Maurice's Blog : Her Majesty's Prerogative

Maurice In County Court

Goose — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:04:00 GMT

Tuesday 28th July - Maurice has been taken to County Court today (handcuffed) r.e. his civil case.

It was adjourned again.

He did not have the necessary papers as he was not aware of this hearing until yesterday

He is continuing to refuse food to protest against his only option of appearing in court is by video link rather than in person.

He is very appreciative of letters that he has been receiving.

Maurice’s physical health is not good, he is 64 years old and should have been given bail as per Barry Magistrate's decision on 24th June (ie 5 weeks ago) prior to appeal by the CPS.

It is inhumane that he is being held in this manner. Maurice has been examined by a psychiatric team as directed by Judge Cook. We are not aware of any conclusions drawn.

Kirstie Kirk

Yorkshire Ripper Enquiry & Barbara Wilding South Wales Police Similarity

Maurice Kirk — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:48:00 GMT

See 'Most Recent' download.

This leaked HM Treasury Solicitor internal memo, one of many, may be an indication to the UK tax payer as to just what it costs while those in the UK judiciary continue to enjoy immunity to prosecution due to the 'Royal Prerogative'.

HM Treasury Solicitor and Crown Prosecution Service have no fear, of course, over their appearance tomorrow to defend the HM Home Secretary in Cardiff Court hearing for my false imprisonments.

Jack Straw, HM Minister of Justice, remember, arranged for Article One, the binding article, of the 1948 European Charter of Human Rights to be omitted from our 1998 Human Rights Act making it quite ineffective and a farce.

While my parliamentary representative, John Smith MP and his colleagues continue to swear allegiance to the ‘Royal Prerogative' our journey to Paris on the 6^th Dec, in an old red London double-decker bus, to join 60 years ECHR Celebration, will be all the more worthwhile.

While The Yorkshire Ripper associated trials unfold it makes one wonder just how many other HM agents, such as those pulling the strings in the South Wales Police and RCVS, for example, are also given immunity and have behaved in a similar fashion to our current lot in London over the years?

John Smith MP Esq.,

House of Commons, Westminster.

27th November 2008 Your ref: K/2002

Dear Mr Smith,

Abuse of Process Application-Cardiff County Court 25^th November 2008

Maurice Kirk v South Wales Police

Further to my last letter of the 22^nd November matters have turned somewhat for the better.

A day in court on Tuesday eventually commenced an Abuse of Process Application causing the judge to order Barbara Wilding, Chief of the South Wales Police, to sign a sworn affidavit that there has been full disclosure in my 16 year on going action for damages.

Remember, the police deny a court case took place involving 9 months of surveillance, the police broke into my surgery with a crow bar and they told a court they did not know who I was and had me locked up in Cardiff prison for 4 days until I was ‘identified'.

Further, the police must reply to my requests concerning well over 39 incident reports currently withheld from me as they will undermine their defence for losing around 121 charges brought against me due to vindictive malfeasance.

I will not be holding my breath......

The Home Secretary has still failed to disclose in court today any of the investigation she has admitted has been going on for at least 5 years to have me certified as a vexatious litigant. My application under both the Data Protection Act and Freedom of Information Act is being side lined as the lawyer for Jacqui Smith now says I can only have what he has 'in his office'!

If you again examine the HM Treasury Solicitor internal memo I sent you you will see all defendants, South Wales Police and Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, have been in close communication for years with the HM Attorney General's Department without my knowledge affecting the very process of my, almost daily, court decisions. Clearly an Abuse of Process.

Now, do we have that meeting this year or not?

Yours sincerely,

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

See 'Most Recent' download.

Home Secretary Refuses to Disclose Sect 31 Evidence

Maurice Kirk — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:49:00 GMT

Whilst enjoying every second in Brittany, France, 'meticulously' flight planning [Please note Bristol CAA Flight Examiner] my Piper Cub flight to Cape Town, South Africa and ship to Argentina, possibly, I have to stop every thing, even put my fine glass of 'Cuvee de la Salette' down and write the following response, following further plain wickedness from the South Wales Police.

The HM Home Sectretary, [Hearing 25th November in Cardiff], now, bless her, refuses to disclose even 'occurrence' numbered police logged details, even under the Data Protection Act or Freedom of Information Act.

Documents affecting RCVS and South Wales Police cases from her 5 year running 'investigation' in Whitehall' to have me certified as a 'Vexatious Litigant' she is also withholding. So what's new , I say?

Just what the RCVS achieved from the HM Information Commissioner following the South Wales Police invitation for the RCVS lawyers and lay staff to visit and examine police confidential records on me in Cardiff Central Police Station. [Contrary to 1987/45 HO Regulations]

But just what does the web site reader make of this latest gem from the South Wales Police' published below causing me to write to Jaqui Smith?

Further and better details on http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/ 'downloads' and http://www.wacl.org.uk/ later this year (when I have the cash!)

The Specialist Listing Section

Cardiff County Court/Mercantile Listing

Civil Justice Centre

2 Park Street

CARDIFF

URGENT - case management conference 25 / 26 November 2008

Dear Sirs,

RE: MAURICE KIRK V SOUTH WALES POLICE / LEAD CASE

NUMBER BS 614159 / ALSO CASE NUMBERS CF101741 / CF 204141

We refer to previous correspondence in connection with the above matter and the case management conference listed before His Honour Judge Chambers QC on 25 and 26 November 2008.

We also refer to the application issued by the Claimant listed for hearing on 19 November 2008 but which was not dealt with due to the failure of the claimant to attend the hearing.

We have previously filed the witness statement of Adrian Paul Oliver for the Defendant for the consideration of His Honour Judge Chambers QC. We can confirm that we received a position statement from the claimant by e-mail at 10.02 am on 19 November 2008. We enclose a copy of the same for the benefit of His Honour Judge Chambers QC. We can confirm that e-mail did not provide the enclosures referred to in that letter.

We also note, at page 6 of this e-mail that there is a reference to the Home Secretary being represented in court on 25 November 2008.

We would draw the court's attention to the fact that neither the application of19 November 2008, nor the proceedings which are the subject of the case management conference have any reference to the Home Office or the Home Secretary.

Our enquiries indicate that the court has not listed any application in respect of the Home Office to be heard on 25 and 26 November and there is no standing of the Home Office or Home Secretary in these actions.

[ NOW no Home Secretary hearing listed for 25th as Home Office say 'not ready']

We have copied this letter to the claimant so that he might be under no illusion that the hearing next week should have any reference to any separate cause of action or proceedings in which he might be involved with another party. We would be grateful if a copy of this letter could be placed before His Honour Judge Chambers QC at the earliest opportunity.

Yours faithfully,

DOLMANS

John Smith MP Esq,

House of Commons, Westminster.

22^nd November 2008 Your ref: K/2002

Dear Mr Smith,

Abuse of Process Application-Cardiff County Court 25^th November 2008

Further to my last letter of the 2^nd November matters have worsened.

I enclose my letter to Home Secretary and 17^th Dec 07 schematic flow chart for indicating the HM ‘Partnership' affecting both Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [RCVS] and South Wales Police court cases. I have exhausted all remedies available to me, other than you, my Parliamentary representative.

1. On the 31^st October 08 the HM Home Secretary's lawyer admitted, in Cardiff Court, there was still a ‘team of lawyers' in Whitehall {with all my court files, transcripts and tapes?} under the instructions of HM Attorney General to try and get me certified as a ‘Vexatious Litigant'. This will block ‘Disclosure' of the criminal conduct by not just lawyers. I have already a sample of leaked HM internal memos implicating several under the Home Office or Ministry of Justice.

2. HM Home Secretary's lawyer also agreed to ‘disclose', the date now well passed, just what had been going on for 5 years with HM Treasury Solicitor that has so seriously prejudiced my actions for damages for false imprisonment and on the matter of failure to Sect 31 Disclosure rules by both the South Wales Police and Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the latter stating that the Information Commissioner, for the Data Protection Act 1966, considered all interviews of my Barry, Vale of Glamorgan, veterinary clients by RCVS lawyers or lay staff were ‘privileged'!

3. The RCVS even falsified witness statements they reluctantly served on me just before the 2002 trial, following complaints by the South Wales Police to have my name removed from the veterinary register for but one reason.

4. On Tuesday His Honour Judge North's Order, to make the Home Secretary ‘disclose' anything relevant, will be ignored as have my previous applications under the DPA Act and Freedom of Information Act. No one seems to be accountable to anyone anymore, do they?

Yours sincerely

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

Copy to http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/

HM Home Secretary, Case number: 8CF02269

London

22^nd November 2008

Re Judgment of £15,360 for False Imprisonment you owe me

HM Partnership

Dear Jacqui Smith,

You are due to appear on Tuesday in Cardiff court but there has been no ‘disclosure' as you promised His Honour Judge North, not even filed defences I require in rebuttal. You did not attend the 19^th November 2008 hearing. Am I entitled to know why?

I will do a financial deal with you if you ‘disclose', under CPR Sect 31 Rules, the following:

1. Just what confidential records about me, held by the South Wales Police, were disclosed to Penningtons, solicitors, of Gutter Street and Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons lay staff, contrary to Home Office Regulations 45/1987, causing erroneous information and a fictitious conviction against me to go before the RCVS court to have me struck of the veterinary register?

2. Just what caused the 5 year ongoing ‘investigation' by a team of HM lawyers to have me certified as a vexatious litigant in the first place and just who else is behind this vast expense to the tax payer hell bent on withholding evidence concerning my false imprisonments and 10 years of consolidated police harassment by the South Wales Police?

If you do ‘disclose' then will withdraw my Court Order for your £15,360 on Tuesday and pay YOU a similar sum for your kindness. The law allows me this evidence.

There appears to be both a Malfeasance and An Abuse of Process within the HM Partnership here in South Wales all dependent upon ‘Her Majesty's Prerogative' for immunity from prosecution.

Yours faithfully,

Maurice J Kirk BVsc

Enclosed: Schematic flow chart dated 17^th Dec 2007.

Copy to Mr John Smith MP, http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/ & http://www.wacl.org.uk/

In The Cardiff Court Claim Nos. CF6141159‐MC65, CF101741, CF204141

4^th Action 7CF07345 5^th Action 8CF02269

Maurice Kirk v South Wales Police

Claimant's Response to Defendant's Position Statement 17^th November 2008

I, Maurice Kirk, as an Englishman in Wales, make this statement in response to the Defendant's position statement dated 17^th November 2008.

•1. Yet again I rely on the ‘balance of probabilities' in civil law, my human rights, my Abuse of Process Application, listed for the 25^th/26^th November 2008 and my countless Disclosure Applications, over more than 16 years now, due to the malicious failure for proper Sect 31 Disclosure etc by the Defendant when applied for either by my original lawyers, my own Applications in Magistrates, Crown, County Courts and/or direct, in writing, as ‘litigant in person' unable to obtain independent legal representation.

•2. This 4th Action needs, I say again, to be adjourned in order for the Particulars of Claim to be simplified following that Disclosure in all Actions to which I am entitled under the law.

•3. Denial by the Defendant that 1) welsh court cases ever took place, 2) 34 {35} times I had to produce valid motoring insurance 2) aeroplanes were burnt out, 3) there was sufficient evidence to prosecute when I was thrown down the stairs into hospital by a known criminal in front of her officer and my wife, 4) Cardiff police took a crow bar to break into my veterinary surgery to re house a police inspector's daughter and drug dealer and 5) she had me sent to prison on the pretext I could not be "identified", is an indication that there should be a halt to these legal proceedings and an independent enquiry as to why the Welsh Authorities have gone to such lengths to cover up the criminal conduct of a handful of reject attorneys.

•4. The 5^th Action is currently levelled at the HM Home Secretary only because of the 16 years of ‘treacle treatment' here in Wales while an Englishman is attempting ‘due process' of statute law for reasonable compensation for a string of false imprisonments and harassment by the very same defendant each time. It appears she ceased and her ‘activity' on the very day, 29^th May 2002, the Defendant, complainant to the RCVS, obtained my name from being removed from the veterinary register in order that I may no longer ‘practice veterinary surgery' and have an income.

•5. The 200 odd police incidents, touched on in the current 4^thAction Particulars of Claim, lie almost exclusively in the 10 year period of intense harassment by the South Wales Police, 1992-2002, details of which are set out in the original 3 Actions for damages. Documentation between parties prior to October 2002 and what was said in the 31st October 2003 hearing further confirms there was an agreement to adjourn further proceedings being lodged as to have done so could have jeopardised my basic right to have a trial by jury. The unlawful way I was denied a jury trial is history but will be referred to at The Court of Appeal as yet another example of malfeasance by those in positions of privilege.

•6. The reason for The HM Home Secretary, now to be represented in Cardiff court on the 25^th November, to face the Abuse of Process Application in the 5 Actions is to allow the Management judge to hear how both the South Wale Police and RCVS made secret complaint to the HM Attorney General in the early 2000s in order to have me certified as a Vexatious Litigant and so jeopardise my rights, in law, in their respective Actions as defendants.

•7. On 31^st October 2008 and in writing the HM Home Secretary admitted, for the first time by any one, that there had, in effect, been an ‘Abuse of Process' due to the conduct of the South Wales Police and lawyers employed by the RCVS to have my name removed from the veterinary register so as to impede income and so my ability for a fair trial.

•8. 2003/6 leaked HM memos, [samples served on this court], confirm the conspiracy and explains why my own barrister was refused ‘sight of' Cardiff Court files, relating to all these 5 claims because they were apparently ‘lost'! They were no more ‘lost' than I am a Freemason. They were in Whitehall with the HM Attorney General. Many of the 130 odd files are ‘lost' now along with the file marked "Maurice J Kirk -Potential Vexatious Litigant" shown to me by Cardiff court Staff full of numerous communications between the police, Royal College of Veterinary surgeons and Home Office agents.....ALL FOR ONE PURPOSE.

•9. Refusal by HM Court Service to produce it now further confirms why a huge team of tax payer paid Whitehall lawyers today continue to ‘beaver away' to block exposure of the conspiracy.

•10. The Management Judge's 31^st Oct 2007 Internal Memo [enclosed] further confirms my worst fears suggesting my Abuse of Process Application should first be heard in the Cardiff Court. But I have delivered the ‘meat on the bone' to numerous courts and police stations from about the land and no one will lift a finger because this despicable cancer is rife throughout the British Judicial System by being dominated by devil worshipping freemasons.

•11. The HM Home Secretary, represented by the HM Treasury Solicitor has now admitted it, in Cardiff court , before HHJ North and gave ‘undertakings', following my Applications under the Data Protection Act and Freedom of Information Act to ‘Disclose' the tape and transcript of the 28^th October 2002 hearing when the South Wales Police referred to the agreement for no further incidents of alleged ‘harassment or malfeasance' were to be served on the Defendant for fear it would be ‘document heavy' for a civilian jury to ‘understand'. What utter rubbish.

•12. No Disclosure by HM Treasury Solicitor has occurred and entry to his RCJ offices was refused. Why is there my evidence, needed now, somewhere in London, God knows where?

•13. Most of the defendant's current statement is plain verbiage printed off from the last such statement with one purpose only ...to push up the costs with little regard as to who pays.

•14. Exactly the same conduct of her co-conspirators, The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, who on each of my 10 monthly ‘de novo' applications for re instatement to the veterinary register, by simply pressing the repeat button on their computer £12,000 will again be granted, full costs, out of hand, when not even taxed or court papers read by the High Court judge. [See Royal Courts of Justice transcript and time sheets of Mr Justice McComb in Kirk v RCVS July 2005 and witness statement of Mr Patrick Cullinane Esq. who saw it all]. It stinks doesn't it but who cares?

•15. I set a ‘test case' to show my web site readers, since my last application for Disclosure, to indicate just how widespread the incest and wickedness is, not just here in South Wales, should one become so unfortunately entangled with such an insular ‘authority'.

•16. In Oct 2008 I wrote to the Defendant and to my Parliamentary Representative, Mr John Smith MP, the latter having witnessed the very same scandal back in 2002 when Defendant admitted Christopher Ebbs was immune to prosecution. UK judges closed my web http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/

•17. My 4^th October letter was direct to the Barry police and a similar but a different 8^th October letter was to Barbara Wilding, the Area Chief Officer, in response to Occurrence Numbers issued by South Wales Police following some random picked 40 odd incidents reported by me. I also wrote on the 16^th October to the Defendant's lawyers for similar ‘Disclosure'. Again, none responded with any ‘Disclosure' or as to what ‘progress' or lack of it [4^th Action] had been made in the 40 odd incidents of complaint despite their original letters, each indicating they would.

•18. Further comment on the Defendant's 17^th November 2008 position is futile in the absence of ‘Disclosure' of facts within her knowledge or by the HM Home Secretary and her agents. Failed access to ‘independent legal representation', to allow me to fairly present a ‘skeleton argument' and my claims for damages, is a further but far more widespread a conspiracy across the UK.

•19. Both Data Protection Act 1966 and The Human Rights Act 1998 are a farce and were written for one purpose only. The latter deliberately omits the most crucial paragraphs in the European Convention on Human Rights, ‘protection against malfeasance', conduct of the State, the main reason why it was signed in the first place, on 10th Dec 1948, 60 years ago.

Signed: Maurice J Kirk BVSc 18^th Nov 2008

Copy to John Smith MP & http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/ & http://www.wacl.org.uk/ Paris 10th Dec Protest... BE THERE

Home Secretary, South Wales Police and RCVS in Cardiff Court 25th November 10.30 All Invited

Maurice Kirk — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 07:54:00 GMT

In Cardiff Court, yesterday, I found a judge, at last, who appeared to 'grasp the nettle' and ordered HM to disclose the reasoning behind the 5 year, still ongoing enquiry, to certify me as a 'Vexatious Litigant'.

The litigation was first ordered by HM Attorney General following information laid by both the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and South Wales Police, the latter being the original complainant to have me struck of the Veterinary Register and so lose income to fight them.

I have been denied, ever since, any Section 31 Disclosure on this other than leaked HM ‘internal memos' between various Whitehall departments and HM Treasury Solicitor who, only yesterday, denied any knowledge of what was behind it all. I told the HM lawyer he was either mistaken or a blatant liar.

All my court files and tapes of hearings in the past 10 years appear were with the HM Treasury Solicitor while HM Court Service denied all knowledge, knowing full well files were lost. HMCS even prevented my barrister being briefed with the ‘remaining court files' in order for him to address the Court of Appeal for me to have a Trial by Jury in my 15 year running South Wales Police Harassment Cases.

Cardiff Court even say the critical October 2002 court tape, vital for 25^th November 2008 Abuse of Process Application, is destroyed......utter nonsense.

Both Data Protection Act and Freedom of Information Act served on the RCVS also proved a complete farce. SEE DOWNLOADS www.kirkflyingvet.com & www.wacl.org.uk

Last week's 6th Refusal by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to even allow me to make an Application to the college committee,to be re instated as a veterinary surgeon, contrary to the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act, may well now gel the previous confusion in this case experienced by so many web site readers from around the world. We sincerely hope so. My family and I are now entering the 16th year of litigation and serious hardship.

As much as they will try RCVS lawyers will never be able to change the 'truth' of the original facts withheld from the 2002 Trial and their continuing reliance of 'Her Majesty's Prerogative' and 1967 RCVS Royal Charter will only further undermine the original purpose of 'due process of law' and the right of any British citizen to a fair trial.

Home Office Appeals £150,000 False Imprisonment Judgment [14th Oct Update]

Maurice Kirk — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:10:00 GMT

I have to go back to London again this week to try and seize HM Home Secretary's household belongings for not paying me my £15,000, visit that den of vice, the RCJ and demand someone admit my £200 is banked and I am wasting my time anyway due to the 'Royal Preogative'! Then I hope to see Mr John Smith MP to see what progress he is making of this 'can of worms'...a spot of lunch, a matinee and back on the motor bike, if I did not use an aircraft to Elstree areodrome first. Elstree is far too close to 'Patrick country' which will guarrentee another 'pow wow' into the wee small hours, in some doubious muslim resturant in Harrow Weald, on just how can we wake up th general public about the great fraud the UK judicial systyem realy is and without MPs making a stand we are all doomed. The current bloody nonsense in that building is best explained by the following correspondence:

Case number 2008/1602 'filed' 4th July, 'sealed' 9th July 2008

Court of Appeal,

Royal Courts of Justice, Recorded Delivery

London

5^th October 2008

Treacle Treatment Abuse of Process Application

Dear Sir,

I came to the C of A office recently to see why this case was delayed like the last one was by 17months with no one in your building admitting it had been lodged. It had been correctly lodged in December 2003, given a number and then passed to Mr Justice Andrew Collins QC in his attempts, with a string of HM Whitehall Barristers and HM Treasury Solicitor to have me certified as a vexatious litigant.

That case was finally admitted to being in existence and in lodged in time date, on 31^st July 2007, before Lord Justice Thomas, he refusing me a jury trial against the South Wales Police for Harassment. The Cardiff court denies handing over my 130 file to the HM Treasury Solicitor completely disrupting my 5 Actions against the police. The 5^th Action is won but HM Home Secretary refuses to pay judgment.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons case, refusing me even an application hearing before the committee, currently before the Court of Appeal, cites the South Wales Police as ‘interested parties’ only to find your C of A office could find ‘no trace’ of my lodging it on the 3^rd July when I visited!

I telephoned again on the 2^nd October 2008 to be told the court had no record of it at all.

Just what delaying nonsense are you lot plotting this time?

Yours truly,

Maurice J Kirk BVSc ,

Marlpits, St Donats, Llantwit Major CF61 1ZB Copy to Mr John Smith MP & www.kirkflyingvet.com

Monday, 6th October 2008 I telephoned the Court of Appeal, MID MORNING, to be told my cheque for £200 bounced. Why nobody could find the appeal was, I suppose ,all record was removed ! Now I have to resurrect case and try and work out how I knew none of this from the bank or court. Am I slowly going mad, I ask myself?

EARLY AFTERNOON I spend 50 frustrating minutes on the phone talking to fees office and Registry office at the Royal Courts of Justice to have Geogina confirm she remembers me paying her cash the day after I was notified of the bounced cheque. I had rushed up to London, fare £110+, on the 23rd July and paid her in £20 notes at the fees office.

Today, both Alistair and Sherin of Registry confirmed Georgina had received my cash but would not explain why I had not been notified that my case had been thrown out by Master Hendy on 28th August 2008 due to non payment!

Sherin ,the HMCS manager, refuses to put the matter back before Master Hendy or fax me any record of any of this deliberate HM delay for the benefit of the RCVS, as defendants,protected, as always, by HM Royal Charter .

No doubt my next already prepared Court of Appeal application against the RCVS, on my being denied for the 6th time, the right to practice veterinary surgery by access to a RCVS court, will be hushed up in a similar manner as this was today. Just like my being refused a jury trial for civil damages from the South Wales Police in the very same building when I was, effectively, refused legal representation by Lord Justice Thomas when he had told my barrister in Cardiff, "do not bother to come to London for Mr Kirk's appeal".

LATER THAT NIGHT I open a bottle of french red wine and muse, contemplating my navel.

"Am I slowly going mad?"

FAO Sherin, Manager Appeal Court no: 2008/1602 & B2/2006/2307

Court of Appeal Office, Royal Courts of Justice,

The Strand, London.

7^th Oct 2008

Dear Madam,

Maurice J Kirk v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons & South Wales Police

Your refusal to place my case back before a Master is unlawful. You and others at court admit you have had the fee, in cash, since 23^rd July 2008. It was dismissed on the 28^th Aug 2008 by Master Hendy, you say, due to ‘nonpayment'. ‘Nonpayment' was caused by your office for ‘failing' to record my payment.

I was not notified since despite my visits and phone calls to your office asking for the progress. Why?

This is an exact repeat of the 17 month delay caused by the Court of Appeal and others in my other case, during my 16 years attempting to get proper disclosure and a jury trial against the South Wales Police.

An exact repeat of how the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons continues to refuse disclosure of their contemporaneous notes of potential witnesses, following the police complaint to have me struck off.

Mr Justice Andrew Collins tried to get me certified as a vexatious litigant and with my other 100 odd files they then went ‘walkabout' around Whitehall so my barrister could not be briefed for Lord Justice Thomas in July 2007. No UK courts will accept/lodge/file/listen to my Abuse of Process Applications.

Widespread abuse of our legal processes will continue while ‘The Royal Prerogative' remains in place. It gives immunity to prosecution or any semblance of accountability. The Human Rights Act 1998 is a farce.

Maurice J Kirk tel +441446792109 mobile 07966523940

Copies to: Mr John Smith MP, Mr Vince Cable, Mr Gareth Thomas MP & http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/

Dr Vincent Cable MP,

House of Commons,

Westminster.

24th July 2008

Dear Sir,

Meeting 22nd July 2008 at the House of Commons

On behalf of so many unable to attend thank you for listening to a room full of frustrated ‘chronic litigants' for nearly two hours! Why did it take a Liberal Member of the House to appear, at last, to take us seriously? My own Member of Parliament should do the same but I will not hold my breath.

1. We all gave examples of proved criminal conduct by lawyers all too often ignored by the police.

2. Criminal conduct of others within the judiciary is also, far too often, ignored by the police.

3. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Chiefs of Police and the Law Society is the root of the problem. ‘You scratch my back and I will scratch yours' in UK's legal ‘gravy train', often at the expense of the tax payer, must be stamped out and the culprits sent to prison.

Only intervention is left for us by our own Members of Parliament and a review into ‘Her Majesty's Prerogative', currently giving immunity to prosecution for routine illegal practices, such as deliberate ‘faileddisclosure' and ‘bias'. I quoted, as an example, the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act and associated 1967 Royal Charter both ridiculing the 1948 European Convention of Human Rights and the quite unworkable 1998 Human Rights Act, the latter ratified, would you believe, by Her Majesty herself!

I enclose a schematic summary, by way of ‘download', drafted by my then eight year old daughter, of what ‘invincible prejudice' one ‘litigant in person' and his family have suffered having been refused legal representation by more than 60 law firms, so far, in both England and Wales.

Yours sincerely

Maurice J Kirk BVSc, c/o Sheida Oraki, organiser of Royal Courts of Justice 22nd July Protest

http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/

Friday, 10^th October 2008 UPDATE

Patrick,

Even you will not believe the continuing ‘Alice in Wonderland' antics I witnessed in the UK Royal Courts of Justice yesterday.

You may remember the Court of Appeal office had refused to put back my Appeal from JR under the nose of Deputy Master Hendy who had "killed off" my case on erroneous information. My cheque bounced on 15^th July 2008. The fact I had over £2000 in the current account at the time with the bank giving no reason why, while other cheques from the same cheque book were cleared, causes one to wonder again about their "end game" and "the conspiracy theory"? The fact I had rushed up to town and paid cash appears to have not been entered on the correct computer.

Shirine, the manager, disappeared for a while and came back with a 2^nd September 2008 dated letter purported to be a copy of one, they say, had earlier been sent to me saying the case had been ‘dismissed' due to failure to pay the £200. ‘Pigs might fly?'.

But the clerk, in front of me, had just read of the computer screen, a copy of which I was refused, that on the 6^th October 2008 Georgina had entered I had paid the £200 on the 23^rd July, more than a month before the case was before a judge and ‘dismissed'!

No way would the office let me lodge an appeal for the decision their reason being it had been a ‘Direction' and not an ‘Order'!

I had to start the action all over again, apparently, way ‘out of time', as is always their hidden agenda, from the original equally ridiculous 16^th June JR application before Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, refusing me access to a court of law with my 5^th application ‘to practice veterinary surgery'. So I asked Shirine about what happens to my £200?

Silence.... you could have heard a pin drop. Then it was suggested I could have my money back, possibly, if I asked for it! The question as to the legality or not of the Royal College Disciplinary Committee chairwoman, sitting alone each time, repeatedly refusing my legal right to be heard by the committee on the 'merits', was to be deferred yet again. I filled in the usual complaint form for 'customer service' HMCS, 70 Petty France remembering the usual jibberish I recieve in return and was about to drop it into the'suggestion box' srewed on the wall but suspected there was big hole in the bottom of it.

With the usual opinion for the building and all that it portrays I then went down and filed a Judicial Review Application, I believe my 51^st, against the Appeal Court Office, for refusing to sort my appeal on a mistake of their own making.

Patrick, you may appreciate, at the fees office, I paid the £50 JR fee and pocketed a receipt for it before raising the sensitive matter of my missing £200 plus interest. In the old days all the forged £20 notes picked up in my Ely surgery, Cardiff, were all laundered, a lot of money, through the same office on my regular but futile applications against the South Wales Police, knowing full well the perfunctory manner in which the applications would be shredded.

By the time I had climbed the stairs back to the JR office for about the 4^th time that day, Glynn, the ‘in-house lawyer' attempted to sought out this apparent anomaly there and then .

The outcome, following a flurry of activity lasting just under 40 minutes, brought Glynn back empty handed he having to accept my JR application was to be lodged. He had clearly been over ruled again.

Remember, Patrick, this was the very same good man who offered to obtain Mr Justice Andrew Collins consideration in lifting his Extended Civil Restraint Order [ECRO] against me, to allow my having witnesses appearing before the October 20005 RCVS hearing . Patrick, you were there when I explained to the RCVS, in open court, the offer. The RCVS lawyers had already blocked all my witnesses, by speaking on the phone direct with His Honour Judge Hickenbottom, in Cardiff County Court, to prevent service of my witness summonses due to the ECRO.

It was of no surprise to find the current RCVS barrister, Miss F Morris, in the corridor of the JR office while I waited in the usual lengthy queue of UK tax payer funded ‘asylum seekers', the real jam on the bread for the legal trade answerable to no one. Fenella was in deep heated conversation with ‘in house' court lawyers surrounded by an entourage of somewhat seedy looking individuals from I know not where.

So the RCVS appear have managed to defer the inevitable for yet another six or so months while my wife struggles on single handed. The last lodged Emergency JR Application against the RCVS took only 9 months to get into open court. Just how many years do the brethren intend to defer my latest, I wonder?

Nearly 4 hours of well scripted pantomime was then followed by a refreshing taxi ride to Kings Cross Station in the company of your typical ‘grass roots' Cockney cab driver. He was not just listening but coming out with ‘pearls of wisdom' on just how to deal with the beggars. My experiences were then put on 40 minutes of celluloid, hot off the press as it were, by Tom, followed by a delicious Italian red wine and pasta. The stimulating company comprising of 2 Texans and my investigative reporter made the day, at last, all worthwhile but a little home sick for Alvin and Kandy's good hospitality back in Houston preparing my now notorious yellow Piper Cub for the Falkland Islands and Argentina.

12th October UPDATE

The Registrar,

RCVS

London

12^th October 2008

Dear Madam,

I wish to put you on notice that my actions from now on, following what I witnessed at the RCJ on Friday, may further implicate cost for the wrong members of the RCVS.

To assist me, simplify and avoid any misunderstanding I would like to know the purpose of the RCVS barrister being at the Administrative Court while I was attempting to lodge an appeal against you? I enclose a summary of events: http://kirkflyingvet.com/blogs/kirks_blog/archive/2008/10/05/more-court-of-appeal-fun-and-games.aspx

I could not but over hear the conversation from the unsavoury clientele with the RCVS barrister so I need the law firm identification.

Please do not think for one moment I am casting any aspersions on the current integrity of Miss Morris since the 16^th June. As with any practicing veterinary surgeon you know she also has to ‘climb down into the gutter' sometimes, as I had to do in January 2001 for my client, the South Wales Police, purely to uphold the principles of our respective vocations.

You are not invited to my "Bastille Open-House Week" in Brittany, next year, unless I have the information requested.

Yours sincerely,

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

John Smith MP

House of Commons

London

12^th October 2008

Your Ref K/2002

Dear Mr Smith

7 YEARS IN BRIEF

The enclosed 13 lines of RCVS May 2002 transcript indicates the criminal conduct by lawyers, reliant on a medically unfit Court Legal Assessor, requiring immediate police investigation outside Wales.

I have the proof that favourable statements to me were deliberately withheld or forged by those lawyers. I have witnesses to prove it. I am being denied reinstatement to my wife's profession by the very same criminals who had me struck off.

No court will order ‘disclosure' under CPR or Criminal Law rules due to the ‘Royal Prerogative' bestowed on the college in the 1967 Royal Charter

http://kirkflyingvet.com/photos/royal_college_of_veterinary_surgeons/images/719/640x480.aspx

To whom do you swear your allegiance, as a member of government, to Her Majesty or to your constituency members?

Yours sincerely

Maurice J Kirk BVsc

The Registrar,

RCVS

London

12^th October 2008

Dear Madam,

I wish to put you on notice that my actions from now on, following what I witnessed at the RCJ on Friday, may further implicate cost for the wrong members of the RCVS.

I could not but over hear the conversation from the unsavoury clientele with the RCVS barrister so I need the law firm identification.

You are not invited to my "Bastille Open-House Week" in Brittany, next year, unless I have the information requested.

Yours sincerely,

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

John Smith MP

House of Commons

London

13^th Oct 2008

Dear Mr Smith,

South Wales Police Meltdown

Further to your indication of offering help I will now disclose further examples while we have no apparent accountability within judiciary or legal profession.

Please find enclosed [see recent 'Downloads' Home Office Appeals £15,000 False Imprisonment Judgment] the remarkable admission, this late, by the Home Office with their apparent pretence that they are not culpable.

I have previously successfully claimed cash compensation for false imprisonment from the Home Office.

HM Treasury Solicitor has been made to admit, at last, he had been trying to get me certified as a ‘vexatious litigant' all the time my court files against the South Wales Police and Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons went ‘missing' for years from Cardiff Court. They were in the back rooms of Whitehall and Royal Courts of Justice all the time! Also enclosed is a photo of my being denied entry to the HM Treasury Solicitor's office in the Royal Courts of Justice to retrieve my ‘lost' files.

Just what will these villains do next just to protect the South Wales Police in first getting me struck off the veterinary register and now breaking every rule in the book to prevent my application going before a court for reinstatement?

No wonder no UK court will process my Abuse of Process Application with all its Part31 Disclosure implications.

Oh this web they weave! And who ultimately pays, Mr Smith?

Yours sincerely,

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

FAO The Secretary of State for the Home Department 13th Oct 2008

Kirk v South Wales Police 5 Actions of Harassment

CF6141159‐MC65, CF101741, CF204141, 7CF07345, 8CF02269

This is an Application for Disclosure by the Defendant, before the 31^st October hearing, in the light of her Application dated 30^th September 2008 clearly containing misleading and erroneous information for but one purpose, to fool both the Claimant and the court.

In case of any doubt in these requests for Part 31 Disclosure, following the 3^rd October 2008 Cardiff Court Order and numerous others in the criminal courts, yet to be complied with, the Plaintiff requests:

The central investigation log for each incident, identified in 8CF02269.

[This is a note of everything done to investigate the Plaintiff and others - who was interviewed, approached, where they went, who did the investigating? etc....essential for CPS/HM Treasury Solicitor brief, if there was to be a fair hearing on the allegation of "Vexatious Litigant" and a Cardiff Count Court Hearing on 31^st Oct 2008.]

The full custody records of EVERY incident identified in 8CFR02269 and in particular the communications between Cardiff prison and the defendant during the claimant's stay.Release of disclosure by the prison referred to in Particulars of Claim
The full record of the communications with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and South Wales Police since 1991 relating to the Claimant.

In particular, upon the Defendant receiving complaint by the Claimant that the South Wales Police had disclosed confidential Police Records of the Claimant in and around 2001 relating to this term of imprisonment, the substance of the Claim, to a 3^rd party, namely The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, contrary to Home Office rules 1987/45, all documents on this matter are to be Disclosed NOW.

The full record of the communications with the HM Crown Prosecution Service since 1992 relating to the Claimant

The full record of the communications with Her Majesty's Attorney General, Solicitor General and Home Secretary and HM agents relating to the command to instigate the "Maurice John Kirk---- Potential Vexatious Litigant'' file, last seen at Cardiff County Court, the enquiry having started circa 1997. This includes Tab 28 and the rest of the tabs relating to Mr Justice Andrew Collins's interest identified in Attorney General internal memos currently in the control of the Claimant. See http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/ Downloads, Gallery and Blogs, http://www.wacl.org.uk/ and ‘You Tube'.

Disclose the document that caused the Home Secretary to even bother to respond to the Cardiff Court judgment is so much out of time.

Disclose why the Defendant considers the Claim is against the South Wales Police and not the Home Secretary. Disclose documentation of South Wales Police lawyers agreeing to take on this 5^th Claim of false imprisonment to be their sole responsibility. What sweeteners were promised for the South Wales Police to accept this financial responsibility?

The central investigation log of HM Treasury Solicitor that caused the Defence, on application dated 30^th September 2008, to state that the Claimant was subject to ‘investigation' and why that ‘investigation' can now be used as a defence for not lodging a Defence in time under CPR.

A full audit trail of where and when the Claimant's 130 files went from Cardiff court on the Defendant's orders, back in 2003. For what purpose and for what outcome if not for the ‘investigation' [see previous para] to which the Defendant refers in Defence statement dated 30^th September 2008.

The full record of the Abuse of Process Application that commenced in Cardiff Crown Court following the incident at the Vale Agricultural Show on 19^th August 1998 and when the South Wales Police forged the information first prepared for the court, in order to obtain convictions at Bridgend Magistrates, that lead to an Appeal before the Recorder of Cardiff, His Honour Judge Gaskell, Mr Justice Griffiths et al. It then went before the Privy Council, HHJ Nicholas Chambers QC, Lord Justice Thomas and was unceremoniously been buried. The Claimant requests full disclosure of her involvement preventing any independent police investigation into the allegations of falsified evidence implicating both the South Wales Police and the RCVS in respective courts over a period of the past 16 years. All relating to the Abuse of Process Application explaining refusal by 80 lawyers, specialising in police harassment and false imprisonment, not to act for the Claimant.

The General Orders for Constabulary relevant to the respective time periods in 8CFR02269

Reasoning as to how Paragraph 6 of the Defendant's 30^th Sept 08 submission is contrary to the information given by the HM Treasury Solicitor's Office when the Claimant enquired of the person ultimately responsible for his week of purgatory in Cardiff prison.

And the Claimant claims £5000 costs, the amount deducted from the claim after Mr Justice Andrew Collins struck out Application and blocked the Action for completely different reasons to those now cited by his employer

Until there is proper Disclosure to test the Defence of this judgment it should not be struck out. That Disclosure must be before a court of law and to be a public hearing.

This list is not exhaustive

Maurice Kirk BVSc 13^th October 2008