02 Legal Battles

Here is an opinion laced with facts:

So let's have a further look at Count 3 of the Indictment against Mr Kirk.

It states "Possessing Criminal Property, contrary to section 329(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002"

So here we are in 2009 and they have cited "The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002". (PoC Act 2002)

Yet on January 15th 2007 - The Fraud Act 2006 came into being.

Has anyone wondered why 'they' have deliberately, knowingly, intentionally and willingly failed to cite the Fraud Act 2006 but use the old PoC Act 2002 instead?

No .... well this should be noted and it should also be noted by many in the Psychiatric world as well.

i.e. Are you shrinks - so stupid as to be the ones

     who actually condemn so many innocents

     because you don't know; much less give a

     damn about the truth; and never mind knowing

     the difference between a fact and a fiction.

Here is an 'extract' from the Fraud Act 2006

Section 2 of the Act states:-

2 - Fraud by false representation

  (1) A person is in breach of this section if he -

       (a) dishonestly makes a false representation,

             and

       (b) intends, by making the representation-

               (i) to make a gain for himself or another,

                   or

               (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose

                    another to a risk of loss.

  (2) A representation is false if-

        (a) it is untrue or misleading, and

        (b) the person making it knows that it is, or

              might be, untrue or misleading.

  (3) "Representation" means any representation

        as to fact or law, including a representation

        as to the state of mind of-

         (a) the person making the representation, or

         (b) any other person.

  (4) A representation may be express or implied.

So from the above look at Section 2(3)(b)

"the state of mind of any other person"

And hasn't Mr Kirk had the full on attempts to question his state of mind - the implied and explicit smears?

Is it any wonder then; that the 'coterie' of 'they' have steered back  mysteriously to the older Act whilst "ignoring" the newer Act which superseed's the PoC Act 2002?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse and nor is it a defence.

Mr Kirk should be released immediately and those who have practiced to decieve should be facing at a minimum a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

CP Scott on May 5th 1921 of the then Manchester Guardian wrote:

           "Comment is free, but facts are sacred"

What a shame that his modern day counterparts have not an ounce of backbone in their bodies whilst of course they promote his saying but decline to practice its moral tenet.

There are serious concerns surrounding the proper, lawful and timely 'seizure' and 'handling' of the so called evidence in this matter - namely this Lewis machine gun.

Fraud unravels everything.

The rights and wrongs of the machine gun business can be sorted out in court but first Maurice must get to court. He has to convince the psychiatrist that he is fit to plead and quite frankly he doesn’t seem to be going about it in the right way imho.

Now, and I hope he will forgive  me for saying this, Maurice likes to be the centre of attention and he doesn’t seem to mind if it’s negative attention. But if he’s playing brinkmanship here he could find himself doing a “one flew over the cuckoo’s nest”.

Maurice’s intelligence and education seem to be hindering rather than helping him.

He seems to be deluding himself that he can “beat the system” if only he can show how “right” he is.

He must know that a judge’s job is to dispense expedience not necessarily justice.

A judge can and will- “must” , interpret the law to suit the state. Maurice would not get “justice” from any court in the world by calling lawyers, police, judges and the system “evil” or whatever.

In practical terms what can M aurice do to get himself out of this mess?

Dunno. But maybe, to convince a shrink that he is fit to plead Maurice may have to eat humble pie and admit to being a vexatious litigant (his own evidence seems to show that he is).

Maurice thinks that this is some game that if you play by the rules you can win, but Maurice…. They make the rules……and this is no game.

Methinks pragmatism is the order of the day. C’mon Maurice, you know it makes sense.

Richard

Seems my comments are out of date, although I stand by them. The psychiatrist report seems reasonable. Maurice must have a lawyer to focus for him.

Dunno about this "brain damage" stuff. Is this true?

And as for psychiatric aftercare, Maurice will probably have no choice about this. He will have to go along with it and keep out of trouble. No more knocking on charlies' door and stuff like that.

Richard

The following consists of information, opinions, views, facts and comments - however it is the CONTENT of it that matters; because it addresses the subject matter - The Criminal & Civil cases of Mr Kirk and does not stray directly into others' 'causes' and or 'lost causes'.

Some readers may learn something from this; others may continue to bleat on about their "being victimised". Some have done nothing to help themselves or others that they purport to have helped over many years save other than to consistently spit out their dummies and squeal at every given opportunity.

Constructive content and comment is what is required - not destructive dummy spitting.

"The Criminal Case" -

Mr Kirk is the "defendent" in the criminal case - if anything the instigators 'The SWP' are the 'vexatious' (querulous) ones. If readers do not know the differences between a Civil Restraint Order (CRO) (and how to resist one being made in the first place), and a vexatious litigant order - then they ought to find out for their 'own benefit'. Point being : comment on a subject when you know about it - don't jump to conclusions by assuming things.

Certain persons working for SWP at some "point in time"; made a decision to "arrest" and charge Mr Kirk.

Whether the decision to prosecute by the CPS on behalf of SWP was right or wrong is in serious doubt. (e.g. Conflicts of interest / subordination to higher authorities etc)

As to the 'timing' of the arrest - the charges laid (The informations) and the subsequent actions - the attempts to have Mr Kirk psychiatrically sectioned - the lawfulness of these actions are

highly dubious.

There are also questions that surround the "speed" with which the Criminal case moved via committal to the Crown court.  

There is 'case law' which all judges and criminal case advocates must surely know of, in respect of that 'only' the charges laid as the first informations can be taken into account.

i.e. Additional charges cannot be legally nor

     lawfully nor legitimately tagged on. If they were

     not laid at the first information they are 'out'.

They often are added and that is a legal trick that has been used many a time against the unsuspecting and uninformed. Jurors rarely know of this trick - they have become reliant and dependent on the information they are "fed" by the 'Club of Professionals' (?)  

The case law is there - it exists. The trick that is used is that if the defence do not "raise" the issue; then the court (The Judge) and prosecution 'remain silent about it'. The defence's silence on the matter is also part of the legal trick.

Invariably and sometimes when the issue is eventually raised at appeal level - the original parties - prosecution, defence, judge (The Court) "absolve themselves" by saying that it was not raised before / during the trial. And they're "off the hook" .... nice trick eh.

This trick is part of their GAME. And it is a game - it is a very devious and manipulative game. It is a game where every ordinary non-member of the club is considered by them as "Fair Game". Consider the words "Fair game".

They (Judges) want and need everyone to be fearful of them. They have had it that way for some 600 years.

The 'issue' of the additional charges not being admissable must be 'raised' by Mr Kirk - The actual case law for now is not relevant. For those who know the game, we shall see how they 'act'. Mr Kirk must only raise the issue.

That Mr Kirk was returned to Cardiff prison on 26th October - reveals more than some have noticed. In other words - the 'psychiatric smear job' failed.

That further attempts to secure 'favourable' (to who?) psychiatric reports continue; reveals to most observant and 'reasonable' men that some desperation seems to have creeped in.

How many bites of the psychiatric cherry can an impartial and fair adjudicator / judge give to the prosecution? At some point the process of the law must fall off of its perch for explicit and overt bias if it continues allowing the cherrypicking.

The Criminal case essentially hinges on:

1 The veracity of the 'assertions' made by the

   SWP and of "THEIR WITNESSES".

   Note: The testimony of Witnesses but more of

   their cross-examination may prove perilous and

   perjurous.

2 The dubiousness surrounding the "TIMING" of the

   arrest.

3 The abject "FAILURE" of the SWP to act

   "IMMEDIATELY" and not somewhere up to 18

   months after the suspected event.

4 Of Numbers 2 and 3 above - can the EVIDENCE

  now be trusted to not have been interfered

  with?

There seems to be no true evidence other than the questionable assertions - that the Lewis gun somehow, suddenly at a specific time became 'modified'. This has to be proved beyond doubt and whether the "threshold" for a public interest trial has been met is also highly questionable.

"Even if" - the gun had been modified - the arrest and seizure of the gun had to have been 'IMMEDIATE' and on a "strict liability" charge. That is the Law. And that law seems not to have been adhered to.

SWP failed miserably - and that will / ought / must come out at any fair and impartial trial - should it come to that. The case may (discretion of the Impartial and fair judge) be thrown out before it gets to trial - but having squeezed the trigger the SWP are hardly likely to back down now that they have engaged / contracted with the CPS.

"The Civil Case" -

As for the Civil case - it should by all accounts go forward of its own merit. But - Mr Kirk would be wise to stick to his and only his issues, and not to let himself be unduly guided / misguided / influenced by others who may have "their own" axes (failed cases) to grind.

Each case on its own merit. Do not let others attempt to re-litigate their failed cases / causes "within" yours Mr Kirk. Others who do so only 'inflame' matters in "The case before the court", by adding their fire, bluster and fuel to the case; and because of their inability to stick to the "case before the court".

Mr Kirk has been badly advised, badly misled and badly misguided - for some years by several around him who think and believe that they know whats best for little johnny. Mr Kirk should (and has been advised by many) distance himself from the band of rabble rousers and mouthy litigants who have attached 'themselves' to him.

It appears as if Mr Kirk has no legal status / standing in the position he occupies.

He must appoint someone who can represent his legal status / person / standing / being in order for him to get out of the non legal position which he has been manouvered / cajoled / manipulated / coralled (unlawfully) into.

Until such a time he may well remain in a "legal no mans land".  

But you can only "lead a horse to water ...." as the saying goes .... it is that horses (Mr Kirk's) choice as to whether he drinks the water or not, and who's company he chooses to keep.                      

Attitude and altitude - "Roger and out".

This all sounds fairly similar to the treatment received by Selburn Watson who died in a Bristol hospital last year after a long standing battle with the British 'establishment'. If locking someone up in prison don't shut someone up then they are generally sectioned under the mental health act and so lose any legitimacy no mater what they say, also they can then be kept incarcerated indefinitely and forced to take debilitating drugs.

When you look into these cases you often find glaringly obvious legal abnormalities [like the trumped up gun charges] but then you read the psychological reports about persecution complex and paranoid personality disorder and you think of course the normal person would back down just to make their life simple. Yet some people in this society are not 'normal' as in they actually believe in what the letter law stands for, justice; and are prepared to sacrifice their liberty and even their lives to defend these principles.

They have the old school mentality that the responsibility of society lies in every individual and are trying to show us that we do have the power to demand our rights be respected by said institutions and the professionals who run them on the premise of protectionism.

As someone who has met you several times in the aviation world I would like to suggest to you what I think is going on with you.

I am a psychotherapist and very quickly believed that you have suffered from ADHD all of your life. Having read this site, I am quite sure that this is the case.

Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder ticks all of the boxes and I am quite sure that you have never been all that happy.

It is a condition that is easily treated with the use of Ritalin that needs to be taken three times a day (it is an off/on drug) Guess that about 40 mg would work with your body weight.

Wales is hopeless with ADHD and treatment is difficult.. Bristol has the nearest specialist clinic. Some private GPs will prescribe. Until you get treated, you will always continue to 'paint yourself into corners'.

As someone who once used a full tank of fuel doing a grid search for you when you disappeared while flying, I feel some involvement!

I was also contacted by a friend who asked what might be going on when you were constantly phoning the authorities and press in Guernsey.

You are not potty at all but do need correct diagnosis, which is ADHD and of course treatment which is so easy. I would strongly suggest that you pursue this.

Best of luck

John

I suggest promoting this facebook group as a way to get more people involved and to aise awareness of FTAC

www.facebook.com/group.php

It's 'so called'..... "International Human Rights day" - the 10th of December. But let's not kid ourselves - let's look at what is preached as in they talk lots of 'hot air' about human rights .... but do they in reality practice what they preach?

On 2nd December Mr Kirk was transported from Cardiff Prison to Cardiff Crown Court.

He was brought before HHJ Gareth Jones.

The hearing started at 11:39 and ended at 12:38.

The hearing therefore lasted for 59 minutes.

The Court in the name of HHJ Gareth Jones 'directed' that a futher 'mention hearing' would be conducted on 17th December. This presumably must be to set a trial date.

Mr Kirk was not asked to enter a plea and he did not ask / apply for bail.

Mr Kirk (presumably) 'in the dock' spoke during the 59 minutes.

As to what he stated / was allowed to state these details are only known to those present during the orchestrations of the proceedings. [Could almost be Similar to the Chilcot inquiry - which of course has been "declared" as "not a court of law".

i.e It is a theatre - with actors giving / selling 'the

     perception of some semblance' of the

     truth - hence no one swears on oath to get

     themselves into dishonour]

The transcript of Mr Kirks proceedings should be obtained by those who are entitled to it.

There is no case against Mr Kirk and as for the citations that he is being prosecuted in the Public Interest .... well, one has to question just exactly in who's ultimate interest he is being prosecuted or would the correct term be persecuted?

Who are the parties who benefit from the prosecution - but more importantly who benefit from a guilty verdict?

And who are the overriding losers 'should' a not guilty verdict be lawfully returned?

Of course Mr Kirk has not been informed as to whether the proceedings are being conducted under Statutory Law or Common Law - the question has not been asked / raised?

So far all roads lead to that these proceedings are being conducted [as in railroad] along the tracks of Statutory Law.

Happy Human Rights day!

Au revoir.

I've only just come across this story so forgive if I've missed any glaringly obvious points.

In Australia I've worked with people who have been placed on a CTO. A CTO is an order that a person be compulsorily treated, usually with "anti-psychotic" medication whilst living outside of a psychiatric ward.

Thus far the clients with whom I have had the most success are those who are seen by the "establishment" as difficult people.

In spite of having worked in nursing for 25 years I am extremely dubious that any psychiatric diagnosis is valid, at least as diagnosed according to the "medical model". ( I have no interest whatsoever in Scientology or CCHR ) Having said that, I do accept that people can behave in a way that can easily ( too easily ) be described as psychotic by a person who is charged with some responsibility to maintain public order. Especially if that person, a policeman or a psychiatrist, feels they have to pander to the mob, or worse, the lowest common denominator within a mob.

I understand the comment made above by John Ayres. Maurice may well at times be an exasperating pain in the bum, an embarrassment to know. It could even be that Ritalin could seem to benefit someone. But who?

My understanding is that Ritalin is reported by most adults as pleasurable, regardless of whether or not they have a diagnosis of ADHD. But most, and most do have a diagnosis of ADHD, have either sought out a diagnosis or else quite happily accepted a diagnosis. They accept that they have a problem and are happy to have found a medical solution. They feel good on Ritalin and they often do appear to function better. Some of it's placebo and some of it is real. But the person can also become spellbound by the drug. This isn't necessarily a problem if the person feels better and gets on better with other people.

But I don't think that Maurice feels that he needs to change at all. And I think he might be right. If he was to be forcibly drugged it would almost certainly be with anti - psychotics. He would almost certainly be resistant and since the anti - psychotics are far from pleasurable he would remain resistant. He would then be increasingly drugged and this would be terribly cruel. Don't think for a minute that the heavily drugged "schizophrenics" that might live in your neighborhood are in any way tranquil on their drugs. They may appear to be happily docile and content but they are far from that. I sat with one not long ago for an hour. After an hour he started to cry. He then told me that he always wants to cry and that sitting with me he was able to but that it took him an hour. He was then able to tell me what he has never told anyone and has become a client. He has been psychotic but he is not schizophrenic. It doesn't exist.

I'll finish my comment here by pointing up to Brizzle Homme's comment. I think Brizzle nails it.

Since posting yesterday I've read quite a bit more.

Iread a shrink's report where it was said that Maurice had claimed that his telephone had been tapped and that his conversations had been listened to using a loudspeaker placed in a police station dining room.

I already knew that Maurice wasn't a looney. So I read more of Maurice's accounts. Sure enough I found that he has written that at many times he has gotten information from people and customers in his locality, many of whom are presumably sympathetic to his cases against the police and have possibly witnessed some of the harassment meted out to Maurice. One such sympathizer told Maurice that whilst in the police canteen they had overheard that Maurice's phone had been tapped.

The shrink then, either deliberately or at best with deliberate recklessness, misrepresents Maurice by suggesting that Maurice is a looney of the classic schizophrenic type.  The shrink also knows that he is unlikely to get away with diagnosing Maurice as a  classic schizophrenic  but can use dubious observation to support a diagnosis of Paranoid Delusion Disorder.

I then read an appalling transcript of court proceedings which were largely a conversation between Maurice, the Recorder (presumably a judge) and the prosecutor. The Recorder was arguing that Maurice was incompetent to "safely" stand trial without a lawyer. Maurice was trying to argue ( I think) that whether he was represented or not was not the point. He wanted to know what had been said about him and by whom. And he wanted bail so that he could find out. As it was he was "flying blind" and accepting legal representation might also mean that he would be coerced into "accepting" that he had no choice but to fly blind. In other words Maurice does not want to be put in a position where he tentatively accepts legal representation and then finds that he has to fire the lawyer. Because that canl be further seen as evidence that he is a difficult or "psychotic" person.

He was apparently refused bail (off the record) but then the transcripts takes up again in the afternoon for a bail hearing. It seems to me that the Recorder attempts to provoke responses from Maurice that will support his intention to not grant bail, and that this will naturally concur with and be supported by the shrinks report. Maurice correctly perseveres with his attempts to impart a broader understanding of his situation being part of a long history. But this is of course dismissed as being evidence of the kind of delusory behavior described by the shrink.

It's disapponting that Maurice didn't make the point that I made above (about the tapping business). It may be that he couldn't because he wasn't aware of it.

It's a lomg post already but I'll say a bit more about coercive psychiatry.

It is very common for young troubled people to be diagnosed as schizophrenic. A classic case may report such things as, "Everybody is talking about me and they are beaming hypnotic rays into my head at night."

I say that the person has been driven "psychotic" by a combination of their own behavior and the behavior of other people. Their "illness" is emotional driven by fear and grief, not organic. They stick to their emotionally driven and often theatrical explanations and descriptions of their predicament because they are in fact the explanations when presented in this way.

The shrinks know this but they need to operate such that as a contingency they can at some time convince the ignorant public that if not classicly schizophrenic he can be labelled as psychotically deluded.

They also want as a contingency the opportunity to present him as dangerous to children.

I understand that Maurice wants to take makes various litigations against police. To expedite this he wants to find people that he remembers but can't at present locate of otherwise identify. He's offered payment to people who can help him in this regard. He has suggested to people who might be able to help that one way theu could help themselves help him is if they happen to know of a person as being a parent of someone that might attend their own child's school. This is the kind of reasonable method that might be taken to locate a person that had inherited a castle in Scotland.  Yet it has been twisted to suggest that Maurice would either stalk or instigate the stalking of children with criminal intent.

I suppose in the end the police and the shrinks might thing they have saved us from a maniacal Maurice who might otherwise have descended from the clouds in a WW1 fighter, machine gun blazing, mowing down small children in school playgrounds.