02 Legal Battles

i am deeply saddened and disgusted to hear what is happening to you. i wish you speedy freedom from this tyranny.

The Habeas Corpus Act passed by Parliament in 1679 guaranteed that a person detained by the authorities would have to be brought before a court of law so that the legality of the detention may be examined.

Leeds

Maurice, You need a lawyer to speak on your behalf. What about a specialist mental health lawyer, if you do not want a criminal lawyer? why not ask vjmmurphy who has posted on this website, for help to organise a lawyer?

I AM a lawyer, Fred, a solicitor based in South Wales. I do know Maurice, although he may not remember me. I would be only too happy to help, either to represent Maurice or to organise someone else to do so. Whether Maurice would want me to do so is another matter, of course. And in his recent posts  Maurice has referred to trying to cntact his solicitor so it looks as if he does have some degree of representation although it is unclear whether this is in relation to his criminal or civil case.  At present, the priority would seem to be the criminal case where a lot of work needs to be done.

Maurice and family, here is your chance. Please take it. And act before they get too far with medical reports.

Dear Maurice,

I was in court to see and hear you last Thursday, and I was no less concerned by the end of the day than I was when I arrived knowing only what I’d previously heard and read about your case.

When you first appeared you complained you had been refused analgesics for you headache.  The judge, by saying it wasn’t possible to give you any because they would not be compatible with other medication you are being given, admitted that you are being given drugs of some kind without your permission.

Mr Norman Scarth was ejected from the court for shouting at the judge, and comparing the doctors at Caswell Clinic, with one Dr. Josef Mengele; but if doctors don’t want the public to perceive them to be like doctors under the Third Reich, then they should stop behaving like ***, by desisting from forcing people already illegally detained to take drugs or administering them surreptitiously.

The judge repeatedly expressed concern that you think he is part of the conspiracy against you.  However; as the day drew on he remembered more of what happened when you were brought before him on some previous occasion.  The judge went from saying you were wrong about jury members passing him notes (of which you said you had copies) to later admitting that not only did he distinctly remember jury members doing so, but he pretty much agreed with you that the jury were doing so because the police officers successively taking the witness stand were lying.

The judge thought you ought to be satisfied that he had stopped the trial and directed the jury to find you NOT GUILTY (on whatever the charge was), but you were 100% right in what you were saying: the judge should have had the police officers arrested because they were perverting the course of justice.  He said he did not have the power to do that, and this may be true, but he does have the power to do something under those circumstances.  If a judge did not have such power, how would anyone ever be convicted of perjury!!!

The judge – apparently in anticipation, from what concerns you had previously expressed – pre-empted your question that he might be a Freemason, by denying he is such.  By making that denial he proved that he is to some extent part of that conspiracy about which both you and I are worried, because all barristers have to belong to one of the Inns of Court, and those are certainly affiliated to the Freemasons.  If he had said he were not an active Freemason, and that his membership was indirectly though his Inn of Court or other organisation, I for one would have been a little happier.  Any judge whose first allegiance is to a secret society, can only be doing what is right by the people when their interests do not conflict with those of the secret society to which he belongs.

(Freemasons argue that they are not a secret society, but a society with secrets.  Yes, we’ve noticed that!  The secrets they hold are either completely worthless (and frequently obscene), or they are to do with the nature of their conspiracy against the rest of society in order to further their own positions and wealth.)

You may not have been in the courtroom when Norman Scarth was discussed, but there were half truths presented as fact during that discussion too.  Both Norman and you are persecuted for the same reasons it would seem: that you represent yourselves in court and win cases where corruption in high places is involved.

Elsewhere on your website a poster called MJJ said; “Maybe Maurice does sometimes bring it on himself with his unorthodox ways of dealing with things, but that doesn’t give anybody the right to treat another human being the way Maurice has been treated”.  Here, here!

I have to wonder Maurice if you aren’t flogging a dead horse.  Maybe you should concentrate on getting out of the ‘secure hospital’, proving your innocence (regarding the ‘machine gun’!), and then try to get others to help you with only the most worthy of your campaigns, and especially the ones that are winnable.

I’ve personally been a victim of serious crime committed by police officers (along with others) from two different forces, on two separate occasions, just because I happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (at home with my fiancée on the first occasion!).  I am certain that unless other victims come forward, there is no chance of any of those involved ever being convicted and sent to jail – where they certainly belong – because the police always refuse to investigate themselves unless the crime is grave and in the public arena: even then they’ll try to do a whitewash.

Maurice, I just wish I could be of more help.  You are a man of your own convictions, and I pray that will be enough to see you through.

Richard C.

Maurice,

I have only just found this and I am gutted.

I don't know what to do to help directly but I am certainly going to bring this to the attention of as many as possible.

Please don't starve to death you are a proper free spirit, let's see how many will protest with you.

Dave.

Thank you for mentioning my name Richard.  Just one thing: I did not "Shout at the judge".  I am  a little hard of hearing & have a loud voice anyway, but I feel everyone in court should speak out loudly & clearly, which I did, rather than mumble, as so many do.  I have a message form Maurice recaived at 12.45pm today Saturday, which I will put up in a new message.  

Telephone call from from Maurice, Saturday 10th October 2009.  He has been refusing fodd since Thursday.  He tells me the conversation goes thus:  Staff: "Are you still refusing food Maurice?"  Maurice: "Yes, unless you say it is a sign of mental illness".  Staff: "Is that yes or a no?"  Apparently the staff do not say whether or no they regard it as a sign of mental illness.  

Sat. 10th Oct. 09.  Below is the typed transcript of a document which Maurice sent out of the Nuthouse.  He asks me to post it here:

Fax:                                                                                   H.M.Caswell Clinic

Clerk of Court                                                                        Bridgend

County Court                                                                          CF314LN    

Cardiff                                                                                

                                                                                               9. 9.09

( Fax 02920376475

Refused and refused a photocopy

by the clinic )

Case no.CF101741

Kirk v. South Wales Police

Dear Sir,

His Honour, Judge Seys-Llewelyn Q.C., ordered the defendant, as long ago as 28.7.09, to give a written account of my allegations that it was due to the defendant’s lawyer’s, Dolmans, complaint, deliberate delay in carrying out ‘mutual exchange of witness statements’ and refusal involving myself, which led to my arrest at 08.15 on 21.6.09 for ‘ threats of criminal damage’.

His honour specified their reasons needed for such actions and I now ask, after nearly four months, why neither the defendant nor HM Crown Prosecution Service have disclosed any facts, whatsoever, under my rights in law?

Signed original letter by Maurice Kirk enclosed.

Copy to: John Smith M.P.

www.kirkflyingvet.com

Hunger strike in hospital? Big mistake? My understanding is any hospital has a legal duty to stop any patient following through a hungerstrike in hospital. So my understanding is that Maurice would just get very hungery and weak and then the caswell would use a legal duty to force feed.

Best eat asap, and just address the criminal case. Get hold of vmjmurphy. May be send GP letters to other cases saying you are generally not well enough in the circumstances and delay them.

Well, Maurice (I’m not sure if you have been able to read any of the posts since you published IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO), but I’ve no doubt you heard Norman speaking to the judge, and he certainly did speak loudly!  I mistakenly thought he was shouting, but I too was sitting in the public gallery and therefore rather closer than was the judge.  Maybe it was the content of what was said which upset the judge: the truth so often hurts (even if it’s your associates about whom the truth is being cited).

Even after the public were moved from the public gallery to the press benches, it was still very difficult to hear what was going on, and I wondered at times if the judge could hear you properly, because I couldn’t, and I couldn’t hear every word the Judge said either.  I actually thought you were being a little more cooperative than the judge appeared to think, but you do answer questions with questions (and so do I sometimes), and it seems that the judge and the doctors at Caswell Clinic have problems in seeing the meaning in what you say.

When the judge asked if you were really likely to flee the country in an aeroplane – as claimed by the police – you answered that you ‘would never get your pilots licence back if you did’.  For some odd reason the judge couldn’t immediately understand that you were answering “no”.  I got the impression that quite a lot you were saying was not being accepted, simply because you were disinclined to say ‘yes’ and ‘no’; but then you were giving the reasons for your answers.  It seemed to me that the judge was trying to be consistent.  He consistently failed to understand you, so that it didn’t seem like he was only pretending not to understand the bits he didn’t like!

Your constant references to the broader reasons why you were in the dock, seemed to be where the judge had the most difficulty in understanding.  He just kept on trying to make out that your belief that the police are conspiring against you is a figment of your imagination, rather than accepting the facts.

I’m concerned about your latest hunger strike too.  Maurice, please take Fred’s advice. And start eating properly, at the very least.

I really hope you’ll be out soon and back home with your family; and that the police will apologise for the whole silly ‘machine gun’ business.

Richard C.

Richard, you wrote:

"When the judge asked if you were really likely to flee the country in an aeroplane – as claimed by the police – you answered that you ‘would never get your pilots licence back if you did’.  For some odd reason the judge couldn’t immediately understand that you were answering “no”."

There is no 'odd reason' for the judge not recognising this 'answer' as 'no' - it is because it is plainly NOT 'no'. It is a statment of what consequences would follow if Maurice were to do precisely what he is a being asked whether he will do!. Whether Maurice would consider the consequences worth taking the action is another matter entirely. You and I may surmise because we know how important Maurice's licence is to him that he is saying he will no do so, bur he really needed to asnwer the question in  a direct and unambiguous way. Maurice needs legal representation in order to avoid this kind of misunderstanding.

Referring to the current charges as "the whole silly ‘machine gun’ business" and suggesting that the Police might apologise for pursuing the case is completely misunderstanding the seriousness of the current situation. If found guilty, Maurice can expect a lengthy prision sentence. And as far as I can glean from this site, very little appears to have done in relation to his defence. Complaining that the timing of his arrest is primarily concerned with disprupting his civil case against the police is NOT a defence. Going on hunger strike is NOT preparing a defence.

Earlier today, over the telephone, I tried to explain

to a friend why, Maurice has been incarcerated for the last 3 months.and subjected to all that he has so far endured.

My friend insisted that this could never ever happen without Maurice being charged with some offence or other and what was that charge?

I must confess to feeling something of a duck egg, because for the life in me, I could not tell him what the charge was.

This whole situation is insane.

Will someone, anyone, tell me exactly what the charge is that Maurice has to answer to, and why  only Maurice, and not also the other parties who  have been involved before and since in moving this world war relic around.

Who is in possession of this antique at this moment in time and why are they not being persecuted the same as Maurice?

Maurice has posted the indictment (charge sheet) on this site in the downloads section, Colin:

kirkflyingvet.com/.../entry1116.aspx

Thank you VMJMURPHY.

I have read and reread the indictment, and still maintain that, even if every printed word was true, where in this document is there any information that warrants an assessment of Maurices mental health?

Where in this document is the word 'intent' in any form or shape used to justify their seeking to section Maurice?

A judge, John Walford, has already ruled in another case involving not a dead gun, but 'live' ammunition, that where there has been no intent to use the object other than an ornament, no crime has been committed.

Here in Bradford, 4 men and a youth are currently on bail for possessing a gun, live ammunition, 3 machetes, cs gas, and a quantity of drugs and thousands of pounds in cash.

Whilst they are at large on far more serious charges, Maurice is languishing in a nuthouse.

If we are to have the rule of law in this country, then that law must apply equally to all.

The people who possessed the machine gun and passed it on to Maurice, and the people since who now possess it must be called upon to stand side by side in the dock with Maurice and answer to the same charges.

To be seen to be fair, the law cannot allowed to be seen to be selective.

The charges put Maurice into the system. The systems requires all persons have their mental health assessed. From visits by psychiatrists and Maurice going on hungerstrike he gained more attention. There are many questionable elements in the system. By people like Maurice using the words like "conspiracy" it allows people like Dr Tegwyn Williams to say that Maurce is consistent with mentally ill persons. It is the way psychiatrists work. Though the unreasonable bias in Dr Williams writing could leave him open to more than questions.

The danger now is of loosing the main aganda of defending the criminal case, because the way some psychiatrist often work, is totally daft. What you do in court is to just get the Judge to quietly agree to ignore the psychiatrist. If Maurice had a good lawyer, I can see it could be near routine to get a Judge to ignore Dr Tegwyn Williams and the section would end. So Maurice needs a good lawyer, who could also address bail. And vmjmurphy is ready to try and help.

May I refer readers to www.clsdirect.org.uk - Once in the site click on number 11 'Dealing with the police'

At page 8 of the hardcopy leaflet - of the above there is a subsection number 3 - which goes on to expand on a 'Malicious prosecution' - by the police.

To quote further "You have to prove that the police prosecuted you for an unacceptable reason. Sometimes you can do this by referring to something that a police officer said or by showing that they wanted to cover up their own wrongdoing"

Therefore 'have they' created a criminal case (against Maurice) to conceal the civil case?