Latest News

Very interesting reading on this and the last blog - timed on the web that has a memory.

The Kudos goes to butlincat for his 'reporting of facts that are relevant'

Sabine you mention the 'powers of the governor' to release. Remember that Governor Booty bailed out and was rewarded for his covering up some months ago.

Even Booty was made aware that he was holding Maurice 'unlawfully'.

I have told you all previously that there must be 3 proper signatures in order that someone be held in prison LEGALLY OR LAWFULLY - otherwise they are 'Kidnapped' be it by the state or its suborned lesser footsoldiers protecting the busted probity of the state. Scant regard was given to that statement - and it was noted that Cat Lady did not dispute that statement either.

Sabine you are too 'closely linked to the government of the day' the present and past government - evident on the web. Cat Lady you appear to be a member of the law society - who promotes the 'legal world' - you promoted the opinion of a barrister.

No one in this country MUST be a bloody lawyer to 'know the law'. Lawyers straight out of law school know little if anything about the darker deceptions behind the whole 'legal' ruse that has been spun upon the British Public for decades.

The "McKenzie Friend" - 'ruse' that has been spun to the public is a big fat injudicial and legal lie, And Judge Charles is a criminal - such that he in his own 'personal capacity' controlled, manipulated and managed - the dead or alive poster trial - contrary to all of the laws of England and Wales.

The Current Governor of Cardiff Prison - better become aware of the fact that he is but just another in a long line of spineless state suborned creeps doing the dirty bidding of the spinless and duplicitous Commie & Marxist creeps who have taken [unlawfully] control of the asylum.

Is Putin taking the pee out of the British judicial and political system?      

Lots of "waffle" here now.

Call from MK  28 Dec. 13 @  11.20  GMT:

www.onetruemedia.com/shared

Maurice Kirk’s brain scan result showing unequivocally that Maurice Kirk has nothing wrong with his brain and his brain has no tumour or anything else to affect his behaviour as described previously in reports to the courts by Dr. Tegwyn Williams, “consultant psychiatrist”, and others, which claim to make him a danger to the public and be classed as a MAPPA 3 subject, with the dangers that holds to members of society – from www.prisonersfamilies.org.uk/.../MAPPA%20information%20leaflet.pdf =

“Level 3 Only a relatively small number of offenders (924 in the year from April 2008 to March 2009)

are categorised as Level 3 offenders – normally because they are considered particularly dangerous,

or, occasionally, because their case has received a lot of media coverage. Being placed at Level 3

means that extra resources can be used to ensure that offenders are very closely monitored and

supervised. Offenders can move between the MAPPA levels if they are assessed to be more or less

dangerous over time.”

It was not a factual statement whatsoever to claim that Maurice Kirk has a brain tumour as the scan report below from the 28 Nov. 2013 at 16.18GMT proves, this report stating:

LO60070

Name: Maurice Kirk DOB 12-MAR-1945

Reference No : 45669/9

Result Detail

Patient Details

MR MAURICE KIRK

Date of Birth: 19450312 Referred by: DR EU EU – REFERRAL

Sample 1 taken at 28/11/2013:16:18 Radiology Detail : CSKUH:CT HEAD-CH

Results: CT Read: Intracranial appearances are within normal limits, with no evidence of bleed or fracture.

Reported and checked by Dr. YOGISH JOSHI D.O.R. 28 NOV. 2013.

Result returned from PMS on 17-DEC-2013 10.48

click to print this page -

ends

pic of report:

i511.photobucket.com/.../KIRKBRAINSCAN_zpsda729795.jpg

or if pic doesnt show it is here:  butlincat.wordpress.com/.../brain-scan-result-of-maurice-kirk

Other recent calls from 15, 17, 23, 25, 26  Dec. 13. =

www.onetruemedia.com/shared

Maurice Kirk should not be in HMP Cardiff at present, since 17 Oct. 13 and shouldn’t have been put there on so many occasions in the past – the false claim of his having a “brain tumour” being a major factor behind many instances of his targeting by certain rogue authorities.

I spoke to a person with a medical degree and she said "intracranial appearance" would include anything that appears not from the norm within the cranium, viz. brain. A tumour is not normal - from the norm,thus it not showing because it doesn't exist..

My name is John Graham and I believe it should be made a rule real names are given here.

Here is the smoking gun!

The results of the brain scan that have eventually appeared at the very least cast a reasonable doubt on the evidence of the rogue psychiatrist used to incarcerate Maurice. If there is any further doubt about the scope and depth of the brain scan then any right thinking court should immediately order a fully in depth scan to be done and the results to be placed before the court!

The crux of the matter is here;

Protection from Harassment Act 1997  :1997 c. 40 England and Wales

Prohibition of harassment.

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

2 Offence of harassment.(1)A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.

F1(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

pay particular attention to subsection 3 (a)

Maurice's defence has been that he was detecting the crime of writing false medical reports in order to unlawfully incarcerate him, ( a function that would normally be carried out by the police)

4

Putting people in fear of violence.

(1)A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions.

(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it will cause another to fear that violence will be used against him on any occasion if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause the other so to fear on that occasion.

(3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that—

(a)his course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b)his course of conduct was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c)the pursuit of his course of conduct was reasonable for the protection of himself or another or for the protection of his or another’s property.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both, or

(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.

(5)If on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence under this section the jury find him not guilty of the offence charged, they may find him guilty of an offence under section 2.

(6)The Crown Court has the same powers and duties in relation to a person who is by virtue of subsection (5) convicted before it of an offence under section 2 as a magistrates’ court would have on convicting him of the offence.

and in this section (4) subsections 3(a) and 3(c) apply, as the doctor claimed in court that he was in fear for his safety!

Subsections 2 are also interesting, in order for a reasonable person to make a judgement then they should be in possesion of the facts;

The facts have been presented on this blog culminating in a clear brain scan! This shows that Maurice pursued a course of action in order to detect a crime, ( quite a big one actually).

The whole restraining order and all that has followed from it are part of that crime and should be struck down immediately.

Noted the name of a certain person has been removed. It's a bit late luv.

Cat Lady

You have referred to bodies of experts that you defer to. Did you ask your barrister friend about the 3 signature requirement that I mentioned recently? Problem being if you had, would any barrister dare admit that it is so, because it would be to admit that the whole legal world is built upon deception and lies?

e.g. An expert was used by the trade body of legals including the judiciary along with the CPS (legals) and the police in order to obtain a conviction never mind the truth; which flew out of the window against Sally Clark 'herself a lawyer'! Said expert was Sir Professor Roy Meadows and he 'still has' many acolytes who are inextricably linked to him. Dr David Southall of Ch4 infamy.

Psychiatrists have been 'used' whether of their own volition (to big up their false industry) or by other means and without them being properly held to account for their utterances in the courts (Civil/family and Criminal) for decades. They have become an all too 'convenient at arms length tool' and a means for incompetent, bone idle, arrogant and lazy judges to condem people with.      

Whistleblower - yes I did ask. I am told It requires the collective signature of a bench of magistrates (THREE) or a single district judge sitting in magistrates Court.

At least the infamous doctor was unable to find the extra signature he required to put Maurice in Ashworth. Perhaps rebellion against him from within his own professional ranks.

No cat lady - that is not what I stated. Why only now upon me asking, do you offer up your response whereas you did not do so earlier.

If you are 'told' something by a lawyer or barrister do you always take it as gospel truth - if so more that you have been fooled.

Now let's look at your assertions (via the legals who have 'told' you) of that Maurice was 'anyway' served with the Restraining Order.

To jump (the legal words of trickery are 'to leapfrog over'') to the belief that he was at some point served the RO anyway is to jump over the failed and incorrect service of the RO in the first instance.

If 'service' of the RO was not done / performed in accordance with the laid down laws and in the correct timeline the failure VOIDS everything that has subsequently 'flowed and followed' (legal terms) from its failure.

The legal trade bodies are not going to admit to this because as has been explained on previous blogs. When they are found out and wanting for performance the truth goes out of the window and their collective protection of their own trade kicks in; the Cognitive Dissonance ruse. All they do in self-protect mode is protect their indemnity, the liabilities and their trade's busted probity. Note the words 'risk', 'risk management' they are key words that are instigated when their Lie Abiltiy is opened up publicly. And of course they have to protect themselves and their underwriters because they practice deception.

Foxy - To date not one judge has ordered an investigation into the contradictory evidence given on oath / testimony by foxy. there is also the issue of which sex he/she is of? The silence to date on this matter can only lead to the logical conclusion of any reasonable man that the judges are indeed a party to the cover up. Perhaps some of the judges might want to think about that; but they couldn't care less as is patently evident by their prolonged 'silence'.

J Archer of course was caught out on that same matter and served time for it.

Footnote:

The law is either clear or those applying it are protecting their own asses for some or other multiple reasons because talking about being transparent and open is quite different from being transparent and open.          

With the greatest of respect Cat Lady - I do believe that your legal friends have been either rather disingenuous with you or that issues here are way above their knowledge capacity.  

Here is another Law the rogue doctor broke, with the complicity of his conspirators!

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 c. 100 (Regnal. 24_and_25_Vict)

Acts causing or tending to cause Danger to Life or Bodily HarmSection 24 (Revised)Original (As enacted)

24  Maliciously administering poison, &c. with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy any other person.

Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy such person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . F1 to be kept in penal servitude . . . F2

I think that the aforementioned "radio opaque substances" would qualify as a noxious thing,

and the intent to section the man to Ashworth certainly qualifies as intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy a perfectly sane man

( as confirmed by the jury's not guilty verdict )

Penal servitude appears to be in order! according to the Law.

CALL FROM M KIRK 30 DEC. 13 =

2 calls from Maurice Kirk -  30 Dec, for 10 mins - followed by calls from 29 Dec., followed by 28 Dec.:

NB: From the brain scan result report - "intracranial appearance" does include a "brain tumour".

www.onetruemedia.com/shared

Earlier calls  from MK in HMP Cardiff from the 15, 17, 23, 25, 26 Dec. 2013:

www.onetruemedia.com/shared

Pic of "brain scan result report" here:

butlincat.wordpress.com/.../brain-scan-result-of-maurice-kirk

Transcript of result report:

"LO60070

Name: Maurice Kirk DOB 12-MAR-1945

Reference No : 45669/9

Result Detail

Patient Details

MR MAURICE KIRK

Date of Birth: 19450312 Referred by: DR EU EU – REFERRAL

Sample 1 taken at 28/11/2013:16:18 Radiology Detail : CSKUH:CT HEAD-CH

Results: CT Read: Intracranial appearances are within normal limits, with no evidence of bleed or fracture.

Reported and checked by Dr. YOGISH JOSHI D.O.R. 28 NOV. 2013.

Result returned from PMS on 17-DEC-2013 10.48

click to print this page" -

ends

It was not a factual statement whatsoever to claim that Maurice Kirk has a brain tumour as the scan report from the 28 Nov. 2013 at 16.18GMT proves.

Butlincat: It might be worth asking the opinion of someone practicing medicine, specifically radiography   such as Dr Kemp if Maurice's CT scan was definitive and did indeed WITHOUT DOUBT exclude a brain tumor. Maurice himself said the CT scan was done after he fell in the shower and hit his head.

It was also good to hear that Maurice had another Head scan done whilst he was in France - I am at a loss though as to why Maurice felt the need to "keep it up his sleeve" as he said to you. Surely he should have shouted the results from the roof tops, it totally backed up what Dr Kemp said and Maurice did publish that.

It is sad to hear that Maurices hearing is deteriorating. I have been told that his hearing and eyesight (with glasses) will have been checked when he had his aviation medical a few months ago. At least he will  have a bench mark from that to be able to show its deterioration whilst he has been in prison, which can only be good and help Maurice's case for wrongful detention.

I think that this (based on reading what Maurice wrote on this blog) is the correct part of the flying medical that Maurice had - the quote below is from the Civil Aviation Authority website:

"Hearing – ENT form (MED 163)  

The AME will use normal conversational voice 2 metres behind you.  You should be able to hear that in each ear separately.  If you wish to obtain an instrument rating as a private pilot, then you will need to meet the Class 2 Instrument rating Standards."

Maurice obviously passed that medical a few months ago, so what is worrying is that he now feels he needs a hearing aid. My husband (who is a GP) tells me that stress can cause temporary loss of hearing ability.

He pointed me to this article:

"Issues That Create Affected Hearing

Some of the symptoms of anxiety represent real changes in the way your body reacts to stress. Others are perceived changes - meaning that your symptoms aren't caused by any physical issue, but rather the way that your mind converts information.

FThere are many different issues related to anxiety that affect hearing, and not all of them are well understood. These include:

Trouble Focusing on Sound - Probably the most common issue is difficulty focusing on sound or conversation. During intense anxiety when the brain is moving a mile a minute, it's not uncommon to find yourself "zoning out" to your thoughts, unable to pay attention to the world around you. That means that you may not be able to hear everything someone says while talking to you. It's not that you're not hearing it. Instead, your brain is simply not processing it."

Here's one for Sabine and Cat Lady - Can Judge John Charles seriously sit and rule in his own cause in any future trial (fake of course) into the Breaching of Restraining Order?

Or is he desperate to palm said trial off onto some other compromised Judge who will also act outside of and way beyond his jurisdiction?

It is clear that the recent expose of Dr. Tegwyn Williams's bogus report concerning Maurice reveals that he attempted to pervert the course of public justice by stating in the report that Maurice "had significant brain damage".

How much longer can this disgraceful cover up continue and Dr. Tegwyn Williams be allowed to continue in his medical carreer.

It is clear that he is a menace to the public, and I understand that he has been writing bogus reports for persons before the courts for some considerable time.  

One person who knows him well will know what I mean.  I say carry on exposing Dr. Tegwyn Williams, and if he is having difficulty in seeking new employment, then that is clearly in the public interest.

Maurice had every right to expose Dr. Tegwyn Williams, and it is becoming clearer every day that the Criminal Cases Review Commission must now refer his original conviction for harassment to the Crown Court, so that Maurice can finally be given the justice which he deserves.

It is also clear that Dr. Tegwyn Williams's report was all part of the cover up by Sth Wales police in revenge for his acquittal in the Machine gun case, when they even tried to repaint it to try to fool the jury who saw through their ruse.

A recent exemple of the Cardiff cabal has been the deliverate attempt to steal Maurice's passport and legal papers, as part of the conspiracy against Maurice.

May 2015.  Its Maurice Kirk this time.  Its time for a change.

And here is another Law broken by the doctor;

Perjury Act 1911  c. 6 (Regnal. 1_and_2_Geo_5)Section 1

Perjury. (1)If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment . . . F1 for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.

The question might arise, did he know his medical report to be false or did he not believe it to be true?

It matters not,

Penal servitude is in order, so says the Law.

Good points again Guido. It would seem that there are some issues with the "protection" offered to professional witnesses for the CPS, one such protection is they are protected from a civil claim for damages if they get it wrong. However it looks as f the reluctance of the GMC to act against the doctor may be due to past rulings.

Two cases of note with regards first an expert witness and a precedent set this year, the second something related to the GMC in 2006.

Both would seem to have importance for Maurice:

"Forensic staff 'knew live bullet conviction was wrong', court hears

Thomas Smart is claiming negligence, violation of human rights and deceit

Man sues over bullet keyring mix-up

Claims that forensic staff allowed a man to be wrongfully convicted of possessing a live bullet while knowing it was a keyring are to be probed.

Thomas Smart, 25, of Fazakerley, Liverpool, was convicted of possessing ammunition in 2008 based on Forensic Science Service (FSS) evidence.

It later emerged the "live bullet" found in his house was a £3 keyring. His conviction was quashed in 2009.

He is suing the government's FSS claiming deceit and negligence.

Lord Justice Moses, sitting in the Appeal Court, ordered a full hearing into the case with members of staff from the now disbanded FSS cross-examined.

Exhibit 'interference'

The case could set a precedent whereby prosecution expert witnesses will be held liable to defend their evidence in criminal proceedings, Mr Smart's solicitor Chris Topping said.

Lord Justice Moses said it was clear that as a result of "interference" with exhibit numbers, it had been falsely stated by FSS that a real bullet held as evidence in a separate case was found at Mr Smart's home.

The effect of interference with the exhibit numbers... was the same as planting the real bullet in Mr Smart's home”

Lord Justice Moses

Appeal Court judge

He told the court: "The effect of interference with the exhibit numbers, whether it was designed originally to conceal confusion or 'mix up' or not, was the same as planting the real bullet in Mr Smart's premises.

"It is alarming that the course of justice appears to have been perverted by the alteration of exhibit numbers and the failure to disclose that that had occurred or any reason why it occurred."

He added: "Witnesses, if called by FSS, will have to explain and justify the handling of the exhibits in this case. They cannot be protected from being questioned or from accounting for their actions."

Guilty plea

Mr Smart's conviction was quashed in 2009 after the FSS, which was owned by the government, wrote to police admitting the wrong exhibit had been examined.

The "bullet" was found in Mr Smart's bedroom during a police search of his home for a reason unconnected to him, the court heard.

When forensics experts said it was a live bullet Mr Smart was forced to plead guilty to the crime and suffered depression and anxiety due to his arrest and wrongful conviction, judges were told.

He was denied compensation by a judge who ruled the FSS was protected by the legal immunity from civil negligence claims granted to witnesses and experts in criminal trials.

The incident led to an internal FSS inquiry and changes were made to systems as a result, the court heard."

IT WOULD SEEM FROM THE ABOVE THAT A PRECEDENT HAS BEEN SET MEANING THAT A WITNESS NOW HAS TO POTENTIALLY DEFEND THEIR EVIDENCE, prior to this precedent they enjoyed immunity...

.............................

Expert witness immunity 'wrong'

Professor Sir Roy Meadow

Sir Roy was initially struck off the medical register

The Attorney General has told appeal judges it is not up to a court to decide if expert witnesses should be immune from disciplinary action.

Lord Goldsmith intervened to back an appeal by the General Medical Council over the case of paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow.

Sir Roy was struck off for giving flawed evidence at Sally Clark's 1999 trial for the murder of her sons.

However, the High Court over-turned the decision in February.

If expert witnesses are deterred... it restricts the pool of expertise that's available to the courts and must therefore effect the ability of the court to make fair decisions  

Tom Magner

Society of Expert Witnesses

It ruled that regulatory bodies such as the GMC could not punish expert witnesses over "honest mistakes" - and that to do so would deter others from giving evidence.

Under the ruling, cases could only be referred to disciplinary bodies by the trial judge.

The GMC believes this decision undermines its role, and that of other professional regulators, and is asking for it to be overturned by the Appeal Court.

The hearing will not focus on Sir Roy's case, but on the GMC's ability to consider similar cases in future.

The GMC says it agrees doctors should not be deterred from giving evidence, honestly and truthfully, and within their competence.

Concerns

But it has concerns over the proposal to give the trial judge the remit to decide if a professional body should investigate an expert.

It also suggests the ruling contradicts its duty to investigate any complaint which could be found to amount to serious professional misconduct.

Lord Goldsmith told a panel of three judges sitting in London he was not seeking to raise any issues about Sir Roy's conduct, or the GMC's decision to strike him off.

However, he said immunity for expert witnesses should not be an issue for the court to have to decide.

He said: "It is crucially important that expert witnesses should assist the court conscientiously and objectively, rather than being tempted to give any evidence that suits their client's case.

"To that end, the threat of fitness to practice proceedings against them provides an important check which is calculated to assist significantly in the administration of justice and also to promote public confidence in the judicial process."

John Batt, a lawyer who advised Mrs Clark's legal team, said he was also concerned about the ruling.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The effect of this new law by Mr Justice Collins is it, in effect, neuters any professional bodies... who have experts who give evidence in court.

"It means they can't take any action against them no matter how badly they behave."

But Tom Magner, from the Society of Expert Witnesses, said it was "essential" for experts to be protected by the courts from disciplinary action by professional bodies.

He said: "If expert witnesses are deterred... it restricts the pool of expertise that's available to the courts and must therefore effect the ability of the court to make fair decisions."

Professional boundaries

Professor Meadow gave evidence at the trial of Sally Clark, who was arrested in 1998 after the deaths of her two sons, Christopher and Harry.

He told a Chester Crown Court jury there was a "one in 73 million" chance of two children dying from cot deaths in an affluent family.

Mrs Clark's conviction was later quashed in the Court of Appeal on grounds unrelated to Professor Meadow's evidence.

Mr Justice Collins, the High Court judge, ruled that, not only was the GMC unjustified in making a finding of serious professional misconduct last summer, it had no right to pursue the complaint in the first place.

He said expert witnesses must be immune from any disciplinary action - save in exceptional circumstances - so that they are not deterred from coming forward.

This was both because they should not be disciplined for an "honest mistake", but also on the grounds that since a witness enjoys immunity when giving evidence in court, that evidence could not form the basis of a disciplinary charge.

He said it was "quite unnecessary" to erase from the medical register someone like Professor Meadow who he described as a first-class paediatrician to whom many families owed much over his dealing with their children"

It would now seem that since the precedent potentialy set in July 2013 that Maurice has at last a Legal window open in which to bring the doctors actions to question before a Court.

It migh also bring to task the question of the change of color of the machine gun.

wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/.../forensic-staff-investigated-following-wrongful-conviction

..................................

So how much does Sabine want to see Maurice rot in jail. I would say that she wants that with a deep passion.

Some facts (hopefully FACTS will help protect Maurice:

1: Sabine has said on the Internet that she set up the following blog to "help" Maurice:

mauricejohnkirk.wordpress.com

2: Sabine is without doubt responsible for much of the content that is posted on the site. She writes in her own style, links to numerous other campaigns she "runs" and a very distinctive style.

3: I do wonder if Maurice even has access to the site to put his own input into it.

4: Sabine published the following Court Order:

mauricejohnkirk.files.wordpress.com/.../11-09-22-musa-snatch-kids-back-order.pdf

5: The order starts off with the following warning: "YOU MUST OBEY THE INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDER, AND IF YOU DO NOT, YOU WILL BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MAY BE SENT TO PRISON"

6: The order goes onto say (see point 5)THAT NO PERSON SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET. - ANY PART OF THIS ORDER....

So why on earth would Sabine publish that order on a bog she supposedly set up in Maurice's name? MY ONLY THOUGHT IS THAT IT IS DELIBERATE AND TO TRY TO DESTROY HIM.

It would be no surprise if Maurice KNEW nothing about this until this post drew his attention to it....

On this blog she has published several times things which potentially would harm Maurice, but always done in a clever and subtle way. The links take you to something which is much much worse than anything she has done on here.

Why on Earth would Maurice try to destroy all the good work he has done himself?

I have now concluded that Sabine, for whatever reason wants to destroy Maurice and has tried to do it in a very clever and devious way.

Words can not express what I feel for Maurice in respect to this - he was clearly conned and trusted her.

CALL FROM MK  1 JAN 2014

www.onetruemedia.com/shared

Maurice called around 9 this morning, saying he was on another weeks punishment, and that all his official complaints made whilst in HMP Cardiff have now been destroyed, and that he is on £4 canteen money.

MK also asks that any emails or messages received relating to witness intimidation concerning MK's cases be made public here [as he mentions in this call]. I am not "in the loop" that he refers to, and therefore am not privy to such information regarding "witness intimidation". All I do is put his calls online Indeed, emails I do send to others relating to MK's cases more often than not remain unanswered, so I have no desire whatsoever to do anything more than I already am, or be in any "loop" alongside people I do not trust at all..

. Again - MK asks that any messages relating to "witness intimidation" regarding his cases be made public I do not have any and they do exist as MK mentions..