by pitano1 » Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:56 pm
have been digging in my old e.m`s,and found this.
i`m not sure if the info regarding...G.4.S...is still accurate.
have removed all names except...veronica.
Search E-mail
Message View
Nottingham Maggot’s Circus - 4th June, 2014
From: Veronica <Veronica@FMOTL.com>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 5:22
It was a ‘Speeding Camera’ case. The Court was sent two letters from the “MyCourt” templates to tell them how the Court would be ‘arranged’ and that we would be recording the proceedings.
MyCourtTemplate was sent recorded delivery, and MyCourtTemplateNonResponse was sent a few weeks ago … also recorded delivery.
We checked the Listings, and found the case listed Room 12, 2nd Floor.
The Usher (outside) wanted a “Name” and I quoted the Case Number. He said that was no good.
I said show me you list and I’ll point it out to you. He immediately held his clipboard up against his chest.
I said don’t be childish … all right … look for the name “xxx” … which he did, and I said: “Does that match this Case Number?” … while showing him the Case Number
He made some marks on his list.
We waited about an hour, and the case was called.
As we approached to door, the Usher said: “Please make sure all Mobile Phones are turned off”.
I said: “We’ve told the Court it will be recorded anyway, and they’ve not rebutted it”.
He said: “Wait!” and then almost immediately said: “You can’t do that!”.
There ensued some verbal to-ing an fro-ing (it’s all been recorded!), and – since the Usher remained intransigent, I pushed the door open and Jim & I walked into the Court.
I said: “Is this a Constitutionally-convened Court of Law?” … and … at the same time was over-talked. The Maggots then all got up in unison, and left.
So I said: “Oh … obviously not. Right … I want your name” … looking at the Clerk of the Court.
At this point I was grabbed - by behind - by Security thugs, and so was Jim.
I shouted: “Don’t touch me unless you’re a DESIGNATED COURT SECURITY OFFICER!”
They push my head downwards, and pushed my arm right up my back. I that way they frog-marched me to the lift, into the lift, down to the ground floor, and out through the entrance.
At that point they let me go.
They did the same with Jim. I could only see the floor, but others (with us) saw it all, and said that a coloured Security girl was hammering at Jim … like a dervish … so much so that she ripped his T-Shirt.
Outside we were seen by a Policyman, called PC Coulson. I don’t want to belabour this e-mail by going into the conversation with Adam Coulson but – just as he decided we’d ‘finished’ … the Court Usher came back out … walked up to me … in front of PC Adam Coulson … and said: “It has been agreed that you can come back in and the Hearing will go ahead if you agree not to record it”.
I said: “I’m dealing with this Police Officer, go away … and NO … we don’t not accept that condition”.
There’s a LOT more to this … what happened afterwards … but they were trying to get us back into Court … PURELY IN ORDER TO charge Jim with assaulting a Court Security member of staff.
We know that because, when we refused to go back in, the Usher took Adam Coulson to one side and said that they wanted Jim charged.
BUT THIS IS BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FUCKING BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm on record as saying: "Don't go to a Maggot's Circus except to HAVE FUN!"
And, boy oh boy .... this was FUN!!!!
“God” must have been smiling on us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why? Because an FoI – from a few months ago – admitted that NO-ONE from G4S has been DESIGNATED as a Court Security Officer (with powers under Section 53 of the Courts Act 2003).
Which means that both Jim and I were assaulted!!!!!!
And WE WILL HAVE THEM ON TOAST.
And, when we do, Michael Doherty’s Appeal will be granted automatically.
There’s a lot more in the offing (for example, I’m in e-mail contact with the Copper), but that’s brief summary.
We think they have shot themselves in the foot, for the following reasons:
1. They certainly did not behave as though they had had the training for DESIGNATED Court Security Officers, with powers under Section 53 of the Courts Act 2003. If they had been DESIGNATED, then they would have asked us to “Leave peacefully” … before getting violent.
2. The FoI response said G4S has NO DESIGNATED Officers.
3. The fact that we are “invited back in” - almost immediately - indicates that there was absolutely no reason to behave the way they did to eject us.
4. The fact that, when we refused to go back in, they immediately asked PC Adam Coulson to charge Jim with assault, means that they are taking the piss out of PC Adam Coulson … AND THAT’S WHY I’M IN E-MAIL CONTACT WITH HIM!
John: of the family xxxx was there. This is his summary:
> Magistrate Court appearance at Nottingham
>
> Today’s date 4/6/14
>
> A summary of the court hearing at the Nottingham Magistrates court.
>
> After waiting peacefully for about an hour we were called in for the hearing of James Overton’s alleged speeding offence. Please note Mr xxx on two occasions sent letters, by recorded delivery, expressing his right to record the hearing and that - if they did not respond within fourteen days - which they didn’t - rejecting his proposal - it could reasonably be assumed they agreed.
>
> However, the Usher’s response was “Wait here”, while he checked with the court. On his return he said no recording would be allowed, and no sound reason was given to support their demand, and the Usher said the hearing was cancelled. The Usher left the court Chamber door open, and we walked in for an explanation. Instead, after Veronica asked is this a constituently convened court of law, the Magistrate all stood up and walked out. Almost simultaneously Veronica and James were surrounded by so-called security guards, who did not give any notice by asking them to leave peacefully - but just man-handled them with force. Veronica protested, saying if you are not designated by the Lord Chancellor, it will be assault. But this fell on deaf ears and, despite showing no aggression towards the staff, there was no pause in the attack. They literately grabbed Veronica’s left arm and forced it up behind her back, and at the same time forcing her head and body down towards the floor, all the way to the lift. She was taken down in the lift, with her head forced downwards, and then frogmarched - again without letting her come upright - all the way to the front door, where she was eventually released. James, again, was not showing any résistance but was constantly abused by the lady guard while another guard held him, and this went on until other officials (police) intervened and stop what was going on.
>
> I would a first class witness to the event and that both Veronica and James did not retaliate in any way or initiate any violence towards any staff despite being grossly attacked. There is a taped recording on James’ phone which was switched on, and remained on, during the scuffle. I mentioned various times to the aggressive behaviour of the staff that I’m a prime witness to the abuse that is taking place.
>
> Outside the court James xxxx spoke to a police constable who took all of our contact details, Veronica’s, James’ and myself John xxxx. While these details were being taken the Usher appeared and said, despite being told previously the hearing was cancelled the Magistrates were prepared to now allow us to reappear for the hearing on their terms – e.g. “No recording of the session” - despite still giving no sound reasonable explanation as to why the recording of the hearing was not allowed. Consequently after the heavy handed behaviour of their security guards we obviously declined the offer, because we feared for our safety from the unprovoked attack.
>
> This restrictive protocol could not be accepted as it would interfere with proper procedure in the process of law and our indefeasible rights recognised.
>
> Almost immediately after declining their offer for reasons given above the police constable asked us not leave as the security guards were now pressing assault charges against James xxxx. This took about another three hours so in the mean time we opted to get a bite to eat and a hot drink, having been advised to do that by the Police Officer on the desk at Bridewell Police Station.
>
> On our return to the Police Station, we were eventually reunited with James (who told us that he’d been interviewed for about 15 minutes, and then locked up in a cell for the rest of the time) … and we went home. When we arrived home, we examined the damage. In the case of James, his T-Shirt had been ripped down one side, and Veronica had a very visible red mark, on the left arm - the one that was forced up behind her back.
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit