Legal Battles : barbara wilding

Criminal Cases Review Commission receive more 'New Evidence' in Three Cardiff Crown Court Mis-trials

Maurice Kirk — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:12:00 GMT

Breaking News ‘Breached’ Restraining Order never ever was served on their victim in the first place!--------- Their Lordships’ March 1013 judgment has been located to reveal, in paragraph 9, they were never aware of a ‘jury note’, as with the victim, specifically asking Judge Paul Thomas QC, on 4th May 2012, for 1st December 2011 Cardiff clerk of the court’s court file re ‘harassment of a doctor’ conviction.--------- . His Honour, apparently, in the police victim’s forced absence for urgent medical attention, was informed by the HM Crown Prosecution Service (Wales) there were no court records available relevant to the jury’s wishing to see proof after the gaoler had specifically admitted, but only on cross examination, Geoamy had no record either of any ‘service’ in the cells by them. So just who did then?---------. It has only just been established, via Bristol solicitors and the Criminal Cases Review Commission, when the latter seized the court file in February 2012, that there was no record at all in either the clerk’s contemporaneous notes or court log either.--------. Police records of their victim’s ‘gate arrest’, immediately after his 1st Dec 2011 release, show no evidence either of a ‘restraining order’ was ever served. Their blackmailed police psychiatrist, made to fabricate psychiatric reports to scupper their victim’s long running damages claims of police bullying, harassment, malicious prosecutions and false imprisonments, was soon sacked from NHS (Wales). Their victim has served six prison terms so far, over this, totalling well over three years of his life. . . The Manager Crown Court Cardiff 5th Oct 2015 Dear Sir, DPP V MAURICE JOHN KIRK BVSc – APPLICATION UNDER PART 5.7(2)(A)(B) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES 2014 I write to request to be supplied with copies of all documents that are retained on the court file in respect of my 1st Dec 2011 harassment conviction, on appeal and heard at your court on 1st March 2012, under Part 5.7(2)(a)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014 and any other relevant rule of law. I refer you to the case of R (Guardian New & Media Ltd.) v. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (2012) EWCA Civ 420; [2013] 1 W.L.R. 618 dealing with the right to obtain copies of documents used in court cases, along with Part 5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 and Practice Direction. You will note that there is a presumption in favour of such disclosure in the interests of “open justice” as was voiced by subsequent judges, seized with the matter, in both your building and one in England. I therefore look forward to receiving the court’s decision in relation to my requests under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014 at your earliest kind convenience. Yours faithfully Maurice John Kirk BVSc

South Wales Police Bullying continues

Maurice Kirk — Wed, 13 May 2015 08:18:00 GMT

15 05 02 The Wager.pdf

15 05 08 Claimant's Closing Submissions continued pages 1 to 10.pdf

15 05 08 CONTINUED Closing Submissions (part two).pdf

15 05 08 CONTINUED Closing Submissions (part three).pdf

See below for substantive submissions

Common Assault Trial 25th June Arrest of HM Crown Prosecutor Totally without Merit?

Maurice Kirk — Fri, 21 Jun 2013 05:39:00 GMT

THE BACK GROUND

12 04 21 MJK REDACTED Psychiatric Summary.pdf

13 01 27 SWP Dr MJK to Morgan Cole HHJ SL.pdf

1970's Taunton Somerset police station back door, before the camera and sign on it was quickly installed following the collapse of fire arms allegations in Taunton Magistrates, with proven perjury from information within some missing chief inspector's personal note book

This weekend's latest police forced encounter was my visit to the police station, to lay theft charges, which soon appeared to cause the perambulation of my vehicle some five or six times around a Barry round about for the driver to receive a road side breath test.

THE INCIDENT

On 23rd April 2013 David Gareth Evans was arrested in the foyer of the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre under CCTV coverage.

I asked for the CCTV record to be preserved.

I asked the HM court staff to call the police.

PRIOR TO POLICE INTERVIEW

I instructed lawyers to obtain relevant disclosure, under the control of police, Crown Prosecution Service and HM court Service, for meaningful legal argument, in higher courts but as of 23rd June 2013 all Cardiff institutions have refused.

This is one of the reasons

This is another

http://kirkflyingvet.com/photos/maurices_picks/Abuse-of-Process.aspx

THE INTERVIEW UNDER CAUTION

The arrested CPS lawyer had, with malice aforethought, manipulated criminal allegations against me, for example, by

a) fabricating a court exhibit, at the very last moment, of an internally post office re directed franked letter, containing a WANTED poster, purported to have been posted by me to the Caswell Clinic. It was only introduced as evidence at the beginning of evidence by the psychiatrist because Evans had overlooked the fact that none of the other six allegations of harassment carried no custodial sentence.

b) avoiding 'evidence in chief' from the psychiatrist that he had fabricated that I had' significant brain damage' and a possible brain tumour due to South Wales Police 'pressure' (black-mail over a fellow psychiatrist, a Dr Janis Hillier) for justification for registering me as MAPPA level 3 and jailed, facing a mandatory 10 year sentence, over some dilapidated and decommissioned WW1 machine gun, sold a year earlier and still bolted to a replica display aircraft sitting many hundreds of miles away in an open hangar! http://www.barryanddistrictnews.co.uk/news/latestnews/5000624.Barry_s__Flying_Vet__Maurice_Kirk_cleared_of_firearms_charges/

c) misleading the jury, at the May 2012 trial for 'breach of a restraining order', when he knew I had never had been served, in the Magistrates cells on 1st December 2011, a final copy of a restraining order as both court and custody records clearly confirm

This lawyer had already informed His Honour Judge Curran, before an audience of witnesses, that the 'draft' part hand written document, that had originally been ordered by District Judge John Charles to be taken down to my cell for approval, was still in 'his control' and still at the Merthyr Tydfil CPS office. Why this court document was not stored in the HM magistrates, with a breach indictment now laid, beggars belief.

Is that why, ever since, neither HM court, GEOamey Custodial Services or CPS head office (Cardiff), refuse to disclose anything!

d) misleading the magistrates in refusing me bail, for most of last summer, following this same police psychiatrist fabricating yet another S9 witness victim statement this time stating I that had been around to the home of Dr Janis Hillier and himself requiring the police to be called to 'move him on'.

I knew not nor do I wish to know where either of them live which may explain why the police continue to refuse to disclose my multi page statement of complaint dictated to a PC Holder nor furnish this coming trial with the psychiatrist's 21st July 12 or thereabouts, complaint that had me incarcerated with all allegations eventually dropped

e) misleading the court in refusing me bail, because of my failure to attend a 28th Nov 11 hearing, when the Cardiff prison had been instructed by the CPS not to produce me

f) misleading successive courts into stating I had an 'actual bodily harm' conviction in 1980.

this list is not exhaustive

THE FACTS

As much as I would like to publish the evidence, to be used on Tuesday 25th June 2013 at Cardiff Magistrates, the risk of contaminating the truth prevents me from so doing.

My having called for police, whilst placing the arrest under the video camera in the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre, will implicate the nefarious conduct of so many since the Dolmans, solicitors, fabricated 25th February 2009 sworn affidavit was signed by the then Chief Constable, Barbara Wilding, denying police broke into my Cardiff veterinary surgery or there were Barry magistrates hearings all relating to covert surveillance and collusion with Guernsey's insular authorities.

Both Cardiff's judiciary and penal systems are, time after time, shown to be adversely affected by to 'HM's sinister influence and in particular that of the conduct HM court staff's repeatedly failing to disclose public records such as the jury asked for.

Ring leaders include Luigi Stranati , HM area court manger for South Wales who has attempted, since at least as far back as 2003, to have me registered as a Section 42 'Vexatious Litigant'.

On 1st December 2011 many litigants in person (LiPs) in the magistrates' public gallery saw David Gareth Evans, CPS prosecutor, hand up to District Judge John Charles, in our so called open court system, the CPS draft version of a proposed 'restraining order' against me following my conviction under 1998 Prevention of Harassment Act over fabricated NHS psychiatric reports to obtain my level 3 MAPPA status.

to 'protect' the 'victim' from further harassment.

Judge Charles put short shrift to its content and boldly and set about altering the document, by way of his fountain pen and then instructed the clerk to have it taken down to me, in the cells, for my 'approval'.

I neither read the document nor would have anything to do with it, save a glance of it in the jailer's hand, quite unaware of its relevance. He took it out of my cell and I assume, returned it to the CPS or court clerk.

Either way it promptly 'disappeared' with my sudden release with no final 'restraining order' or knowledge of it, coming my way. HM controlled CCTV camera stragegically placed at the exit gate of the custody suite, controlled by Stranati, was denied disclosure but compounded by the fact that five angry GEO Amey private jailers, for being kept waiting after 5pm. had fisickly thrown me out through the door followed by my pair of crutches being thrown onto my head as I lay prostrate on the concrete.

Why?

Gareth David Evans had overlooked the fact that the six allegations of my harassing a NHS (Wales) Caswell Clinic member of staff failed to include an incident that carried the statutory custodial sentence should I be found guilty when I had been in prison for many months already.

Coupled with the court's shock of seeing ten of my friends and human rights workers in the public gallery, at the beginning of the trial and 'blow by blow' coverage of daily proceedings on internet sites, world wide, the Welsh press censorship being legendary, Evans slipped in the seventh allegation, of my having sent a 'WANTED' poster by post to a doctor.

My deliberate act, following the updated list being handed to me in the 'dock', of screwing it up and throwing it to the ground, had the desired effect by it being published in the Glamorgan Gem.

The 4th May 2012 Crown Court jury, following the alleged breach of the so called order, heard that the cell incident, of the FINAL document being officially served on a prisoner upon his release, was all caught on a series of CCTV cameras and the drafting and final production of the finishing 'restraining order' were 'recorded' in the HM court records.

HM Judge Curran QC refused the jury any of it, having received their jury note, stating there was no such evidence 'available' leaving the jury without explanation. Why?

Barrister Evans had old the judge, in front of both myself and my Mackenzie Friend, MB, that he may now have to be a defence witness because of his part hand written part typed draft, brought down into my cell on 1st Dec11, was up in Merthyr Tydfil CPS office.

So why didn't the judge stop the trial?

Lord Leveson, later, at the Criminal Court of Appeal, appeared to do likewise. Why?

The judge, on Tuesday, will have had HM orders to block the truth coming out by labelling my reasons for the arrest 'totally without merit'. Why ?

ANSWER

The Continuing cover up of my 2009 fabricated Caswell Clinic psychiatric reports for Barbara Wilding to obtain my MAPPA level 3 registration to frustrate the on going civil actions against her.

TRUTH must not come out

THE CHARGE

Police continue to withhold custody records and send me the wrong DVD while Cardiff court continue to refuse to disclose the record (court log), the jury had asked for, that a draft restraining order or even final order being produced before I was 'gate arrested', in the magistrates foyer and taken to London in hand cuffs for 'failing to attend court' two days earlier! HMP Cardiff had refused to produce me and that 'failure to attend court' conviction has been used, ever since, to successfully oppose my bail.

Wrong video? Deliberate?

Private Prosecution.wmv

My Judicial Review Application is BLOCKED

As with RCJ Morgan J, over South Wales Police ring leaders in the Cardiff hushed up three month trial, the government is left with blocking exposure of the ever increasing corruption in the judiciary and those profit from it, by now blocking members of the public applying for judicial reviews or calling for 'protected' deceitful doctors/lawyers, working for the police, to be properly investigated

See rough template for your MP to receive, asap, to be 'aware' before it is too late.

13 06 24 JR format to MPs.docx

I AM STILL REGISTERED AS A MENTAL PATIENT.......Deliberate? Or just the 'gulag card; dealt again?

My Bristol solicitor and Cardiff barrister are continued to be refused Crown Court copy of all the exhibits in first, the 1st Dec 11 Magistrates appeal, re harassment conviction, in 1st March 12 Judge Hughes hearing and secondly, in May 2012 jury trial, re 'breach of a restraining order' I never had served on me in the first place!

These few examples of wide spread criminal conduct is best described as a new form of a liturgy worshipped but causing serious judicial 'melt down' of a system that this country was once very proud about

So could South wales Police so stoop in my civil action?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23022634?print=true#story_continues_1%23story_continues_1.

7th June 13 Royal Courts of Justice Hearing Right to Tape Record and Call Defendant as Witness

Maurice Kirk — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:26:00 GMT

AN E-MAIL WITH NO RESPONSE

FAO Mr Justice Morgan

6^th June 2013 12.02pm

FAO Hearings Cardiff County Court                       BS614159

22nd & 23rd May2013 Claimant Position Statements Ruling

Further to my visit to the court to collect the 'by Tuesday' ruling, promised at the last day of the hearing, l have telephoned today about the Claimant being able to refer to it in RCJ on 7th June 13 as the alternative, possibly, to Barbara Wilding being the subject of the proceedings as past Chief Constable.

Her 'oh so dodgy' 25th Feb 2009 sworn affidavit was written with malice aforethought and proved in court following 99 witnesses's evidence.

There is no need for the Defendant's legal team
to attend as the tape recording issue is not for them.

If the outstanding ruling is substituted for Mr Justice Morgan to consider then compromise as to which witnesses should still be allowed to give evidence could be settled between parties NOW

Without that ruling causes me to remain in some difficulties for tomorrow's RCJ application

Please forward to RCJ as I still cannot find the RCJ ref number or e-mail.

Thankyou

28 May 2013   Further ruling on second list of witnesses whom Mr Kirk wishes to call.

On 29 April 2013, at a time when the Defendant were shortly to call their last witness, Mr Kirk delivered a written list of 44 witnesses whom he wished to call. On 1^st May 2013 I delivered a written ruling identifying which witnesses he was to be permitted to call. I did so pursuant to the responsibility upon the court to control the evidence by giving directions, and actively to case manage the case, under CPR 32.1 and CPR 1.4. In that written ruling it I set out the nature of the present proceedings; the Orders which have been made previously, setting out in particular the dates by which witness statements, or witness summaries, had been required to be served; the background from 2008 to date in respect of preparation of the present trial insofar as it permitted or impeded Mr Kirk’s ability to prepare evidence and secure witness statements or summaries; and the principles by which the court is governed in respect of the calling of witnesses. I adopt that in full for the purpose of the present ruling and I do not repeat it here.

Since then, Mr Kirk has given evidence over several days and has called 13 witnesses. By a Position Statement dated 22^nd May 2013 Mr Kirk served a further written list of some 19 named witnesses he would wish to call. I stated on 24 May that I would again give ruling in writing. This is (i) for clarity as to my reasons and (ii) for ease of access to a record of the ruling. I understand that a hearing is listed for Friday 7 June 2013 to consider permission to appeal (and/or appeal itself) against my ruling of 1 May 2013. I will in this ruling list the witnesses individually in this ruling, as I did in the last, by number and name in Mr Kirk’s list but preceded by a letter “B”, to avoid confusion, assuming that the present ruling may also be the subject of application for permission to appeal.

B1.       Ex-Inspector Coliandris. This is a former police officer. In these proceedings the Defendant gave an undertaking to call or tender any witness in respect of whom a witness statement had been lodged, so long as that was a presently serving officer and thus within the control of the Defendant; but expressly did not give that undertaking in respect of any witness who was no longer a serving police officer. I was told that Mr Coliandris was reluctant to attend court because of his state of health. I am aware that he wrote to the court himself seeking to inform the court confidentially of his state of health and his reservations, but stating that he did not want these details to be made known to Mr Kirk. I declined to read his representations so long as he wished the content of his communications to be kept from one of the parties and I so informed them. In the event Mr Coliandris was not called and the Defendant did not seek to tender his evidence, whether live or under the Civil Evidence Act.

Mr Kirk does not articulate the nature of the evidence which he believes Mr Coliandris could give. On the face of his witness statement Mr Coliandris is not a direct witness to any fact or incident in issue. He appears to have looked into complaint by Mr Kirk, without identifying relevant material evidence. If so, then this appears to be a witness whom Mr Kirk wishes to call blind, in the hope of either fishing for evidence in support of his case or simply cross-examining the witness in support of the same exercise. I have also sought to be alert to the possibility that a witness might be able to assist, as to the matters in issue, if he is referred to in documents before the court; but I have identified no such reference.

Accordingly I rule against permission to call this witness.

B2.       Ex Chief Inspector Trigg. This is in fact a renewed application – in respect of witness 15 in the ruling of 1 May 2013. No new material is advanced. The same considerations apply. Accordingly I still rule against permission to call Mr Trigg.

B3.      Mr Brian Genner. This is a witness who has given evidence in relation to the events of 6 June 1995. Mr Anthony Gafael and his girlfriend Alison Genner the daughter of this witness were excluded that day from their flat, an incident which led to prosecution of Mr Kirk, and in respect of which Mr Kirk complains that police officers forced entry through a roller shutter door to Mr Kirk’s premises. There are discrepancies between the account in the witness statement for these proceedings of Sergeant Roe (as he was in 1995) and others, including Mr Genner, as to when Roe was present or what he did. In the case of Mr Roe, Mr Kirk produced after Mr Roe’s evidence a statement of the time from Sergeant Roe which appeared clearly inconsistent with what Mr Roe had told me. I therefore permitted Mr Roe, exceptionally, to be recalled for further cross-examination. The inconsistencies have been explored in cross-examination by Mr Kirk and in questions from myself.

Mr Kirk seeks that Mr Genner be recalled also. However the evidence of Mr Genner has been given. The evidence of Anthony Gafael has now been given. If there is material in the evidence of Mr Genner (or Mr Gafael) on which Mr Kirk seeks to rely, or inconsistencies in the evidence between witnesses on which he seeks to rely, that is available in closing submissions and will be for me to consider as in any other case. Unlike Mr Roe, there is no earlier inconsistent written statement of Mr Genner relied upon (which in any event, if it had been available, ought to have been put to him), nor other proper reason for him to be recalled.

B4.       Mr Roe. He has been recalled once (see above). It would be wholly exceptional for a witness to be recalled for a second time. I have now heard evidence from Mr Gafael. However Mr Kirk identifies nothing new which would justify, and I have failed to identify anything in the evidence of Mr Gafael which would justify, recalling Mr Roe.

B5.       Ex Chief Inspector Colin Jones. Mr Kirk states that he is a “key player”. A chief reason for Mr Kirk’s interest is that at one of Mr Kirk’s appeals in the Crown Court a police officer attended as an observer, when he was seen to be nodding towards a police officer PC Rewbridge during the giving of her evidence. According to Mr Kirk, when asked to explain himself, the police officer said he was attending on instruction from Chief Inspector Colin Jones. Inferentially, Mr Kirk believes that Mr Colin Jones is, or may be, one of the senior police officers whom he passionately believes to have conspired to hound him.

As with a number of police officers whom Mr Kirk wished to call in his list of 29 April 2013, (i) there is no statement from the proposed witness (ii) it is wholly unlikely that the witness will give a statement, and (iii) there is no direct evidence of connection of the witness with the specific matters in issue in these proceedings. I consider that the real wish of Mr Kirk is to cross-examine the witness in the hope that something might turn up; but that there is no discernible prospect that such an exercise would assist the court.

B6.       Inspector Andrew Rice. Mr Kirk has submitted on a great number of occasions that Mr Rice should be recalled. Evidence has been given by a Mr Alexander-Ebbs that he attended Aust Service Station to give a witness statement, in respect of an assault he alleged against Mr Kirk, at a meeting attended by a number of persons including Mr Rice, where he was encouraged to “sex up” his account. However Mr Alexander-Ebbs was present in person at this court on 21^st February 2013 during the continued evidence of Mr Rice; gave a witness statement on that day making the allegations against Mr Rice; and these allegations were put to Mr Rice. Otherwise, Mr Kirk assets that Mr Rice must have been aware fo covert surveillance of Mr Kirk; and/or he now wonders whether it was Mr Rice whom he sought to “arrest” outside the magistrates’ court (rather than a Sergeant Hill) when handing over a file which Mr Kirk thought might contain important real evidence. In my respectful judgment there is, (and there continues to be), no justification for the recall of Mr Rice.

B7.       Inspector Steve Parry. This is in fact a renewed application – in respect of witness 43 in the ruling of 1 May 2013. No new material is advanced. The same considerations apply. Accordingly I still rule against permission to call Mr Parry.

B8.       Jonathan Clayton.   I made ruling in respect of Mr Clayton on 1 May 2013. No witness statement or witness summary has been served in respect of him. He is said to be relevant to the incident of 4 July 1999, but it is not said that he was a direct witness to any of the events of that day. If anything, there is less reason now for him to be called, in that Mr Kirk’s witness Susan Jenkins has given evidence of what is required of those flying from one airport and air traffic control zone to another; and Mr Aishe has given evidence of the closeness of the police helicopter to Mr Kirk’s aircraft I discern no sufficient or good reason for him to be called.

B9.      Ex Chief Constable Barbara Wilding. This is another renewed application – in respect of witness 2 in the ruling of 1 May 2013. Mr Kirk identifies nothing new. The same considerations apply now as did then. Accordingly I still rule against permission to call this witness.

B10.     Ex Special Constable Frank O’Brien. The position statement itself articulates no cause for him to be called. Orally, Mr Kirk said he was an important witness because he gave evidence which “caused the case [against Mr Kirk] to collapse”. I did not find it easy to follow what this evidence was supposed to be. It seemed to be that an HORT1 form was said by the police officers to have been served upon Mr Kirk, yet no document was ever traced, nor an audit trial provided for such a document, hence the case against Mr Kirk failed. However, to the extent that this is right, Mr Kirk may in any event rely upon it.

This is an incident of May 1995. in which Mr Kirk shows particular interest, in that Special Constable Deren Martin says that she served him with an HORT1 form; and has given evidence that she made enquiries with the police in Guernsey (in pursuit of whether Mr Kirk’s vehicle was or was not exempt from vehicle excise licence), being told that there was warrant for his arrest outstanding. This fuels Mr Kirk’s suspicion and belief that he was the subject of harassment by police in Wales because of his past travails with Guernsey police.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that Mr O’Brian is a paradigm case of a proposed witness from whom there is no witness statement or summary, no reason to suppose that the witness (if he can be found) will give a statement, no indication whether he would remember whether another officer served an HORT1 firm on Mr Kirk on a day 18 years ago, SC Deren Martin being the officer in the case, and one whom Mr Kirk hopes to cross-examine despite him being called as his own witness, in the hope that something might turn up. Accordingly I decline to give permission for this witness to be called.

B11.     Ex SC Ridley. Mr Kirk tells me, (if I have succeeded in following him correctly), that Mr Ridley was the investigating officer for the same incident as resulted in police photographs being taken of his vehicle (as was done for SC Deren Martin for the May 1995 incident). Similar considerations apply as with SC O’Brien. So far as I can see, this is fishing in the dark. In default of witness statement, or the beginnings of a witness summary, I cannot justify permission to call the witness.

B12.    Mrs Diana Graham. Mr Kirk asks for a “foreign witness summons”. This witness lives in France. The Claimant’s Witness Bundle includes at page 91-123 a statement, not in proper form, by this witness with associated documents. The bulk of the statement relates to the proceedings which followed the Vale of Glamorgan Show incident of August 1998, (Action 3, “2”). This is one of the claims struck out by my rulings of November 2010. Accordingly that which relates to it is not now material.

Much of the rest relates to how Mr Kirk was dealt with on occasions in court, by magistrates (and occasionally by judges, including judges in the Divisional Court), some of it clearly recording what Mr Kirk said to her and some although much less clearly being personal observation on the part of Mrs Graham. I informed the parties that I would read this statement and discard all that related to the Vale of Glamorgan Show. I do not envisage that Mrs Graham could assist me significantly further by giving evidence orally and, as I have made clear on a number of occasions, it is not permissible to call a witness in the hope that she might add something further which is not contained either in a witness statement or witness summary. Not least, if there were anything material for Mrs Graham to add, the time has long passed when such material was required to be lodged with the court. I will treat the statement as admitted in evidence, but I will make no further order.

B13.     Mr Gafael. He has now been called, since I directed steps for bailiff service of Notice to show Cause which secured his attendance on 24 May 2013.

B14.     G. Thomas. Without agreeing the content of the statement, the Defendant is content that the statement be read.   The same applies to a Mr Kirke (as to maintenance of tyres on vehicles of Mr Kirk), whom Mr Kirk raised orally on 23 May 2103 as a potential witness.

B15.    Nigel Thomas. This is in fact a renewed application – in respect of witness 30 in the ruling of 1 May 2013. No statement has been produced. No new material is advanced and the same considerations apply as before. I rule against deferment of conclusion of the evidence in order for him to be searched for and thus against permission to call Mr Thomas.

B17.     Mrs Kirstie Kirk. In the event she has been called.

B18.     Mrs G Jones. This appears not to be pursued by Mr Kirk.

B19.     Mrs J Hanson. Mr Kirk told me that he had ‘lost her statement’. In fact there is a letter from her at page 168 (Claimant’s Witness Bundle) which raises complaint about disturbance from his wayward tenants. Mr Kirk and Barry police officer witnesses whom I have heard agree the problems with alcoholism, and bad behaviour on the part of his tenants, in particular a Mr Paul Stringer and a Mr Burns. Oral evidence from Mrs Hanson, not found or available to date, is not reasonably necessary for me to deal justly with the matters in issue.

With the exception of one witness, there is no other witness whom Mr Kirk wishes to call. That exception is B16, a Michael Murphy. The Defendant made clear a considerable time ago that that it objected to reception of the evidence without the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. No witness summons was served in respect of this witness. Mr Kirk told me on Friday 24 May that he had expected the witness to be present voluntarily that day. However there was, and has been since, no communication to the court from the witness.

It is understandable that the Defendant should object to his short statement being admitted without the opportunity to cross-examine him. The statement is one compiled by Mr Kirk in September 2010, with an added signature of the witness, and in manuscript the words “content below relating to me is true to the best of belife(sic)”. It describes him as a scrap dealer previously reported for stealing a veterinary practice car back in 1996 (presumably Mr Kirk’s veterinary practice); and the police are said to have told the witness on the one hand “I want you to take it back immediately to Penarth police station, where I will later inform Kirk it has been traced” and on the other hand one of the police is said to have jumped into the scrap dealer’s cab and himself to have driven it to Penarth: the two clearly conflict. On the other hand the statement reads that the police told him “We hate Kirk’s guts” and that the policeman said he would “have the greatest of pleasure in booking Kirk when he comes to collect it and drives it away without tax, MOT or insurance”.

The failure to appear without explanation, to support the statement such as I have described it, is not a prepossessing basis to ask for the court to appoint another day of hearing. If all, or even some, of Mr Kirk’s complaints of police harassment and bad faith are upheld, on the other evidence I have heard over some 49 days, the evidence of the scrap dealer suspected of stealing the practice car in 1996 will be peripheral; if few, or none are upheld it will be improbable that the evidence of Mr Murphy would tilt the balance on any of them. The court has gone to what I consider to be extreme lengths, in order to accommodate genuine difficulties to Mr Kirk in preparing his case, and those which are of his own making; and has granted great latitude to him in calling witnesses despite failure to serve statements in the form and by the dates stipulated. Applying the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and proportionately, I do not consider it reasonably necessary that the court should appoint another day for hearing of evidence in the case of this witness.

28 May 2013.                                      His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn, QC

Appellants’ Skeleton Argument for Mr Justice Morgan              BS416159

(Late due to the Appellant waiting for the written rulings of his last applications before Cardiff County Court in time to appeal at Royal Courts of Justice and without it am unable to adequately comment on the Respondent’s skeleton argument with errors and huge assumptions)

There are but three issues for His Lordship to consider,

1)    the right for the Claimant to have the Defendant(s) give evidence in the light of the apparent criminal intent born out both in evidence and contained within the paragraphs of the Chief Constable’s 25^th February 2009 sworn affidavit in another attempt to avoid disclosure of relevant evidence under his/her control since 1992 to date

2)    the right for the Claimant to have senior police officers, identified both before and during the trial, to give evidence or to be recalled, with or without witness statements, concerning their apparent course of conduct to both prejudice the Claimant’s health and his basic right to bring a claim for civil damages in the first place

3)    for the Claimant or his legal representatives to only tape record evidence given on oath, under the strict supervision of the court and/or to be supplied with an audible copy of court proceedings as is allowed all over the world nowadays, including in England.

Witnesses

The Claimant’s right to call both a competent and compellable witness when, by law, a witness is ‘anybody’s property’ and especially, as in this case of these first three of nine Actions for damages against the South Wales Police, one Defendant, as the example, has been identified as signing her own 2009 affidavit (attached) knowing or ought to have known it to be riddled with lies and supports the Appellant’s argument that the Defendant has carried out a course of conduct tantamount to both unusual and extreme bullying with criminal intent.

Analysis of 25^th February 2009 Barbara Wilding Affidavit:

18.   para 8.23

Another traffic incident and a Barry court case was born out in evidence making her denial there ever was one another of her lies to bury the truth of a clear conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The lengths to which key players, mostly senior police officers, have been protected in these civil proceedings, is scandalous.

19.   para 8.26 as per paragraph 13

20.   para 8.13

The incident when my Guernsey registered BMW motorcycle was stolen while her covert surveillance police were at the scene, my Barry veterinary Hospital, when the theft took place, makes her denial the police removed the number plate, on recovery, just one more of her lies.

2^nd Action

23.   para 5.1

The incident of her officers falsifying Barry magistrates evidence by trying to ‘frame me’ for someone else’s speeding offence was proved in court with the subsequent arrest of the lawyer and seizure of the Crown Prosecution Service’s file makes her denial there ever was an incident or a court case one more of her lies.

The fact that Dolmans, solicitors, admit CPS prosecutor, Stan Soffa, did not wish to be called as her defence witness beggars belief and anyway, who’s counting the incidents committed by the police?

27. to 29   para 10.1

First arrested for the theft of a car I had already reported as stolen, they having confiscated it and deliberately not told me where it was, just like with my Guernsey registered BMW motorcycle and Honda van, secondly, stopped for speeding and faulty exhaust and then, ten or so minutes later, stopped on some fabrication, to breathalyse, embarrassingly overlooked by the previous officers.

3^rd Action

32.

Her throw away comment of ‘antiquity’ being her excuse of failed disclosure is both insulting and typically arrogant. From 1993 onwards my English solicitors, me or my secretaries would follow up each incident with requests for either disclosure or to preserve their records.

Adrian Oliver drafted her document being a party to the fanciful plan to prejudice these civil proceedings by arresting me for trading in machine guns, carrying a mandatory ten year prison term. Caswell Clinic convened my MAPPA level 3 hearings to have me further incarcerated in Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Prison but only using their rogue NHS (Wales) psychiatrist promised GMC protection for whatever he said in a Welsh court room.

These following 22^nd and 23^rd May13 Position Statements were subject to appeal to the High Court but have not been adjudicated upon in time, at the Cardiff County Court, for this 7^th June 2013 Royal Courts of Justice Hearing

That coupled with his Lordship’s Order suggesting that this Claimant ‘may or may not be appealing earlier rulings’ over witnesses causes the court to be reminded that this hearing ought to be adjourned for all the reasons set out in the Appellant’s 28^th May Application (attached at the bottom)

22^nd May 13 Claimant Position Statement

1.      The Claimant asks His Honour to consider whether it is fitting that the Defendant be asked to more formally clarify their position on some points that at first may seem unrelated but have a common theme of legal argument around :-

a.       Whether the Claimant should be allowed to amend any of his Claims ‘out of time’.

b.      Be allowed the issue of exemplary and/or aggravated damages to be considered.

c.       Will the Defendants ever stop ‘actually harassing’ the Claimant as for example of in recent times by police using and sending to other police forces information to lead other police forces and other public sector departments to view the Claimant prejudicially by leading them to believe that the Claimant is delusional.

d.      By the Defendant disseminating information to say the Claimant is delusional either that means what they say is untrue and the Defendant refuse to stop harassing the Claimant and may affect the level of damages

e.       Or if what the Defendant disseminates is true then being delusional is a condition which allows the Claimant to be eligible to amend the Claims before the court that are ‘out of time’ by the time limitation period.

2.      The Claimant raises the issues from reading page 198 point 13.40 and related sections of A Practical Approach to Civil Procedure by Stuart Sime, twelfth edition (2009) that says that Judicial reasoning can be that Claims can usually be amended but that an amendment is treated as a new claim and cannot be brought out of time. However page 101 gives explanation on point 7.40 that a Claim (and therefore an amendment to a Claim) can be brought ‘out of time’ if the Claimant had a mental disability at the time the new Claim accrued.

3.      As the Defendant, in recent years, persistently disseminates information about the Claimant, as being delusional, then that means the Claimant may apply to the Court to amend the Claims that accrued when he was delusional.

4.      If the information, disseminated by the Defendant, is not true then that may be relevant exemplary and aggravated damages and even amount to defamation.

5.      If the information that the Defendant disseminates about the Claimant, being delusional, is untrue then the Claimant asks that a statement is made as to when the Defendant will stop disseminating this untrue defamatory information and how it will go about achieving that as well as the Defendants withdrawing what they have sent to many other public bodies, including the Metropolitan Police, the Guernsey police, the French police and even government departments in the royal courts of Justice and Whitehall from around 2002 and onwards when applications were made that the Claimant be registered a Vexatious Litigant and as a MAPPA level 3 victim.

6.      If, on the other hand, the information they disseminate about the Claimant is true then that requires the Defendant to say as from what date he is delusional or with a mental disability as the Claimant can be allowed by the Court to amend any claim that accrued from that date when he first had a mental disability.

7.      As we are aware much by the Claimant is in writing and so if the Defendant gives detail as to the Claimant being delusional, for just one moment, then an independent expert can be used to trace back the detail from that moment identified by the Defendant to where the indication of delusional in writings first emerged.

8.      A critical detail is that the Defendant actually disseminates information to say that the Claimant is delusional for ‘thinking he is harassed by police’.

9.      The Claimant complains to police, at least, as from 20^th June 1993, when the Claimant was in unlawful custody, up an including to today’s Position Statement

10. Given the Defendant disseminates information that the Claimant is delusional, for thinking he is harassed by police, please would the Defendant clarify at what point the Claimant was first displaying being delusional, by complaining he was harassed by police, so that the Claimant can apply to amend his Claims that accrued on or after that date.

11. If the Claimant was not delusional about being harassed by police, yet wrote and complained that he was harassed by police from say, 20^th June 1993, following information given to the Defendant by the Guernsey Police, at what point will the Defendant ensure the Claimant is no longer harassed by police, such as the Defendant stopping disseminating false and malicious information about the Claimant and will the Defendant comment on the obvious reluctance of the Defendant to stop harassing the Claimant in the context of exemplary and/or aggravated damages

A)      Witnesses outstanding in 1-3 Actions

1.       Ex Inspector Colliandris (medical argument irrelevant)

2.       Ex Chief Inspector Sean (Shawn) Trigg (key player)

3.       Ex Brian Jenner (Recall re Break in Cardiff Vet Surgery)

4.        Ex Chief Inspector Insp Robert Nelson Roe (Recall re Break in Cardiff Vet Surgery)

5.        Ex Chief Inspector Collin Jones (key player)

6.        Inspector Andrew Rice (Recall re 1^st Action 8.23 & CP Ebbs/Alexander)

7.        Inspector Steve Parry (Penal order on Defendant)

8.        Jonathan Clayton Air Traffic Controller (Dangerous flying/Penal Order)

9.        Ex Chief Constable Barbara Wilding (Defendant)

10.      Ex Special Constable Frank O’Brian (Penal Order on Defendant)

11.      Ex Special Constable Ridley (Penal Order on Defendant)

12.       Mrs Diana Graham (Foreign Witness Summons)

13.       A Gafael (re break-in Cardiff Vet surgery/Penal Order)

14.       G Thomas (stolen BMW m/c/ Penal order)

15.       ‘Yosser’ Nigel Thomas (stolen BMW m/c)

16.       Michael Murphy (Defendant’s destruction of Claimant’s vehicles)

17.      Mrs K Kirk

18.      Mrs G Jones

19.      Mrs J Hanson

B)       Application for Jury Trials for:

a)     4^th Action police bullying/ malicious pros, false imprisonments

b)    5^th Action Machine gun Case/malicious pros, false imprisonments

c)     6^th Action Forensic Psychiatrist/NHS (Wales) False Medical Records

           d)     7^th Action police bullying/ malicious pros, false imprisonments

     e)     8^th Action police bullying/ malicious pros, false imprisonments

C)    Claimant’s Fitness to Continue?

D)   Previous ‘struck out’ incidents in 1-3 Actions to be re instated

E)     Current Civil Proceedings (post Woolf/ Human Rights Act)

F) HM Crown Prosecution Service continues to ignore disclosure applications from Claimant, his solicitor or from his barrister re:

              i) Refusal to disclose evidence to clarify NHS psychiatric records at Caswell Clinic, Glanrhyd Hospital, Bridgend

             ii)  Refusal to disclose July 2012 evidence re doctor's statement that caused Claimant imprisoned

            iii) Refusal to disclose depositions re above withdrawn indictment of 'harassment'

          iv) Refusal to disclose depositions re one Lewis machine gun indictment and subsequent acquittal

           v) Refusal to supply Claimant with copy of his own MG11 victim statement re above outstanding issues

            vi) Refusal to supply Claimant with date he was first deemed to have a mental disability

G)     Interim payment for costs and damage

Maurice J Kirk BVSc                                                                  22^nd May 2013

(23^rd May 13 Position Statement mislaid and to follow)

Private Tape Recording, ‘Litigants in Person’ to be awarded legal costs and the Crushing of Family Court Cartels

The future of our UK court administration, if not already a night mare, is a pretty grim one right now with the lack of funding for expertise and the extra work caused by the withdrawal of legal aid.

One’s inability to find a truly independent lawyer these days with ever mounting unexplained costs incurred, should you be so lucky, is why this Claimant is adding to the problem by having to act alone.

Also, if this Claimant’s current Cardiff court action is typical of a ‘litigant in person’ floundering around in a quagmire of both regulation and custom with fast aging faculties barely keeping his head above water, then what is the future of our law courts when many more are forced to do the same?

In order for ‘litigants in person’ to achieve anything from the clear futility of it all then to further break down lucrative and unfair cartels, as currently practiced in the UK courts, is what each must strive to do and share any information from one’s mistakes.

This Claimant suggests we remain vigilant in what is to be ultimately achieved, the significant reform of a grossly outdated money driven judiciary and not to allow our own court cases to over shadow this primary objective, the clinching of that man made concept, some call ‘justice’ for all parties.

In The High Court Royal Courts of Justice                                                     BS614159

Before Mr Justice Morgan

Maurice Kirk v Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary

Appellant’s Application to Adjourn of 7^th June 13 High Court Hearing

Further to the 14^th May 2013 High Court Order of the Honourable Mr Justice Morgan the Appellant applies for an appropriate adjournment in order to:

12. Obtain the official transcript as he was unable to tape record for his own use within the case in preparation for subsequent appeal(s)

13. obtain clarification as to which of the outstanding witnesses, identified in his 22^nd and 23^rd May 13 Position Statements to the Crown Court judge and

14. in the light of the enclosed further statement of A G Gafael and The Defendant’s February 2009 sworn Affidavit and

15. concerning the proposed 28^th May 13 ruling , by His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC, due to be handed down today and

16. For appellant to obtain fee exemption in order to complete his prosecution and subsequent appeal(s)

AND

17. The Appellant asks the court to consider whether it is fitting that the Defendant be asked to more formally clarify their position on some points that at first may seem unrelated but have a common theme of legal argument around :-

f.        Whether the Appellant should be allowed to amend any of his Claims ‘out of time’.

g.       Be allowed the issue of exemplary and/or aggravated damages to be considered.

h.       Will the Defendants ever stop ‘actually harassing’ the Appellant as for example of in recent times by police using and sending to other police forces information to lead other police forces and other public sector departments to view the Appellant prejudicially by leading them to believe that the Appellant is delusional.

i.         By the Defendant disseminating information to say the Appellant is delusional either that means what they say is untrue and the Defendant refuse to stop harassing the Appellant and may affect the level of damages

j.        Or if what the Defendant disseminates is true then being delusional is a condition which allows the Appellant to be eligible to amend the Claims before the court that are ‘out of time’ by the time limitation period.

18. The Appellant raises the issues from reading page 198 point 13.40 and related sections of A Practical Approach to Civil Procedure by Stuart Sime, twelfth edition (2009) that says that Judicial reasoning can be that Claims can usually be amended but that an amendment is treated as a new claim and cannot be brought out of time. However page 101 gives explanation on point 7.40 that a Claim (and therefore an amendment to a Claim) can be brought ‘out of time’ if The Appellant had a mental disability at the time the new Claim accrued.

19. As the Defendant, in recent years, persistently disseminates information about the Appellant, as being delusional, then that means the Appellant may apply to the Court to amend the Claims that accrued when he was delusional.

20. If the information, disseminated by the Defendant, is not true then that may be relevant exemplary and aggravated damages and even amount to defamation.

21. If the information that the Defendant disseminates about the Appellant, being delusional, is untrue then the Appellant asks that a statement is made as to when the Defendant will stop disseminating this untrue defamatory information and how it will go about achieving that as well as the Defendants withdrawing what they have sent to many other public bodies, including the Metropolitan Police, the Guernsey police, the French police and even government departments in the royal courts of Justice and Whitehall from around 2002 and onwards when applications were made that the Appellant be registered a Vexatious Litigant and as a MAPPA level 3 victim.

22. If, on the other hand, the information they disseminate about the Appellant is true then that requires the Defendant to say as from what date he is delusional or with a mental disability as the Appellant can be allowed by the Court to amend any claim that accrued from that date when he first had a mental disability.

23. As we are aware much by the Claimant is in writing and so if the Defendant gives detail as to the Appellant being delusional, for just one moment, then an independent expert can be used to trace back the detail from that moment identified by the Defendant to where the indication of delusional in writings first emerged.

24. A critical detail is that the Defendant actually disseminates information to say that the appellant is delusional for ‘thinking he is harassed by police’.

25. The Appellant complains to police, at least, as from 20^th June 1993, when the appellant was in unlawful custody, up an including to today’s Position Statement.

26. Given the Defendant disseminates information that the Appellant is delusional, for thinking he is harassed by police, please would the Defendant clarify at what point the Appellant was first displaying being delusional, by complaining he was harassed by police, so that the Appellant can apply to amend his Claims that accrued on or after that date.

27. If the Appellant was not delusional about being harassed by police, yet wrote and complained that he was harassed by police from say, 20^th June 1993, following information given to the Defendant by the Guernsey Police, at what point will the Defendant ensure the appellant is no longer harassed by police, such as the Defendant stopping disseminating false and malicious information about the Appellant and will the Defendant comment on the obvious reluctance of the Defendant to stop harassing the Appellant in the context of exemplary and/or aggravated damages

A)      Witnesses outstanding in 1-3 Action

1.       Ex Inspector Colliandris (medical argument irrelevant)

2.       Ex Chief Inspector Sean (Shawn) Trigg (key player)

3.       Ex Brian Jenner (Recall re Break in Cardiff Vet Surgery)

4.        Ex Chief Inspector Insp Robert Nelson Roe (Recall re Break in Cardiff Vet Surgery)

5.        Ex Chief Inspector Collin Jones (key player)

6.        Inspector Andrew Rice (Recall re 1^st Action 8.23 & CP Ebbs/Alexander)

7.        Inspector Steve Parry (Penal order on Defendant)

8.        Jonathan Clayton Air Traffic Controller (Dangerous flying/Penal Order)

9.        Ex Chief Constable Barbara Wilding (Defendant)

10.      Ex Special Constable Frank O’Brian (Penal Order on Defendant)

11.      Ex Special Constable Ridley (Penal Order on Defendant)

12.       Mrs Diana Graham (Foreign Witness Summons)

13.       A Gafael (re break-in Cardiff Vet surgery/Penal Order)

14.       G Thomas (stolen BMW m/c/ Penal order)

15.       ‘Yosser’ Nigel Thomas (stolen BMW m/c)

16.       Michael Murphy (Defendant’s destruction of Claimant’s vehicles)

19.      Mrs J Hanson

B)    Application for Jury Trials for:

a)     4^th Action police bullying/ malicious pros, false imprisonments

b)    5^th Action Machine gun Case/malicious pros, false imprisonments

c)     6^th Action Forensic Psychiatrist/NHS (Wales) incorrect Medical Records

     d)     7^th Action police bullying/ malicious pros, false imprisonments

     e)     8^th Action police bullying/ malicious pros, false imprisonments

C)    Claimant’s Fitness to Continue?

D)   Previous ‘struck out’ incidents in 1-3 Actions to be re instated

E)     Current Civil Proceedings (post Woolf/ Human Rights Act)

F) HM Crown Prosecution Service continues to ignore disclosure applications from Claimant, his solicitor or from his barrister re:

              i) Refusal to disclose evidence to clarify NHS psychiatric records at Caswell Clinic, Glanrhyd Hospital, Bridgend

             ii)  Refusal to disclose July 2012 evidence re doctor's statement that caused Claimant imprisoned

            iii) Refusal to disclose depositions re above withdrawn indictment of 'harassment'

          iv) Refusal to disclose depositions re one Lewis machine gun indictment and subsequent acquittal

           v) Refusal to supply Claimant with copy of his own MG11 victim statement re above outstanding issues

            vi) Refusal to supply Claimant with date he was first deemed to have a mental disability

G)     Interim payment for costs and damage

Maurice J Kirk BVSc                                                                28^th May 2013

PILOT MAGAZINE....previous pages at bottom of previous blogs

Pilot Mag April 2002 MJK Profile_0001 (4).pdf

English Court Quashes 3 years of Welsh Orders Blocking My Right to Cross Examine South Wales Police and HM Partnership

Maurice Kirk — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:17:00 GMT

Welsh Appeal moved to Bristol to hush things up!

To start on a somewhat sordid note, as warning for others choosing to seek redress in a Welsh court room, I bring to your notice, first, 20^th June 2009 Dolmans, solicitors' witness statement, written for their then client, as they were also advising MAPPA meetings to having me shot, Barbara Wilding, Chief Constable for South Wales and Defendant for twenty years of police bullying, malicious prosecutions and false imprisonments.

Its conspiratorial content explains why it took three years to get this released following countless ignored applications in both civil and criminal Cardiff Courts.

With their desperate attempt to hide one of their malicious acts, a vicious assault carried out in the Cardiff Crown Court building, its outstanding appeal hearing was moved to Bristol Crown Court for burial only to allow my obtaining a repeat Court Order, for disclosure, the CPS (Bristol) not also being in bed with the enemy.

It was only by repeat application in Bristol Crown Court, this month, that I obtained this successful disclosure of what had led to my incarceration in that notorious Welsh psychiatric prison.

12 04 17 Court Order Dolman Wit Stmt.pdf

http://kirkflyingvet.com/files/folders/south_wales_police/entry2543.aspx

12 06 23 MJK to Brstol Crn and CPS .pdf

Ever since the 2009 ‘machine gun' conspiracy the Cardiff courts dared not allow a repeat of a similar trial with the cross examining of the South Wales Police by the accused instead of by a court controlled lawyer. Last time the Cardiff Crown Court jury witnessed the conspiracy, after the very first day they told us,, to have me sectioned, under the Mental Health Act, effectively jailing me for life.

Barbara Wilding was the one who was reponsible for my MAPPA level 3 catagory registration and policy to get me shot and only mamged, so far, to incarcerate me for nearly eight months in a prison or psychiatric clinic. Not only was she then the Chief Constable but also chair person for a huge charity that currently donates to a certain doctor's private interests. She was also the High Sheriff of Mid glamorgan until this April, being responsible for judges' conduct, no less! http://www.highsheriffs.com/Mid%20Glamorgan/Index.htm

Just how much more incestuous does this get?

His Honour Judge Paul Thomas QC was the 'machine gun' judge where Cardiff's Cabal first used on me the unofficial use of section 36 of Youth and Justice Criminal evidence Act 1999, refusing my right to cross examine.

Could you make up such a story? And this is not Guernsey, its part of the UK currently grasping for its very own judiciary, ~God help the locals

Yesterday, in Bristol, the Crown Prosecution Service asked His Honour Judge Lambert QC to, again, order a court controlled lawyer to cross examine the prosecution witnesses, all Cardiff Crown Court staff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351459/Judge-slams-soft-sentencing-options-prevented-jailing-burglar.html

Needless to say, the Cardiff cabal had originally prevented my cross examining any of them in Magistrates, in 2010, having now shipped this Appeal across the bridge to England only to avoid their publicity of nafarious conduct. They need not have bothered as they control most of the media in the South Wales area in order to regularly behave as they do.

The only witness I need, of course, is a doctor who will be served a witness summons, once we all have a date for the trial, to make him give evidence on oath. He has to confirm, in an English court, this time, as to my fitness or not to stand trial considering the outstanding medical reports he made, for the South Wales Police, CPS and nine Cardiff Crown court Judges, that I have ‘significant brain damage' and possible brain tumour.

[ DATE of trial will be broadcast right across the West County hopefully by aircraft drop, banner tow and cyberspace]

The 'Common Assault' Incident

In July 2010 a Derrick Hassan, HM court official and rumoured to be ex South Wales Police, refused to accept my handing him my ‘grounds', relating to an appeal to be sent onto The Royal Courts of Justice Criminal Court of Appeal.

Some considered this to be contrary to statute law and a ‘contempt of court' but who, in the precincts of that building, really gave a damn?

I therefore tucked the folded paper into his *** pocket only to violently shoved down the Crown Court steps, losing my stick and fracturing my ankle on the way.

Albeit only a chip fracture and severe wrench the exostoses, from some thirty year old flying accident, further impaired my already slow recovery from my terrifying experiences, the previous year, in the psychiatric clinic psychiatric prison, Bridgend. I, not the court official, was charged with ‘common assault'.

That ill fated flight, off a Dorset coast cliff, had all the classic ingredients of ‘running out of speed, height and ideas', ‘all at the same time'! We had been out testing an experimental hang glider trying to strap a chain saw engine and propeller to it to be one of the very first microlites in the West Country.

This machine gun was deliberately repainted back by the south Wales Police, as when I had it a year earlier, to try and fool the January 2010 Cardiff jury but then had to paint it back to silver , in the wrong shade, once I was acquitted on all charges! IPCC was pre warned of this, before it even happened, by me in 2009, from my psychiatric cell and still they fail to act. NO Wonder the organisation is a joke and needs abolishing.

District Judge John Charles immediately enforced section 36 of Youth and Justice Criminal evidence Act 1999 to protect HM Partnership leading to a farce of a hearing in November 2010 with the court appointed lawyer correctly refusing to cross examine as he had received no instructions!

The appeal date, in Bristol, is now to be fixed with the sentence having already been deliberately delayed for thirteen months. This was in order to maximise the effect of the conviction in refusing me bail and so release from Cardiff prison between 23^rd September and 1^st December 2011.

THIS IS WHAT THEY WISH TO HIDE, THE POLICE LETTER TO THE IPCC BASED IN, OF ALL PLACES, CARDIFF!

Meanwhile they swamp me with countless side issues and trivial court cases, anything to prejudice my 20 year running civil damages claim

12 06 01 SWP MG IPCC Conclusion.pdf Police Report to IPCC

I immediately return to Cardiff, to collect for the Criminal Court ofAppeal, the CPS promised 'draft part hand written District John Charles (wash your mouth out, Maurice), 'Restraining Order' admitted in the May jury trial to be still under the control of CPS barrister David Garreth Evans. To Late, he has been nobbled, someone has now, it appears, to have mislaid it, shredded, possibly, due to last week's witness statement, no doubt, made by an eyw witness in that court, to the duty Cardiff police sergeant, G Brown. CPS will ignore so there is preparation for a private prosecution as the CPS are sure to bury its audit trail via GEOamey Custodial Services, a joint defendant on the proposed indictment.

My new complaint, to another Sergeant, a Mr James, of this apparent loss of the very document actually shown to me in the cells on 1st December, never a 'restraining order', of Cardiff Magistrates, Crown Court and CPS all now denying its existance indicates, at least, some one is rattled.

Despite the trial judge, HHJ Curran, having ordered its recovery from Merthyr Tydfil CPS offices now this, typical of a days work in the Principality's capital.

Sergeants Brown and James

Central Police Station

Cardiff CF10

23^rd June 2012

Dear Sirs

Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice

I have had to visit your station several times, this week, with my witnesses who have travelled from a long way for little purpose.

Only one statement, so far, has been taken and I have seven witnesses still to go. They saw the part hand written draft ‘restraining order', the only one that came into my cell, get passed around between the CPS barrister, now admitting he still has it, District Judge John Charles, wash your mouth out, Maurice, who scribbled all over it with his fountain pen. The Clerk of the Court, Michael Williams, who later lied before the jury saying he saw the final version given to me in the corridor of the cell block, quickly having the cctv wiped after five GEOamey apes physically through me out of the building with my crutches thrown on top.

I have reason to believe the final restraining order was not even printed until the following day and you can prove it. The rough version, briefly shown to me, bares no relationship to the final version.

I came again on Friday to tell you this and that the CPS has now ‘mislaid it', knowing it being essential for the Criminal Court of Appeal. I told you I had just been to the Magistrates, yet again, who also deny having any record of the various drafts that were being bandied around the court while I was in the cell.

Are you going to examine, before further evidence is destroyed, the computers of David Gareth Evans, those of the clerk of the court and offices where, Exhibit One in the jury trial was date stamped 9^th December and palmed off a certified true copy?

I enclose yet another version they are trying to palm me off with and ask for an immediate investigation or else.

12 06 22 Restraining Order.pdf

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

Copy to Bristol Crown Court

Barbara Wilding, South Wales Police Chief's Sworn Affidavit and Welsh freemasons

Maurice Kirk — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:39:00 GMT

FAO John Smith MP

28^th January 2009 Barbara Wilding

1. Today I am informed the Chief Officer of South Wales Police, Ms Barbara Wilding, is to sign a sworn affidavit that her police did not break into my veterinary surgery with a crow bar and sledge hammer and put back the daughter of one of their inspectors in the overhead flat with a local drug dealer, nor does she have any knowledge of the incident.
2. Madam is to sign a sworn affidavit that her police did not take a statement from Christopher Paul Ebbs who informed Special Branch I had been smuggling pigs into the Vale of Glamorgan from Eire in my 2 seat Piper aircraft leading to a memorable court case, nor was she aware of the incident.
3. Madam will also be mistaken, if she states that her police did not leave my confiscated BMW for 6 weeks on the road side and unlocked, with Immobilon veterinary drug on the back seat, sufficient to kill a three figure number of the general public passing through the Vale of Glamorgan.
4. Madam will be complimented for her terminological inexactitude, should she state her police did not arrange the theft of my veterinary ambulance nor did they prosecute me in Barry Magistrates on this foreign vehicle for ‘no MOT or road fund tax' saying "there was no court case" and she has no knowledge of the incident.
5. Madam will again be 'economical with the truth' if she states she did not know of the unlawful conduct in Cardiff Crown Court causing direct intervention from the jury leaving my trial dead in the water and the wrong person sent to prison.
6. Madam will again be 'telling fibs', if she states that her police had no recall of record, subject to CPR court disclosure, of some 50 to 60 incidents against me and my veterinary staff despite carrying police ‘occurrence' numbers for reference.
7. Madam will be a blatent liar if she states that her police failed to identify me while Cardiff Magistrates remanded me to prison to stay until some passing pigeon may ‘recognise me'.
8. Madam will again be telling 'porky pies' if she is to sign a sworn affidavit that her police did not conduct a campaign of harassment, my having to present my valid driving documents 35 times with their harassment stopping almost to the day, 29^th May 2002, when my name was removed from the veterinary register by their complaint to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in the climate of 120 failed police prosecutions. This, despite the current stench of our UK judicial system controlled by HM Attorney General, HM Government and HM Partnership.

Oh yes, I almost forgot. Nor does she have knowledge, the published affidavit next week will reveal, of the 30 odd incidents in the 4th and 5th Action for damages, currently blocked from disclosure by HM Partnership but her planned retirement before we go to court, my being refused a jury trial of course, is unlikely to deter my issuing the occasional witness summons.

Today I was also informed I am to pay the costs of my application for above disclosure should I lose the trial in some year hence and I ‘appear' to be 'out of time' to appeal it, despite the draft court order never being agreed. So I am yet to receive a ‘sealed order' upon which to appeal.

[To the new reader on this site I must explain. All my court actions in the past 15 years have been spirited up/down to the HM Attorney General, his team of Whitehall lawyers and defendants interrogated, in order to prevent my disclosure application being heard. The RCVS/SWP/HO ‘relationship' all relies now on Section 42 ‘legal professional privilege'! HM Attorney General and HM Government are, we are repeatedly told, independent of HM Court Service and HM judges nor could they influence the 1967 RCVS Royal Charter despite admission by the RCVS it is, in itself, in clear breach of the farcical 1998 Human Rights Act both ratified by Her Majesty in Council].