by virtue of being told “There is no case to answer”, and that you were not granted Power of Attorney to enter any plea. Nevertheless you proceeded to create a conviction, which was unlawful because you were given no jurisdiction so to do. This created a Tort against the Man, commonly called John: of the family M, causing him to unnecessarily defend himself against a conviction which was illegal, unlawful, and void ab initio.



Perverting the Course of Justice contrary to The Common Law


Sometime between the dates 12TH DECEMBER 2013 and 3rd FEBRUARY 2014 you DEFENDANTS NAMED underwent some form of unlawful administrative process in order to cancel your decision made on 12 DECEMBER 2013, and substitute a different conviction with the same sentencing attached. This constituted a fundamental defect in the entire process, and increased the Tort against the Man, commonly called John: of the family M, causing him to unnecessarily defend himself against a conviction which was illegal, unlawful, and void ab initio.


 Anyway, that’s the way it stands, right now.

Michael has told me that, when applying for a Private Criminal Prosecution, it is also necessary to add a Covering Note explaining the discretion that they have when deciding to sign (or not).

(I’m still waiting for a copy of the sort of Covering Note one needs to provide).

I’ve also been told that one can write to the Maggots Circus, and request the following information – which they are ‘duty-bound’ to provide (except for Rule No. 1: THEY DON’T OBEY THEIR OWN RULES”), HOWEVER:

1.       The names of the Maggots and the Clerk who sat at the Hearing.

2.       A copy of the Clerk’s Notes, which are made during the Hearing.

3.       A copy of the Maggots “Case File”.

4.       On payment of £10, a Subject Access Request, under the FoI Act, in which the “Named Defendant” is mentioned, and in which the Case Number is mentioned.  (But Note: As far as I can recall, they would have 40 days to respond to this).

5.       With regard to (4), above, a Crown Court Judge can order disclosure of any and all of that information …  at the start of the Appeal? Or, at least, I think that’s true.

Well, that’s where it sits (currently).





Up ‘em.

There is more.

1.       I have reasoned that, for the Maggots to pluck Power of Attorney out of their arseholes (as they do) … it is a form of Identity Theft. Which is a crime. And it’s about time that they were stopped from that criminality. That’s what the first Count on the Indictment, above, is all about. It may very well be “Their rule” (that they can do that), but: IS THAT RULE ETHICAL? And, I suggest, ONLY A JURY CAN DECIDE THAT.


If you want to run a system that is HONOURABLE, and provides JUSTICE … you can’t do that if any of the Rules are not ETHICAL.


If you try to obtain Power of Attorney – so as to act on behalf of an elderly relative (mother/father, etc), then you would have to obtain a Psychiatric Assessment, which would need to say: “They would know what they were doing, if they Assigned PoA over to you”. That being the case, then how come the Maggots can just pluck it out of their arses?


I fail to see the essential difference between plucking PoA out of their arse, leading to a conviction and fine of £745, and direct THEFT of  your Debit Card + Pin Number to deduct £745 directly out of your Bank Account.


2.       I have also reasoned that it is long past time we were able to make our own recordings (audio at the very least). Michael has a situation which would be resolved if we had been able to do that. Once again, I believe we need to get this aspect in front of a Jury.


3.       We need to get it established that “Anyone with VALID PoA” can ALWAYS speak & represent. Yet another ‘rule’ that should be decided by a Jury. The System HATES Lay Advocates and Litigants-in-Person … because they can only be threatened with Contempt of Court (and not loss of Licence/livelihood!). And, once you know what Contempt of Court is, you can’t even be threatened with that!


4.       Also, apparently, (according to Michael ... who believes what he reads) there things ‘They’ think are wrong … which – according to their rules – you are “Guilty” just by doing it … whether you intended to, or not. In other words, according to “Their Rules”, you can be guilty without any Mens Rea.




But ‘They’ say: “You are guilty because you are liable”.


Something else we need to sort out via a Jury. Reason? The Law has been designed  NEVER to punish GENUINE, HONEST mistakes (because EVERYONE MAKES THEM!). And “Their Liability Rule” doesn’t allow for that.

Anyway, that’s what I think. If we could establish those things (and also Leon’s Law regarding Body-worn State Mercenary Cameras), we would be well on the way to sorting a whole lot out.