Legal Battles

Below the link is the 'printed' version of the text.

news.bbc.co.uk/.../8242948.stm

Police 'lied to get conviction'

Two Metropolitan Police officers and a community officer lied to make a "better" case against a man arrested for cannabis possession, a court heard.

Sgt Marcus Garvey, of south-east London, Pc Wayne Campbell, of Kent, and PCSO Stefanie Loftus, of Essex, all deny perverting the course of justice.

The three officers claimed they found Benjamin Thacker carrying cannabis.

But a recording made by Mr Thacker during his arrest later prompted the arrest of the officers, jurors heard.

Prosecutors claim between them, the three officers created a "false picture" against someone they thought "no-one would believe".

Sledgehammers

Subsequently the Crown Prosecution Service decided Mr Thacker should stand trial.

It was only when a recording Mr Thacker had made in secret using a dictating machine was played to the court during his trial that the case was halted.

Southwark Crown Court heard Mr Garvey, 44, of Abbey Wood, Mr Campbell, 41, from Cliffe, and Miss Loftus, 23, of Ilford, were then arrested.

“ He [Mr Thacker] is someone who these three officers thought did not matter, who these three officers thought no-one would believe ”

Claire Howell, prosecutor

They were charged with "doing acts tending or intended to pervert the course of public justice" between 25 January and 6 March last year.

Claire Howell, prosecuting, said: "The prosecution case is that three officers sledge-hammered their way in, dragged him outside, found cannabis in the building, arrested him for being in possession of it and lied saying it had been in his pocket."

She told jurors it would be up to them to decide where the defendants found the drugs after breaking into the squat in Shepherd's Bush, west London.

The officers are also accused of making false notes in their evidence and action books which led to Mr Thacker going on trial.

Ms Howell said: "He [Mr Thacker] is someone who these three officers thought did not matter, who these three officers thought no-one would believe."

The trial continues.

Story from BBC NEWS:

news.bbc.co.uk/.../8242948.stm

Published: 2009/09/07 19:32:15 GMT

© BBC MMX

Alison Wunderland wrote:

This case against Maurice Kirk is a total sham cooked up by "The Authorities" in order to stop a civil litigation against South Wales police. I was in court as a McKensey friend on Wednesday. MK asked to have his laptop returned to him because it contained many of his documents. The judge asked the CPS lawyer if it could be returned. The CPS lawyer, Twomlow, told the court that it was being held in evidence. In the afternoon the court was told that it had been in the hands of Mrs Kirk for some time.

A Prosecution Summary document disclosed before the trial states the following at para.22: "At 13.05 on Saturday 30th May 2009 a covert police officer (Foxy, p8) telephoned Mr Kirk on his mobile telephone. The call was recorded. "Foxy" told Mr Kirk that SHE was interested in the Lewis Gun and asked if it was still for sale. He asked HER if SHE meant the machine gun, and SHE confirmed that SHE did. He then said the gun was no longer with him. "Foxy" said that SHE was disappointed as SHE owned a similar item. Mr Kirk asked "How do you stay legal when you have something like that?" "Foxy" replied that HERS was deactivated, to which he replied "Oh I see, no no, this one worked."

You may have noticed that I put the gender of "Foxy" in capitals for emphasis. The witness claiming to be "Foxy" sitting behind a screne in the court on Wednesday was a male.

Dare we ask the question, has the real "Foxy" changed her mind about giving evidence and has she been replaced by another "body"?

The court must be mindful of the Perjury Act 1911 Section 5 which makes it a "misdemeanour" punishable by 2 years in prison and/or a fine. "If ant person knowingly and wilfully makes a statement false in a material way ----."

In coming news briefly.

29 JAN 10 Day 5

The prison LOST Maurice's new suit, shirt, tie, socks etc.

At 3:45 Maurice was handed a mass of files 40-50. He was told to take them down to the cells, probably 4 or 5 trips. Frank Werren offered to help but was stopped on the pain of arrest. FW made a formal complaint and only then did Maurice get any help. The trial continues on Monday. More later from this special correspondent.

Here is a report by a concerned spectator in the Cardiff Crown Court, Concerning one of MK's supporters, Nadia Feldmeyer.

Nadia was in crown court today (28th Jan 2010) for a hearing but the judge discharged her (case probably wasnt worth the toilet paper it was scribbled on) and then she was immediately re-arrested on the way out whilst still in custody and away from her mum at all times in the back corridors of the courts. the police still want to string her up, something to do with releasing the names of the jury onto facebook. we dont know what's going on really as its all being done behind our backs but the judge in court said something about publishing details of the juries names on facebook.

We heard that the police had taken possession of Nadias computer this morning too which means they must have broken into her house and helped themselves to personal possessions (and possibly turned the house upside down) whilst Nadias mum was in court earlier today.

She will be taken to a local police cell (to find out if she will be released on bail or not) and will have a court appearance either tomorrow or on monday in the magistrates.

When the police go through her computer they might try and implicate others she was in contact with for doing the same similar thing i.e. putting details of the case publicly on facebook. (is that even against the law?). I better be careful. I really don't want the police coming here turning the place over.

I might get a call off XXXX (family friend of nadia) later with more updates I think, he was helping Nadia's mum today, with lifts and emotional support etc he has my number and he said he can give me a ring later.

Me personally I'm just a stranger to all this only just met them the other day and don't even know Nadia's mums' name but just doing my bit to give moral support and help where I can. however the police are taking things to extremes and its all getting too close for comfort.

Amazing and very disturbing that judges completely ignore perjury right under their noses. That judge in Maurice Kirk's case, Paul Thomas is untterly biased against Maurice. On 27th Jan, after the court had closed for lunch, Maurice asked me if I had any aspirins for his headache. I found a strip in my brief case and attempted to pass him a couple, but the heavy gang jumped on him and restrained him from reaching out to get them. I was threatened by one of the "gang", then another 8 came into the court and dragged Maurice from the dock throwing him against the hard corner of the dock, he was rushed from the scene crying out in pain.

After the recess, the judge gave us all a warning about talking to Maurice and trying to give him medication. He said he had complaints about people taking notes in court. One of the heavies pointed to Nadia Feldmeyer. The judge told her to give the notes to the usher, and after some altercation about the judger's remit and authority was evicted from the court.

At the end of the day and after court session was closed, Maurice again asked me for aspirins, and as any humane sane person would do, I again offered him the aspirins. The leader of the "Gang" shouted at me that I was now going to be arrested. He bcxalled for the same bunch of heavies to come to assist and then shouted to the ushers to call the judge back into court.

The head heavy loudly addressed the judge pointing at me saying that I had attempted to give the prisoner aspirins again. The judge shouted at me askimg if I was in the court when he had given the warning. I said that I was, to which he replied to the effect that I was very close to arrest and imprisonment. I said that the court had closed and therefore it was no longer a court and there was no dock. I aslso tried to bring to the judges attrention the fact that the prosecutor, Twomlow, had told the court in the morning that Mr.Kirk could not have his computer back because it was being held in evidence, yet in the afternoon when the request was repeated, Twomlow has said that the computer had been returned to Mrs.Kirk. The judge shouted "Are you trying to be facetious with me?" to which I relied that I was not.

"Are you going to apologise?" I remained silent, again he asked if I was going to apologise, again I remained silent. "If you do not apologise I will send you to prison for 7 days!" I then made my apology, but as the Freemasons so often do, I cancelled my apology in my mind. The judge then asked me for my name pointing his finger at me. I remained silent. "If you refuse to tell me your name I will send you to prison." I remained silent. Again he raised his voice, "This is third time, tell me your name or else you will be sent to prison." I gave him my name. The judge then told me that I was barred from the court and that if I came back into the building I would be arrested.

For showing some compassion to a fellow human being we are being threatened with imprisonment,

and yet the prosecutor can get away with PERJURY. There is obviously no humanity in British courts.

WHAT WERE OUR FATHERS AND GRANDFATHERS THINKING WHEN THEY WENT TO WAR TO DEFEND THESE SHORES AGAINST THE TYRANNY OF FASCISM?

Please please read the articles on this case in The TimesOnline and the Daily Mail. Both publications misquote, saying "But Kirk replied 'SHE'S no longer with me". The prosecution document called a case summary never refers to the gun as "SHE", the quote from the summary, as I gave in one of my previous blogs is "He then said the gun is no longer with him."

One has to speculate if the press, by referring to the gun as "SHE", are attempting, under orders from the CPS, to deflect/divert attention away from their glaring error of judgement in the fact that in their Case Summary the person "FOXY" is referred to as "SHE" - "HER" - "HERS" whereas the witness in the court on the 27th January 2010 was never a woman but a male!

I say again, perhaps the REAL FOXY (female) changed her mind about testifying in such a farcical charade.

On this matter of the "covert" police officer, who wishes to remain anonymous as "Foxy". Surely the actions of this officer are known as entrapment and therefore their evidence is invalid?

Perhaps in the cold light of day over the weekend - and not in the heat of the moment the Judge in the case might have had time to reflect upon what has come out in evidence.

For starters The Court must take a 'dim' view on any form of "ENTRAPMENT" that has occurred.

Clearly SWP seem to have gone to great lengths and cost in their attempt to get their man.

The reports of an 'undercover cop' being used to adduce / draw out / lead / entice Kirk into saying something, clearly cannot be ignored - because of the element of "Entrapment".

Clearly having now admitted using an undercover cop the prosecution itself and its agenda must also come onto the radar.

Entrapment by deliberate and wilful means (the vice being - that they set out to entrap) begs the question of whether justice has not already been defeated in the case against Kirk?

One might expect that in acting in accordance with the law and bearing in mind the higher standard of proof in a criminal case, the court ought to be minded of case law on entrapment and further minded to stop the trial, drop the charges and release Mr Kirk immediately.

That not being the case, the Judge at the close of any trial is under a duty to inform the jury fully of elements of the law which they may be ignorant of.

Ergo - If the trial is not stopped - the jury must be informed at summing up; that in respect of the element of entrapment having occurred - they too must take a dim vim of the matter in respect of the defeating of justice and that of their duty as a result of that - can only be to return a not guilty verdict.

Further to events that have been reported there is also the question as to the 'absolute proof' of the time as and when the so called gun did become 'de-activated'.

"Kirk sold the gun to Mr Cooper in May 2008 claiming it was deactivated".

It has not therefore been, nor can it now be proved ever, 'beyond even reasonable doubt' that the gun was working whilst it was in Kirk's possession.

Only 'after the fact' (sold on) have the prosecution made out a case that it works. To attempt to retrospectively 'make a case' that it had worked previously is a brazen attempt to mislead a jury on absolute points of law and fact.

Questions arise as to whether or not Mr Cooper has been used as a useful tool to get a conviction also?

The various repetitive references to 'pictures' of Kirk with the piece of old iron and of glib blase tag lines to the pictures are not relevant to the charges whatsoever. The repetitive references seem to be part of the prosecutions 'showboating' - in attempting to sell a dummy to the jury.

Of Pictures and Captions - so what. That evidence ought to have been struck out and not placed in the minds of the jury.

The SWP / CPS seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time, public money and effort in their chasing of Kirk like keystone cops. They should be ashamed of themselves.

And where is Oliver Twist in all of these matters? -He seems to have hidden his hand and person quietly away in the background.

As to 'FOXY' - that appears overall to be a crafty way of surreptitiously expressing a distress signal.

Who's laughing at who now - craftsmen - is your HMS Foxy holed below its bow? Has the Ships Master Oliver run it aground? Who's compass is squarely bashed and on its way to the seabed?

The art of deception - seems to be just about alive.

Solicitors - solicit for business; so too do prostitutes. Which offers a better service?

I cant believe this crap is still going on. Does Maurice have a lawyer acting for him yet?

Good luck to you Maurice, dont let them wear you down, keep up the good fight.

This is an article from the Barry Today with my comment below.

Vet denies antique gun charges as court case opens

Friday, 29 January 2010

REPORT by AJ SICLUNA

A Vale veterinary surgeon who came into possession of a Lewis machine gun nearly 100 years’ old, illegally sold it to a collector of World War One and World War Two aircraft, it has been alleged at Cardiff Crown Court.

Maurice Kirk (aged 64) claimed that the gun had been de-commissioned and was not capable of being fired.

But prosecutor Richard Twomlow said that a covert police officer with the codename of ‘Foxy’, telephoned Mr Kirk, said he was interested in the gun, and was informed that it actually worked.

Mr Kirk, of Marlpits, St Donats, has denied illegally and unlawfully possessing the gun, and selling or transferring it.

Mr Kirk, who is known worldwide as the ‘Flying Vet’, is not represented by counsel and is defending himself.

Mr Twomlow said the gun was a combination of the original component and other components. Under the 1968 Firearms Act, it was prohibited.

He pointed out that Mr Kirk was a qualified pilot and had a website.

The gun was designed so that two or more bullets could be discharged without repeated pressure on the trigger.

Mr Twomlow said that Mr Kirk told Robert Cooper, to whom he sold the gun, that it had been de-activated.

Two firearms experts examined the gun and discovered that it could still be fired, using ammunition of an earlier era, or modern ammunition.

In 2008, he offered for sale on his website, aeroplanes, and the gun and ammunition for £4,000.

A police officer examined the website and saw a number of photographs of Mr Kirk holding the gun. The caption to one read: ‘The final solution’.

In addition, said Mr Twomlow, Mr Kirk posted video pictures of himself on You-tube.

Mr Twomlow said Mr Cooper had bought a replica World War One fighter from Mr Kirk in the past. It was a ‘pusher’ aeroplane, with the propeller behind the pilot.

In 2008, Mr Kirk had sold the gun to Mr Cooper for £2,000, claiming it was de-activated.

Mr Kirk was arrested in June last year and largely said “no comment” to questions and again repeated that the gun had been decommissioned.

The case is expected

to last three weeks.

I am interested and indeed indebted to this reporter who has confirmed my own observations that the witness known as ’Foxy’ who spoke from behind a screen was indeed a man - your report says ’- he was interested in the gun.’ The prosecution in their ’Case Summary’ written by Richard Twomlow, at paragraph 22 clearly refers to ’Foxy’ as SHE and HER and HERS. There is perjury here in either case.