MR MAURICE KIRK 1st Claimant

DR TEGWYN WILLIAMS 1st Defendant

Ref TWH.448470.48

Before District Judge T M Phillips sitting at Cardiff County Court, Cardiff Civil Justice Centre, 2 Park Street,Cardiff, CF10 1ET.

 

Upon hearing Mr M Bowen for the claimant and Counsel for the defendant

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The hearing of the defendants application dated 16 September 2010 to strike out the claim and to consider whether a civil restraint order is appropriate be further adjourned to 15 March 2011 at 11:00 (EHT 3 hours).

2. At the next hearing there will also be considered by the court the claimants applications dated 7th January 2011 and 18 January 2011 (yet to be listed).

3. The claimant may attend the hearing via video link (he being responsible for making the necessary arrangements well before the hearing).

4. a) in the event of the claimant being unable to attend the next hearing due to his medical condition, then he must send to the court and to the defendants solicitors at least 3 working days prior to the hearing a letter from a medical practitioner setting out the position and confirming in the Doctors opinion the inability of Mr Kirk to attend via video link.

b) In the event of the claimant's surgery being outstanding due to alleged non disclosure of medical records or documents, the Doctor do also specify in his letter:

(i) the medical records or documentation outstanding,

(ii) why any relevant tests or investigation cannot be undertaken by the French medical Profession so that the surgery can proceed.

5. Costs of today be costs in the application.

-

Disproportionate legal costs Lawyers, Morgan Cole, Cardiff,  have threatened me with a £6000 bill if I do not withdraw, following my £40 Application, in a British court of law, just to make Dr Tegwyn Williams, of Caswell Clinic, Bridgend, or the NHS, to  disclose his evidence he gave to His honour Judge Bidder QC, on the 2nd December 2009. He was there, tape recorder switched off, in a so called 'Court of Record', Cardiff Crown Court.falsifying medical record....what a joke!

What was he doing there, in the first place, is the first question? I was, as prisoner in Cardiff prison not even under his 'care'!

His trying to persuade the judge, on his own, to have me sectioned, for life, without trial, under the Section 41 of 1983 Mental Health Act, to a High Security Prison, was an uphill struggle. But his masonic masters, South Wales Police, had so ordered or he could no longer be allowed to worship the devil.

Tomorrow, in Cardiff County Court, be there, these lawyers, barristers, clerks etc, ALL AT TAX PAYER'S EXPENSE,just for a petty debt action for, lost bus fares, will be there....you will enjoy...Case is at 2pm  BUT read the latest Downloads first  

Dr Tegwyn Williams, of Caswell Clinic, Bridgend refuses to clarify his opinion and conduct , over such a serious matter as possible brain tumour .

How, on 2nd December 09,  he tells the Cardiff Crown Court I have a possible brain tumour and too dangerous to be released when at the 17th December 2009 MAPPA meeting, he tells high ranking officers of the South Wales Police, the prosecutor, social services, probation and prison, all sitting around the same table, in his clinic, a completely opposing medical opinion?

This caused  the meeting to rule I was "no longer considered dangerous to the public and  my name was immediately removed from MAPPA level 3 category, [terrorist level].

BUT, to this day Dr Tegwyn Williams, South Wales NHS officials, HM Prison and MAPPA have refused to notify the patient of any of this and continue to refuse the information to the  surgeons, waiting to operate,  on either side of the English Channel.

It stinks, doesn't it?

Disproportionate Legal Costs: Breach of Human Rights

I am possibly about to go into hospital and so email without being too close on detail, save to say that at this time, that I draw the attention of the Court and Defendant's lawyers to the European Court of Human Rights having ruled that the Daily Mirror's freedom of expression was violated by the legal costs it had to pay when it lost a privacy case brought by Naomi Campbell.

Although arguments will need to be reversed and translated to other human rights, for a comparison with my claim as the Daily Mirror are journalists and was the Defendant. As we are aware, this thinking of the Court of Human Rights, to limit legal costs is in keeping with some comments in my submission in December 2010, when asking His Honour Seys Llewellyn QC for permission to appeal.

As also in my submission in December 2010, the arguments here are also more profound than how much legal costs can the Defendant or Defendant's lawyers claim in my Cardiff case.

Drawing from London barrister Mr Challenger's comments, it would seem that public policy on where the Police (or public bodies) can be sued is, in reality very much affected by the cost of employing lawyers. As lawyers may not now be able to charge as much in legal costs, that would seem another reason for public policy to be reviewed to find what incremental changes may occur from restricting lawyers costs.

 page 2

2nd December 2009

ALL PROCEEDINGS

(11.39)

JUDGE BIDDER: ... appropriately qualified psychiatrist then the fitness to plead doesn't really arise. I have one report by you reaching a conclusion; I have another report by Dr Silva reaching a different conclusion. I can't act on the basis of that issue without there being two such reports and there aren't two such reports. In the circumstances I don't think there is a great deal of purpose in you remaining in court.

MR TWOMLOW: May I just say perhaps, having spoken to Dr Williams this morning, that I think having seen the contents of Dr Silva's report he is also of the view that Mr Kirk would be fit to plead subject to the ... it was only the case of whether he has cancer or not I think that Dr Williams was concerned about, but I didn't wish to ... 

Continuing "HM Partnership" Cardiff Conspiracy

This following eight page submission, with French doctor's request for medical records, took weeks of work to obtain and were e-mailed to the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre at 9.30am on Tuesday, two and a half days before the 2pm hearing but was not given to the presiding judge.

Extract of secure e-mail, to Cardiff court, that DID NOT BOUNCE BACK carrying the 'submissions', as an example to the naifve, of the evilness, tax payer funded "HM Partnership" in Cardiff play, every day.

'please forward asap to the learned judge dealing with the above case
 
There must surely be another person on another e-maill to deal with this?
 
All current known Cardiff court e-mails bounce back' 

To the Cardiff County Court

BS61459, CF101741, 0CF03922 & 8 Others

Maurice Kirk v Dr Tegwyn Williams

20th January 2011 Hearing

Application for Adjournment and Disclosure (Request Dr Williams/Defendant make a signed statement)

1) It may help the Court to know that, I am unwell and at my home in Brittany, awaiting a
hip operation on 20 January 2011 in France.

2) Therefore this reply is worded by lay persons (non lawyers). The opinions show the
independent view of a team trying to help because of their concerns.

3) In short, there is major concern of this moment is the way the Defendant Dr Tegwyn
Williams, shows bad faith and „deliberately fails to deal‟ by trying to "hide behind
lawyers" and he will not „personally‟ comment or clarify in issues as serious as brain
cancer, brain damage and severe disorders of the mind.

4) Furthermore the Defendant‟s refusal to clarify causes the confusion that in turn delays
urgent hip operation that with problems with mediation and morphine contributes to
keeping the Claimant too unwell to attend court and proceed with this case.

5) An update is that the Defendant‟s obstructive behaviour that therefore delays hip
operations, may have caused, and may continue to cause permanent medical damage
to nerve tissue around the Claimant hip, so to permanently damage the Claimant chance
of recovery.

Adjournment

6) The Court Order of 26 November 2010 point 2 says.

"2. Any applications to adjourn the hearing by reason of medical
matter must be supported by a medical practitioner's letter or
certificate which confirms an inability to attend a Court hearing
estimated to last not more than 1 hour."

7) It seems to say that a doctor's letter is needed for adjournment. That tells me to
expect adjournment if I comply with that Order by the attached letter from Dr Leclerc,
Merdrignac, France. The Breton doctor is concerned that the surgeons have not been
supplied with Dr Tegwyn Williams' information given to the December 09 Crown Court
and to MAPPA meetings. Dr Leclerc is the source of my monthly supply of morphine
sulphate.

Merit and some reasons why the Court may (if it so wishes) find in the Claimant's
favour on all (Claim and Costs).

8) This case is over the expenses the Claimant incurred in trying to find out what opinion Dr Tegwyn Williams has being expressing regards the Claimant. The Claimant believes the reason why the Claimant was not handed over the notes and records, when attending, is because either the records never existed or the Defendant wrote final reports not unlike writing fiction. The Claimant believes the defendant has been dishonest in his report by saying that which he knew not to be true. If what the Claimant believes is true, then the claimant believes Dr Williams should reimburse expenses.

9) As a part of professional standards and conduct for Psychiatrists, careful notes and
records must exist behind the process of any assessment and the final outcome and that notes and records are to be full and copious.

10) It may help the Court to know, that in what records or reports that exist the
Defendant appears to more determine facts, than explore clinical issues regards being
assertion that the Claimant is delusional about very specific facts such as whether or not
the Claimant was harassed by Police. (In contrast to what Dr Williams says His Honour
Seys Llewellyn QC, however, has decided in a preliminary Judgment, dated 30
November 2010, that the sheer volume of incidents of alleged harassment gives merit
for the court to investigate).

11) It is therefore difficult to see how Dr Williams can claim the Claimant is delusional
about quite specific facts.

12) One easy comparison is that the Civil Aviation Authority, in 2010 deemed the
Claimant fit to fly his aeroplanes.

13) To easily support the view of mischievous manipulations there is evidence that
Professor Roger Wood re-wrote his report as being seen by reference to the ex-chief
constable when the chief constable was in office when the report originally written. Most
doctors, possibly as many as nearly twenty, seem not to agree with Dr Tegwyn Williams.
There are many other facts to prove this conduct.

14) The Claimant believes the defendant, having acted improperly regards expressing
opinion he knew to be misleading or knew not to be true, now needed to destroy or hide the notes and records behind any reports.

15) Therefore the Claimant requested the Defendant‟s employers arrange disclosure of
medical records and notes and the Claimant was invited to Caswell Clinic, Bridgend to
collect notes and records. The Claimant had paid for their release and incurred further
expense several times travelling to the Clinic.

16) The Claimant, by acting lawfully and properly, tried to find out what are the notes and records that were used to help arrive at what hopefully would have been an honest and competent opinion. A Court Claim was filed by the Claimant when the Defendant seemed most unwilling to clarify or disclose essential information that the Claimant had paid for, and where the Claimant had incurred travelling expenses. The Defendant appeared so unhelpful and obstructive to the Claimant, to appear to be acting in bad faith.

17) It is entirely normal NHS procedure for a patient to attend to collect confidential
medical information, especially larger medical notes and record files as the post can be
too problematic and particularly insecure for such sensitive information as psychiatric
records.

18) The Claimant chose to exercise his right to attend, but also was told by NHS staff at
his GP surgery that the Defendant's employer and/or Defendant had said the records
are available for collection.

19) The Claimant believes he has obvious and compelling reason to be anxious to attend and find out information for which he is lawfully entitled to know, and paid for. The Court transcript 2 December 2009 shows that the Defendant Dr Tegwyn Williams has been saying that the Claimant has brain cancer, (and more).

20) The Defendant's professional body helps show reason for justification for the
concern that the Defendant shows bad faith and "deliberately failing to deal" by trying to
"hide behind lawyers" and will not "personally" comment or clarify in issues as serious as
brain cancer, brain damage and severe disorders of the mind.

21) To help determine reasonableness, Dr Tegwyn Williams professional body has
guidelines. The Royal College of Psychiatrists page 6 (copy attached) says

• "Give patients the information they ask for or need about their condition, its treatment or prognosis
• Give information to patients in a way they can understand
• Be readily accessible to patients and colleagues when on duty

You must not delay treatment........."

The Royal College of Psychiatrists (copy attached) page 2 also says of duties of doctor registered with the GMC

• Give patients information in a way they can understand
• Be honest and trustworthy
• Avoid abusing your position as a doctor

22) The Claimant has a hip operation booked for 20 January 2011 in France. Dr Williams bad faith is made worse, because the absence of Dr Tegywn Williams to personally clarify causes operations to be cancelled, when the claimant to be most unwell, insevere pain and suffering increasing irreparable nerve damage by operations not proceeding, because of the uncertainty and confusion caused by Dr Tegwyn Williams still refusing to clarify, even when is lawyers now are starting to acknowledge the issues.

23) Regardless of the needed operation, the Claimant quite obviously urgently needs Dr
Tegwyn Williams to personally clarify what is meant by and the prognosis of brain
cancer, permanent brain damage and severe disorders of the mind, so that the Claimant can plan how to live his life.

24) Other Doctors are at a loss to make the needed specific comment, as the Defendant still has failed to provide medical records and notes that would or should occur, if Dr Williams forms an honest and competent opinion as to why he thinks these conditions are relevant to the Claimant.

25) The Claimant asks and feels astonished, questions how the UK Courts can allow
either doctors and lawyers to act as callously in full gaze of the Courts and professional
bodies, and asks for initiatives to redress the balance of power.

26) Furthermore the Defendants lawyers threaten the unwell Claimant with cost to go
into many thousands of pounds over a claim most minor in monetary terms, as a way to
intimidate the Claimant into not learning of such important information when the
Claimant has every right to know.

27) The Claimants asks the Courts support where the Claimant believes Dr Tegwyn
Williams abused his position when the Claimant attended to collect his medical records
and now tries to further abuse his position by hiding behind lawyer and their willingness
to use cost to intimidate by disproportionate use of lawyers fees.

28) The Claimant believes Dr Tegwyn Williams is therefore causing these delays, by not
simply clarifying issues himself.

29) There is also the issue of the total contempt that Dr Tegwyn Williams showed for the
Claimant and the utter unreasonableness when as a patient the Claimant tries to collect
medical records for which he has paid.

30) Given access to the requested information is entirely reasonable and lawful, (both
what was originally requested and also not as yet clarified by Dr Williams) the Claimant
raise the question whether both the Defendant and his lawyers Discriminate against the
Claimant to impose less favourable treatment, (due to alleged disorders of the mind), in
the way the Claimant is denied access to what most people have a right to expect be
provided in a way to afford them dignity.

31) The Claimant believes the Defendant and his lawyers use the power and financial
resources of the state over the Claimant to deny human rights (ECHR Article 3 and
Article 8) and access to a fair trial (ECHR Article 6). The Claimant raises whether the
Court has a duty to protect the Claimant, so that the UK members state does not breach
the human rights of the Claimant.

Disproportionate Costs

32) Obviously the Claimant believes the Defendant and his lawyers are trying to
intimidated the Claimant out of his rights by what many would view as disproportionate
legal costs. Disproportionate, because of the small nature of the original claim and all
that as required was for Dr Tegwyn Williams to personally clarify, as his professional
body expects of him.

Can the Defendant (a clinician who writes how unwell the Claimant will be) Object
to or Claim Costs for an Adjournment on medical grounds?

33) The core papers mentioned by the Defendant's lawyers include in their core
correspondence reference to documents where the Defendant Dr Tegwyn Williams is
saying there is "clear evidence" of a deterioration from brain damage and/or mental
disorder, (even brain cancer) that will mean the Claimant condition will never improve
and will mean the Claimant cannot focus to deal with legal proceedings. Can either the
Defendant or his lawyer, be honest and competent, and be upholding the high standards of the profession, (or as an Officer of the Court) in asking the Court to press ahead in the absence of the Claimant on medical grounds, when they promote that the Claimant is seriously unwell?

34) The Claimant puts to the Defendant and Defendant's lawyers whether such tactics,
is conduct becoming of a doctor who instructs lawyers, or a lawyer or law firm who
should be allowed to represent any in the caring professions or the NHS.

A Challenge to Dr Tegwyn Williams to volunteer by 20 January 2011 or else a
Request For Court Order for Dr Williams to make a personal signed statement to
the Court.

35) One example of the relevance of Dr Williams voluntarily or by Court Order making a
personal signed statement is that Dr Williams can show whether or not he is obstructive
or shows bad faith, or a poor attitude towards the Claimant while the matter is before the Court, where if such occurs, the Court opportunity to, if it so wishes, determined whether it is reasonable to believe Dr Tegwyn Williams has also acted in bad faith so to causes the Claimant expense, when the Claimant attended to collect records.

a) Brain Cancer: On the Issue of the Claimant, and brain cancer, taking into account the
court transcript 2 December 2009 and for Dr Williams to also explain the prognosis of his concerns.

b) Brain damage: What records, notes and evidence exists to support Dr Williams
claims. Explain point 32 of his final 2009 report of the "Clear evidence" in the clear
evidence of brain damage and the prognosis. What exactly does Dr Tegwyn Williams
know of the evidence of physical brain damage, and if any indication and what level of
certainty of physical brain damage existing, and how does Dr Tegwyn Williams see this
as clear evidence as opposed to a potential, regards any physical condition affecting specific behaviour. How does Dr Williams judge behaviour the Claimant's behaviour compared to a leading Welsh Court Judge as below?

c) Paranoid Delusional Disorder: This issue can be a determination of facts. Did Dr
Williams have information to determine facts to decide the Claimant was delusional
about facts. Dr Williams is asked to explain notes, records, evidence facts. How and
what evidence there is that the Claimant has any such severe disorder of the mind and
particularly the prognosis taking into account that that His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn
QC says there is an unusual case with a sheer volume of incidents that require
investigation by the Court

Defendant's Lawyer's Conduct

36) The conduct of the Defendant‟s lawyer is of concern, by her repeatedly merely
asserting she gives answer, when in reality she des not. For example the Defendant's
lawyer frequently uses arguments like the Defendant is not responsible for the third
parties (organisations or people) who receive what Dr Tegwyn Williams says. When the
issue that needs to be addressed is for Dr Tegwyn Williams to clarify exactly what he
says, why and how his expressed opinion emerged or is sourced in medical records,
notes and medical evidence.

37) The Claimant's concern of whether there is bad faith by the Defendant, continues
because the Defendant's lawyers letter of 6th January 2011 not only fails to deal with
issues, but seems to the Claimant to deliberately avoid issues. Above all, whether or not
the Claimant has Brain Cancer, and if any records exist relevant to such as (but not only)
the comment in the 2 December 2009 court transcript as below, of Dr Williams saying of the Claimant's brain cancer.

The Court Transcript and Brain Cancer

38) According to Dr Tegwyn Williams' Professional body, Dr Williams should give
information to the Claimant and in a way that the Claimant can understand. That has not
been occurring ever since the Claimant was in his "care" between August and October
2009.

39) At Court on 2 December 2009, the Claimant was not present and what happens here is an odd intrusion by Dr Williams who needs to explain why he is speaking in that Court room about Mr Kirk, with Mr Kirk not there or having opportunity to rebut what he says?

40) The Claimant emphasises Dr Williams has been speaking at Court and Mr Twomlow
summarises what Dr Williams says in Dr Williams presence. Dr Williams hears the
extract below, and so stands there at Court to agree it to be true

41) The issues raised here are to ask Dr Williams to clarify what he meant by what he said to Mr Twomlow and the Court, where Dr Williams does not make small talk here but intend his professional comments about the Claimant to be taken very seriously.

42) The Court Transcript 2 December 2009 11.39am (page two) starts as if someone
inadvertently switches on the machine, saying:

i. JUDGE BIDDER:...........: ..appropriately qualified psychiatrist then the fitness to plead doesn't really arise. I have one report by you reaching a onclusion: I have another report by Dr Silva reaching a different onclusion. I can't act on the basis of that issue without there being two such reports and there aren't two such reports. In the circumstances I don't think there is a great deal of purpose in you remaining in Court.

ii. Mr TWOMLOW (CPS): May I perhaps, having spoken to Dr Williams this morning, that I think having seen the contents of Dr Silva's report he is also of the view that Mr Kirk would be fit to plead subject to the.....it was only the case of whether he has cancer or not I think that Dr Williams was concerned about, but I didn't wish to.....

43) As previously stated the Claimant believes that the Royal College of Psychiatrist
guidelines on how to deal with this kind of situation can show how reasonable or
unreasonable Dr Tegwyn Williams has acted, relevant to this claim, and so whether or
not the Court should find in favour of Claimant. Does Dr Williams now "give patients the
information they ask for or need about their condition, its treatment or prognosis" and
"give information to patients in a way they can understand"?

Give patients information in a way they can understand?

44) How is the Claimant to understand his prognosis about brain cancer or the other
condition of the brain or mind, when Dr Williams will not clarify, or disclose about
something as serious as his formally expressed comments about brain cancer?

Difficult to find a doctor who agrees With Dr Tegwyn Williams

45) As explained in more detail latter in this document, please note most doctors
(potentially nearly twenty doctors) do not seem to agree with Dr Williams on his
generally prejudicial if not defamatory tone and psychiatric diagnosis about the Claimant being mentally ill to the point of delusional about based on specific factual issue, so to question whether Dr Williams abuses his position, in giving opinion he knows (or should know) not to be true.

Additional Difficulties, Expenses and Costs

46) The Claimant wishes the Court to know that many other important Court cases have
been delayed by the defendants not clarifying the information required regards my
application for disclosure about brain cancer. The delay is also from the delay to
operations on my hip caused by non disclosure of the same information, that has I turn
caused me to remain most unwell, immobile, in fluctuating severe pain to affect
concentration, and use of morphine for an unwise duration.

47) The Claimant alleges malicious intent behind the complications from delays and
adjournments in this claim before the Court are caused from the harm and difficulties
caused by the Defendant. This includes him to block the Claimant's operation by, what
seems to the Claimant as Dr Williams unprofessional, if not dishonest opinions in Court
and in communication with his superiors, besides the non-communication with the
Claimant.

Claimant Being Absent 20 January 2011 Confirms Wish to Appeal if becomes
relevant.

48) In matters as serious as the Defendant and his lawyers acting in bad faith over brain cancer, brain damage and disorder of the mind, the Claimant who is unable to attend on 20 January 2011 is ready to go to appeal, if necessary and asks for permission, should it become relevant.

Enclosed Both UK and Breton GP letters requesting clarification

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

18th January 2011

 

South Wales Police Authority
Bridgend
South Wales
 
19th Jan 2011
 
Dear Sir,
 
Complaint against South Wales Police attempting to have me shot
 
1. Further to advice from the Home Office, see enclosed, I make complaint of the threat to my life caused following the erroneous information considered  in the 8th June 2009 MAPPA meeting  in Barry Police Station when members of South Wales Police forensic hospital. Caswell clinic attended.  An internal memo, in your posession, indicationg I may be shot by police. But there was a deliberate delay of several weeks in order to obtain that opportunity before arresting a catagory MAPPA 3, terrorist level, believed to be in the possesion of one or machine guns and live ammunition..
 
2. I further complain of subsequent actions by Dr Tegyn Williams of Caswell Clinic and police, who, once I was arrested, had me sectioned under the 35 legislation of 1983 Mental Health Act, without even his  examination, on the 22nd June2009. Their intention with the changed view of the ridiculous charges, of trading in machine guns, now unlikely to obtaining a conviction switched to some other way they interfere with the now, 19 year running damges claim for malicious prosecutions and false imprisonment.caused by the same force..
 
3. I further complain, following that failing, only by luck, the police attempt, on 2nd December 2009, to obtain for me a section 41 to Broadmoor , for life, without trial reliant on known fabricated evidence..
 
4. I further complain of ther continuing harassment and fabricated arrests ,since my release, unconvicted, since 9th February 2010 and refusal to properly investigate serious acts of criminal damage on my property and an assault on myserlf deliberately avoiding interviewing the only independant witness present
 
This list is not exhaustive....
 
yours

Hello and Happy New 2011!

No matter whether you, like Lewis Nicholson with his "Victim of Judicial Fraud" shirt, have come to any of our meetings in Westminster before, you are invited to join us on Tuesday, January 25th! Under the auspices of our Chairman Austin Mitchell MP, I looked for support from other MPs, especially those who have signed Early Day Motions (EDMs) covering issues that are relevant to our causes.

I also invited those MPs whose victims are among the four fraudulent bankruptcies we presented to the Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke QC MP and the Business Minister Vincent Cable MP. And I invited the MPs whose cases I put before the EU Commission for Justice, besides a few others whose stories I published on Victims Unite!

However, it is really important that you invite your MP yourself to attend, especially if you intend to be there, too! For there is a Parliamentary Rule that says that MPs only need to respond to their constituents!

To ask your MP to write letters on your behalf is always a constructive request you can make!  Send them the report Victims of Financial Exploitation and Legal Oppression and, where appropriate, Compensator of Last Resort.

To illustrate that you are not alone, you can also refer to our two petitions with their marvellous comments:

• Stop the Oppression of the British People with 1305 signatures and 13 comment pages

• WANTED: Fair Trials and Compensation with 205 signatures and 6 comment pages.

While the second petition stressed the need of support for Maurice J Kirk BVSc, he will not be able to join us, as he is still in political asylum in Brittany, for fear of being jailed or shot. However, his MP Alun Cairns has been very responsive and supportive so far!

In my requests for support, I asked:

"Would you be willing to ask questions with written answers to find out what victims are expected to do when they have all the evidence of unlawfulness, but get neither restitution or compensation?   Would you be willing to find out when the Lord Chancellor will close the human rights gap between the EU and the UK?   On Tuesday, January 25th, 2 - 4pm, our Chairman Austin Mitchell MP will convene a meeting of victims and supportive MPs. Can we count on your presence, too?   If not, can we count on you being part of a "Virtual All Party Parliamentary Group" to take our issues further, i.e. be on a mailing list that I will maintain?" 

Besides Austin Mitchell MP, Lord Sudeley, co-founder of the Forum for Stable Currencies, has confirmed to attend.
Nic Dakin, MP for veteran victim Stanley Embling, intends to be with us. 
John McDonnell MP "will do his best" to be there. 
John Hemming MP "may be able to attend".

You are invited to send in your question(s) for MPs asap, hoping that some more of the 100 odd MPs will want to come and answer them!

At our last meeting, Austin Mitchell MP suggested, we should organise our own Public Inquiry, but I don't feel enough support for such a venture. Instead, I hope that victims learn to communicate with their MPs such that they get the best out of them and that the list of supportive MPs gets longer and longer.

As a first most promising step, Nick Hurd MP is acting on behalf of his constituent Patrick Cullinane: Minister demands action over bankrupted taxpayer.

Will your case be the next one so that we can have a truly Happy 2011?

On Tuesday, January 25th, people can join us in the Jubilee Cafe of the House of Commons from 11am onwards. At 1.45pm we will move to the designated Committee Room.

Please take heart and RSVP to sabine@3d-metrics.com, if you can make it on January 25th!

MANY THANKS to everybody who signed and commented and my very best wishes for your fighting spirit in the New Year!

Sabine
Organiser, Forum for Stable Currencies
McKenzie Friend and web publisher, Victims Unite!

And may we bless our enemies in a time of reflection

Good luck for next year.....

I, Maurice, reluctantly, post a somewhat garbled but unusual draft, yet unfinished, resistance account, I am under mind enhancing drugs just now, being put together for the Court of Appeal. All is provable about the South Wales Police tried to, first, have me shot and when that failed, tried to have me locked away in a lunatic asylum, for life. All because my civil action, for years of malicious prosecutions, had beaten eighteen years of police attempts to have it burried....can I make it more simple?.

My rebuttal has to be lodged in a welsh court very, very shortly

All because I appear to have been drawn into conduct by an apparent headless similarly insular 'authority' to Guernsey, South Wales Police, the very same that had me struck off the veterinary register, for life, on 29th May 2002, now, again, before both the HM Privy Council in the Supreme Court building, Parliament Square and the Cardiff Justice Centre, after eighteen years of tortuous litigation. Covert police serveillance, the minute I set foot in the Principality of Wales, back in 1992 drags on. So why the 'D' notice, on the press on the first Englishman first, possibly, since King  Charles the 2nd, when also seeking refuge in Jersey, obtaining asylum in France?

PS. Please do not forget the online petition here.  200 signatures are needed for our Prime Minister in Downing Street.

________________________________________________________________________________

Alun Cairns MP
House of Commons
London
 
20th December 2010
 
LAWFUL REBELLION
 
Dear Alun,
 
There is a move afoot, by many , to take to the streets across the UK that may cause havoc. So be warned of what may happen in South Wales, quite soon.
 
Unlike most of my angry friends, around the UK, I still believe democratically elected representatives of the people should sort out the appalling state of our HM judicial system, driven by avarice and that has caused a paucity in independant legal representation.
 
Further, the continuing unlawful conduct of the South Wales Police, with the GMC sitting on its hands, where a number of errant doctors are concerned is also, ultimately, your responsibility.
 
Are you prepared, please, to instigate an investigation from outside the Principality?.

I enclose part of the documents here used for my obtaining asylum in Rennes, Brittany, last week, after police in your constituency tried to have me shot and when that failed tried to have me locked away for life, without trial.
--

Maurice J Kirk BVSc
______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE CARDIFF COURT                                           Case no. BS614159-MC85                                                                                                                        CF101741                                                                                                                        CF204141                                                                                                                       7CF0734S BETWEENMAURICE JOHN KIRK
Claimantand THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SOUTH WALES CONSTABULARY
Defendant  PERMISSION to APPEAL
the JUDGEMENT and DRAFT ORDER
of 30^th November, 2010, by HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC

Introduction

 

The Claimant seeks permission to appeal the judgment on the grounds of seven aspects:

1. Individual Bullying Incidents form, collectively, a Claim for “Organisational Harassment”
2. Organisational Harassment intensified as Civil Actions for Punitive Damages progressed
3. An Extreme Number of Bullying Incidents creates Unusual Classes of Cases
4. The Non-Investigation of Crimes is a Case of Bullying Tactics
5. Legal Outcomes of Individual Incidents are Irrelevant in this Collateral Attack
6. Complaining to and Colluding with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was part of Bullying
7. Delaying Tactics of Court Proceedings and Interfering with them was part of Multi-Agency Harassment

  

Furthermore, four reasons for granting the permission to appeal are given:

1. An Extreme Number of Incidents means Evidence of Ongoing Harassment
2. Including the 4^th Action means Unusual Types of Harassment
3. MAPPA meant Bullying Tactics for Indefinite Harassment and Political Asylum
4. Withholding Medical Records is the Result of Multi-Agency Collusion

 

The Seven Aspects for Appeal

A. Individual Bullying Incidents form, collectively, a Claim for “Organisational Harassment”

1.        Just as the observation of financial market data consists of single ‘price incidents’, so they form trends, when seen together in context and over time. Similarly, the individual ‘incidents’ that the Claimant has experienced since 1992 due to the Defendant, must each be seen as ‘bullying cases’.

2.        When seen together, individual bullying cases are the result of malicious intent and policy. This is not public policy, but the policy of South Wales Police as an organisation or agency. “Organisational policy” does not imply malicious intent of individual police officers who were only doing their job in the investigation and suppression of crime.

3.        It appears, however, that, with respect to the Claimant, their job had become one of organisational harassment. This was spelled out in the leaked MAPPA report: see http://bit.ly/fjR8GL

“At the meeting it was reviewed that the police intend to take certain action which they anticipate will result in a remand into custody.”

B. Organisational Harassment intensified as Civil Actions for Punitive Damages progressed

4.        When taking the long term view over all four legal actions that are addressed on this occasion, it becomes apparent that the Defendant has not only exercised harassment, but also intensified this treatment, as the civil actions for punitive damages were progressing.

5.        Based on an initial number of nineteen bullying incidents, the 1^st action [BS6 14159] was filed by Bristol solicitors in 1996 for “damages, exemplary damages, special damages, costs and interest.”

6.        On 1^st June 2002 Jonathan Watt-Pringle filed Particulars of Claims, covering some ten incidents of a 2^nd action [CF101741] for damages, aggravated and exemplary damages, interest as well as an

“Order that the Defendant shall not by himself or his servants or agents harass the Claimant, whether by stopping him without legal justification to provide breath samples or to produce documents or to attend at police stations and/or by arresting and detaining him without legal justification”.

7.        On 24^th June 2002, the Claimant filed the 3^rd action [CF204141] himself, covering six incidents, claiming again damages, including exemplary and special damages, besides costs and interest.

8.        On 24^th November 2007, the Claimant filed the 4^th action [7CF07345] regarding “duty of care, abuse of process, failed disclosure and human right infringements.”

9.        The Particulars of Claim of the 4^th action mention

“failed disclosure by both the Defendant and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, contrary to court orders, delay by HM Court Service to process current actions, interference by Crown Prosecution Service, HM Attorney General, Mr Justice Andrew Collins and other to hand down an Extended Civil Restraint Order or obtain a Vexatious Litigant Order.”

10.    Furthermore requests for Trial by Jury, as violations of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the UK 1998 Human Rights Act, are among the claims of some or all of the actions.

11.    In para 59, the 4^th action refers to 41 crime reference numbers.

12.    From the Claimant’s point of view, this amounts to

• an abuse of process by a number of authorities
• the omission of Article 13 of the EU Convention on Human Rights in the UK Human Rights Act 1998: the right to an effective remedy before national authorities.

13.    Even more severely, in terms of abuse of process, the Claimant has been let down by the legal profession, HM Court Services and ten judges to progress this case for punitive damages.

14.    So he has to use his website as the only way to expose wrongdoings by the Defendant, their lawyers, the Judiciary and those agencies that were included due to his MAPPA categorisation, while the administration of justice is afraid of coming into disrepute. See paras 40 and 42 in the judgment.

C. An Extreme Number of Bullying Incidents creates Unusual Types of Cases

15. The Claimant would not begin to claim harassment if there had only been the occasional odd incident. But it is the sheer number as well as the different kinds of classes and types of incidents that lead him to the current action.
16. The number of incidents has led not only to an unusual amount of legal actions but also to a high success rate of winning by the Claimant. However, in this action for punitive damages, they need to be considered, no matter what the legal outcome has been.
17. His Honour has identified three classes of incidents:
• The first class: whether there is privately actionable duty of care.
• The second class: Liability of the police as bailee of property and/or in negligence.
• The third class. Claims alleged to be an abuse of process. Legal Principle itself.
18. The Claimant wants to add a fourth class: claims that are due for compensation and damages after convictions have been pronounced. With the exception of the stolen cheques, this covers the five incidents to be struck out.
19. In addition, the Claimant suggests to consider the following classes of incidents:
• incidents belonging to more than one class
• incidents creating reasons for prosecutions by the way the Defendant treated the Claimant
• the non-recovery of stolen goods (e.g. the stolen cheques)
• the non-investigation of crimes
• the intensification of organisational harassment
• the involvement of other agencies (MAPPA)
• the delaying tactics of court processes and their interference
• the malicious intention of psychiatric incarceration for life (IPP)
• the ‘licence to kill’, as a leaked report about MAPPA involvement revealed:

“South Wales Police have a firearms response which could mean that the MAPPA subject would be shot.” See page 1 of http://bit.ly/fjR8GL

D. The Non-Investigation of Crimes is a Case of Bullying Tactics

20. The Claimant asks for permission to appeal the strike-out of those incidents that classify as the non-investigation of crime, as they add to the strain and pain experienced due to the Defendant’s behaviour.
21. In the overall context of the Claimant’s experience, this group is a totally different kind of harassment. The added frustration must be seen as compounding the mental, nervous, emotional and financial strain, pain and stress brought on by the Defendant since 1992.
22. In fact, a careful review of all incidents with appropriate classification is required to assess the damages in financial terms.

E. Legal Outcomes of Individual Incidents are Irrelevant in this Collateral Attack

23. The aspect of collateral attack needs to be clarified, as the individual incidents, when gathered together, do form new kinds of claim, independent of any prior legal outcomes and their court context.

“in a number of cases his claim amounts to a collateral attack on criminal convictions and court findings which the Defendant contends he is not entitled to re-open.” [Para 2]

24. The Claimant expresses the right to sue for damages for each and all of the incidents, in line with the Order of the 2^nd action:

“Order that the Defendant shall not by himself or his servants or agents harass the Claimant, whether by stopping him without legal justification to provide breath samples or to produce documents or to attend at police stations and/or by arresting and detaining him without legal justification”.

F. Complaining to and Colluding with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was part of Bullying

25. The aspect of collusion with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons needs to be clarified since the request for being struck off was originated by a complaint by South Wales Police. The complaint developed into fully fledged collusion between the two organisations.

G. Delaying Tactics of Court Proceedings and Interfering with them was part of Multi-Organisational Harassment

26. There is a body of evidence relating to court proceedings and their interference by the Defendant or their “partners in collusion” that is waiting to be taken into account for the purpose of quantifying damages.
27. This aspect, especially of the 4^th action, requires particularly careful examination, in principle by an independent body, to establish the different kinds of additional damages incurred.

  

Four Reasons for Granting the Permission to Appeal

A. An Extreme Number of Incidents means Evidence of Ongoing Harassment

28. The seven aspects above have different grounds for appeal. While His Honour has identified three classes of incidents, the Claimant contends that a “helicopter” and long term view entirely change the aspect of the case.
    
29. The helicopter view allows for grouping incidents into different classes. The long term view allows for questioning the human rights to life, quality of life and level of health that the Claimant has experienced as a consequence of the actions of the Defendant.
30. Just as a helicopter and long term view entirely change the aspect of the case, so do the frameworks of “organisational harassment” and “multi-agency harassment” provide new contexts that do not allow for any of the incidents to be struck out, but rely on them as substantive evidence.
31. As a matter of interpretation, individual incidents are either legal allegations, each in their own right or they are but samples of evidence in a chain of events that, together, form the basis for the current claim.

The Six Incidents Struck out in the Draft OrderPara 3 of Action CF204141

32. The failure to investigate the crime of stolen cheques, even with a recent sighting, by the Claimant, of the thief and his whereabouts, does not deserve to be struck out as the crime continues to be ignored and therefore unresolved [Paras 19-21] and the stolen goods have not been recovered. The incident adds to the financial strain imposed by the Defendant on the Claimant over the years, thus contributing to organisational harassment.

Para 8.12 of Action  BS614159-MC65

33. Similarly, the Barry roundabout incident [paras 53 and 61] adds to the overall intent of malice. On a Court day, the Claimant’s receptionist overheard one of the Defendant’s employees saying “We will get that *** Kirk.”

Para 3 of Action CF101741

34. In the incident of crossing the single white line, due to a rally of cyclists [paras 67 and 71], the Claimant had wrongly pleaded guilty to a conviction, that carried no penalty and that could not be appealed against. Instead, it was used to have the Claimant struck off the Register of Veterinary Surgeons. Other, more serious allegations, were dismissed following cross examination.
35. Taking the long-term point of view, regarding the full suite of bullying incidents, this one must not be struck out in a civil claim for damages for unrelated charges, arising from the same incident, that lead to the expensive but successful defence on more serious malicious prosecutions.

Para 9 of Action 101741

36. In the   Llantwit Major by pass incident, today’s trial judge has already refused to recuse himself when he dismissed the Crown Court appeal (refused road side breath test) by not accepting the Claimant’s GP’s medical evidence, in his absence, indicating he was recovering from an operation. Consultant’s information was also not accepted by the Defendant as would be expected in a bullying case. The Defendant lied at the RCVS hearing, altering substantial matters of fact. The Defendant tendered a far lesser charge, part heard, that of ‘obstruction’ but discarded by the Claimant.

Para 11 in Action 101741

37. Regarding the Newport Road incident: a guilty plea due to the fear of the Claimant’s life could only be appealed against, once the overhead road and custody videos disclosure, the latter still undisclosed. This cannot be a reason for preventing civil redress, especially as the Defendant continues to fail to identify countless police officers in the hundred or so incidents. In this particular one, the Defendant produced only custody video with the tape obliterated from above waist level, preventing the Claimant obtaining collar numbers or face detection of those who assaulted him in both Rumney and Roath police stations, Cardiff.
38. The video issue, para 100 onwards: the Claimant did not get the overhead video in time to put as argument to change his guilty plea. Interestingly, differently composed magistrates and clerk of the court refused to change the plea, as unequivocal,  despite no evidence tendered by the Crown! Custody record is still undisclosed and part mutilated BECAUSE the Claimant was severely manhandled in both police stations. This incident is thus an essential link in the chain of bullying incidents.
39. The Defendant never gave evidence due to the guilty plea, obtained under duress and at the RCVS, years later, lied as to the facts (see transcript). For the trial judge not to allow this matter to go, to the strict proof thereof, is unfair, as, again, four other, some more serious allegations, were later withdrawn in court despite all carrying guilty pleas!

Para 2 in Action CF204141

40. Regarding the Cowbridge Show: nefarious conduct displayed by Crown Prosecutors, on oath, their failure to disclose or properly inform the Claimant he need only be ‘bound over to keep the peace’, a ‘conviction’ expunged from his record after twelve months and so not affecting the RCVS, was the only reason for his arrest and detention overnight.
41. It cannot be discarded for substituted statutory charges of an earlier incident in the day, NOT PART OF THE REASON FOR HIS ARREST and that were only were drafted months later. The Crown Prosecutor, for the appeal admitted in writing, to the RCVS, the first blow was given by a retired police inspector who struck the Claimant severely across the face, only for the Claimant to be knocked to the ground, from behind, by a heavier than him security guard who, in turn, many months later, claimed financial compensation.
42. A different Crown Prosecutor of a different court, therefore, pressed for a conviction on the Claimant for common assault! Again, an important link in the chain of bullying incidents called organisational harassment. This includes the falsification of the original police documents, four versions, no less, of the common law offence of ‘breach of the peace’ went before both crown prosecutors and clerks but withheld from both the magistrates and the Claimant.
43. The original prosecutor, Jackie Seal, much later, when facing examination by the Claimant in his Cardiff Crown Court application for Abuse of Process, refused to answer questions as she said “it may incriminate myself”. The Defendant was well aware of the falsified and altered court records as the arresting officer wrote them long hand and the fifth copy was even altered after his conviction.
44.  The Barry case was mysteriously adjourned in a matter of a few seconds from opening, for no given reason, only for it, months later in Bridgend, with new unrelated statutory offences only to be withdrawn, unbeknown to the Claimant, following the persuasion of the court clerk, over the lunch hour, that should the Claimant defend it, he faced a mandatory prison sentence.
45. The three new statutory offences were then handed to the Claimant by the court clerk, the Claimant being denied time to understand or call witnesses and heard immediately. This racially motivated example of malice, false imprisonment and organisational harassment, against a member of the public, just trying to defend himself, should be allowed Remedy in a British court of law.
46. As with the 4th, 5th and 6th Actions, all these above six incidents are 'fact sensitive' and should proceed to trial.
47.  The transcripts, court and CPS contemporaneous files, covering all eight separate court hearings, proved before the then Recorder of Cardiff, HHJ Roderick Evans QC, that many were falsified documents and are exhibits in the case. Political expediency should not prejudice this application.

B. Including the 4th Action means Unusual Types of Harassment

48. The 4^th action is more than a sample of evidence as it tries to respond to the intensified development of organisational harassment into multi-agency harassment.
49. In particular, the 4^th action highlights how failed disclosure is part of the malicious intent, resulting in severe contraventions of the Claimant’s human rights.
50. But as a sample of evidence, it is essential for finding facts for the basis of harassment, organisational harassment and multi-agency harassment. According to the malicious intent of the Defendant, the actions should have ended with either a corpse or imprisonment for life.
51. In the same pace as the types of harassment by the Defendant intensified, the civil actions in Court by the Claimant to cover more and more complex and unusual issues, over a time that seems to be indefinite, unless it is ended by the Claimant's death. 
52. Hence it is of paramount importance to adopt a holistic view and consider the cumulative effect of spiralling harassment, by taking into account the change of intensity and severity of claims that were formulated since the 1st action.
    

C. MAPPA meant Bullying Tactics for Indefinite Harassment and Political Asylum

53. It was the combination of the ‘licence to kill’ of the leaked MAPPA document and the Warrant for Arrest issued on 2^nd November 2010 that led the Claimant to go through the process of asylum applications in Alderney and France, instead of being near his families in the month before Christmas.
54. The MAPPA issue comprises the following aspects:

·        Arbitrary date setting for both start and finish

·        Arbitrary categorisation of the Claimant who never was an Offender in the first place

·        Non-compliance with supplying the rightful information to the Claimant

·        Hugely trumped up charges since the sale of the machine gun had been made public on the Claimant’s website

·        Huge emotional over-reactions resulted in ‘over the top’ actions by the Defendant, such as an armed helicopter police raid

·        The collusion between various agencies resulted in the delay of court proceedings as well as their interference

·        The collusion also resulted in non-acceptance of individual responsibility, let alone liability for any compensation, a dangerous trend in legislation, of late, in recent governments.

 

D.    Withholding Medical Records is the Result of Multi-Agency Collusion

55. The current action has already been severely affected by the worsening health condition of the Claimant.
    
56. However, instigated by the Defendant, MAPPA became the basis for a sequence of events that can only be described as one of malice and malicious intent by all players involved:

·        Dr Tegwyn Williams, Director of Caswell Clinic claiming the Claimant had ‘significant brain damage’ but not releasing the evidence recommending to the court the Claimant be incarcerated in Broadmoor.

·        HM Prison Cardiff, under whose care the Claimant was, failed to disclose, contrary to court order, the audit trail of HM Court Service and prisoner correspondence proving good service of a £50,000 claim for another false imprisonment.

·        Dr. Sissling, the CEO of the NHS who does not respond to requests

·        The Crown Prosecution who has records but does not release them

·        The Defendant who has them, too, but does not release them.

57. The visible ageing and medical deterioration of the Claimant during this intensification of harassment strategies and tactics, that extended into his professional income as well as the progression of his civil actions, should encourage anybody reading this document also to adopt a helicopter and long-term view, in those legal terms that relate to life, quality of life, fundamental freedoms and human rights.

“It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong”. -- Voltaire (1694 –1778)     Date: 20^th December, 2010 

Written by Sabine K McNeill

McKenzie Friend and Web Publisher

www.victims-unite.net – www.mauricejohnkirk.wordpress.com

 

On behalf of

Maurice J Kirk BVSc [On morphine sulphate since 23rd August 2010]
Puits aux Papillons
St Doha

22230 Merdrignac

Brittany

France

maurice@kirkflyingvet.com - www.kirkflyingvet.com

Asylum Application by British Subject to France's Authorities, 10^th Dec 1020

Please sign our ON LINE PETITION HERE

THREAT TO KILL  On 22^nd June 2009, Maurice John Kirk was arrested by armed police unit, using a helicopter in St Donats, Vale of Glamorgan. The leaked memos here of 8^th June 2009 MAPPA (Multi Agent Public protection Arrangements) meeting and now the release of an ‘Executive Summary', obtained by 30^th November 2010 County Court Order [CF101741 + two others], reveal there was a South Wales Police policy that Mr Kirk was likely to be shot, should he attempt 'mutual exchange of documents', of witness statements, in his eighteen year running civil action, against the South Wales Police Chief Constable, Barbara Wilding, for malicious prosecutions, false imprisonments and failure to investigate crime against himself, his veterinary business and his family.

FALSIFIED PSYCHIATRIC REPORT  Mr Kirk was jailed on a fabricated allegation that he was ‘in possession and trading in machine guns with live ammunition'. Falsified psychiatric reports were used to first section him under Section 35 of the 1983 Mental Health Act, without even an examination. Once inside South Wales Police's forensic psychiatric prison, Caswell Clinic, Bridgend, HM Partnership set about the task of obtaining two required signatures, of level 12 forensic psychiatrists, for a Section 41 or similar, to imprison him for life. This was necessary to avoid the machine gun trial and the pending civil action, requiring the cross examination of well over one hundred witnesses, mainly either serving or retired policemen.

FALSIFIED MEDICAL RECORDS BEFORE CROWN COURT  Unable to find a second doctor's signature, no less than ten judges refused Mr Kirk bail, despite contradictory evidence, on oath, by HM Crown Prosecutors. Both Professor Roger Wood and Dr Tegwyn Williams tendered evidence before a Cardiff Crown Court, on the 2^nd December 2009, with the official tape recorder switched off and HM Court Service instructed not to release the official court log of the proceedings. All this was in the absence of Maurice Kirk, not legally represented, as he was locked up in the cells beneath his own court.

FALSIFIED MAPPA LEVEL 3 TO VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ATTEMPTS  Failure to get Mr Kirk transferred to Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Prison, for Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP), by CPS barrister Richard Twomlow, another MAPPA meeting was convened for the 17^th December, at the Caswell Clinic, to cancel his MAPPA level 3, terrorist level. Instead the Welsh Authorities pursued all that was left, to stop the civil trial beginning, i.e. the registration of Maurice Kirk as a ‘Vexatious Litigant'. Here is the document that combines their text with Maurice's comments. And here's Maurice's MAPPA summary.

POLICE CONFIDENTIAL FILES DISCLOSED TO ROYAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS  In 2001 the South Wales Police revealed, following their complaint, confidential but erroneous Police National Computer files, contrary to Home Office regulations, to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. College lawyers have refused, ever since, even to the Information Commissioner for FOI and Data Protection Acts, dependant on 1967 Royal Charter immunity, to disclose contemporaneous notes of their enquiries that led to his name being removed from the veterinary register.

Pressure from Welsh Assembly and Parliamentary members had supported his being stuck off on false information, again without his knowledge, reliant primarily from a Felicity Norton. This led to the HM Attorney General to eventually intervene with a clandestine investigation as to whether Mr Kirk could be blocked, once and for all from UK courts, as a ‘Vexatious Litigant'.

LEAKED HM TREASURY SOLICITOR INTERNAL MEMOS  These and Cardiff County Court internal memos reveal here there had been attempts, without court approval, to hinder all Mr Kirk's civil actions, as far back as 2003, by the HM area managers, first sending some hundred or so of his court files to a team of HM lawyers in Whitehall, only to lose some, implicating, it now turns out, RCVS lawyers who had obtained, in the interim, Extended Civil Restraint Orders ( ECROs) to restrict Mr Kirk's applications for that disclosure

HM COURTS REFUSE RIGHT OF AUDIENCE OF LITIGANT IN PERSON  The current tactic, by HM Partnership, meantime, without the legislation to support, is to block Mr Kirk from obtaining access to courts for ‘right of audience', as a litigant in person.

1. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons have repeatedly refused to allow his application, to have his name restored to the register, to go before a court of law for fear it will lead to the college lawyers having to disclose the contemporaneous evidence that was deliberately withheld along with vital witnesses, including his own clients, by using a Legal Assessor, not fit for purpose, as he was visibly too ill and clearly not competent.
   
   
2. The 2002 case and numerous Royal Courts of Justice Judicial Review hearings since, all avoiding that issue, is currently now before Their Lordships, this week, as the Registrar of the Judicial Committee of the HM Privy Council, is also refusing to put Mr Kirk's Humble Petition before a court of law despite their Lordships' ‘hope', stated at the 2004 Appeal in Downing Street, that he would be re instated, to practise, in less than a year!
   
   
3. British subject, Ms K Reid, of the Court of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Strasbourg, wrote stating the court would ‘no longer entertain' any further complaint from Mr Kirk relating to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. This, alone, indicates the full meaning of the 1967 Royal Charter being contrary to the 1998 Human Rights Act and the real document, that counts, signed 10^th December 1948.
   
   
4. The Recorder of Cardiff, HHJ Cooke QC, in June 2010, refused to investigate the complaint that medical evidence had been falsified before the 2^nd December 2009 Cardiff Crown Court judge, HHJ Bidder QC, the proposed trial judge relating to the machine gun and jailed Mr Kirk instead, for one month, for ‘Contempt of Court'. This currently on appeal to the Criminal Court of Appeal without Cardiff the court logs, as they are still being withheld.
   
   
5. Cardiff Magistrates, on the 2^nd November 2010, issued a warrant of arrest on Mr Kirk following a conviction in his absence for ‘common assault' on an ex police inspector, Derrick Hassan, as an HM Cardiff Crown Court official, when repeatedly refusing, from various people, to lodge Maurice Kirk's appeal document with the Criminal Court of Appeal. Mr Kirk was violently pushed down the stairs on both his crutches leading medical complications and admission to hospital.
   
   
6. Cardiff Magistrates already had medical reports from his orthopaedic surgeons, psychiatrists, specialists in morphine sulphate use and abuse, his current medication and one from a consultant radiologist, all indicating Mr Kirk was not fit to stand trial but urgently, instead, needing a total hip replacement.

HM JUDGES, NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL AND HM CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE REFUSE TO OBTAIN MEDICAL EVIDENCE CAUSING DELAY IN TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT OPERATION

South Wales' National Health Service, HM Crown Prosecution Service nor Nicholas Cooke QC, The Recorder of Cardiff, will cause release of the medical evidence, for the needed operation, because the 2^nd December 09 court was told that Mr Kirk had ‘significant brain damage and a possible brain tumour' causing it to be unsafe for him to ever be released from prison back into society.

HM Crown Prosecution was asking for Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) which carried a prison sentence, without trial, of an indeterminate length.

Maurice J Kirk BVsc  

Puits aux Papillons, St Doha, 22230 Merdrignac, Brittany, France

maurice@kirkflyingvet.com   Tel 003329 628 4741   Mobile 0790 793 7953

Maurice has left his fingerprints and scruffy photographs in exchange for a document that authorises him asylum in France and protection for one month, with instructions for automatic extensions while Paris examines Maurice's plethora of paperwork, as proof of a "conspiracy" or collaboration between South Wales Police and "HM Partnership". 

He told them the two main reasons why he is very frightened: 

1. the license to kill that was leaked after his 12 weeks in the psychiatric prison, Caswell Clinic, Bridgend
   
   
2. the medical records fabricated such that he would be locked away for good for "psychiatric" (brain tumour) reasons; he's been fighting to get the evidence ever since his surgeons have asked for them to operate on his hip. Professor Roger Wood, of Swansea University, frantically re-wrote and back-dated his major documents in this conspiracy, while Dr Tegwyn Williams seems to have preferred the shredder. 

In summary, here are Maurice's grievances: 

• Between June 8 and June 22, 2009, he was 'free' from MAPPA surveillance (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement) level 3 (terrorist), so that South Wales Police could 'kill him lawfully' 
  

• During the twelve weeks he spent in Caswell Clinic, its Director Dr Tegwyn Williams produced a third medical report, the first without examining him, with the intention of getting him locked up for life in Broadmoor, IPP (Imprisonment for Public Protection) stating "significant brain damage" on the last page
  
  
• The charge was possession of a machine gun, even though it was decommissioned; Maurice had displayed it at Farnborough Air Show and sold it over a year earlier. The fact that the new owner got it to work, can hardly be held against him!  
  
  
• The 40-page judgement in his current civil action against South Wales Police gives him clearance now to sue South Wales Police for 18 years of malicious prosecutions, harassment and false imprisonments, but primarily, their faillure to investigate crimes. However, the 'executive summary' of MAPPA meetings that was ordered to be released, also, is a 'summary of summaries' rather than an 'executive summary' of each monthly meeting that took place at Dr. Williams' Clinic, from July until 17th December 2009, frantic to hide the identity of those aware of of the falsified medical records that caused ten judges to refuse him bail. See Maurice's comments on the executive summary.

For more details or well wishing, please phone him on his English mobile 0790 793 7953 before he remembers where he hid that special bottle of Margaux, for a rainy day. 

Flying vet takes plea for asylum to Lt-Gov is the headline of this article which, in the Guernsey Press again, can only be viewed partially, unless you pay for a subscription.

The "handwritten letter" that Maurice submitted, is this statement of witness form.

In typed form, the text is here.

Please note just one page of the leaked report here.

This is the link to a TV programme accompanied by this text:

Former Channel Island resident, flying vet Maurice Kirk - who once dressed up as Nazi for a court appearance and tried to fly out of Guernsey in the name of Rudolf Hess - is seeking asylum in Alderney.

Mr Kirk has written to the States claiming Welsh police want to kill him. He lived in the islands during the 1980s and calls Alderney the 'centre of the universe'.

He's had a long run-in with authorities, including being admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Texas after trying to land a plane at president George Bush's ranch.

This is the headline of a big article in the Guernsey Press today, 1st December. Unfortunately it can't be read fully without subscription.

Am working on getting the whole article.

His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC's 30th November 2010 Preliminary Judgment here.

This cannot be understood without

1. The Claimant's Rebuttal to Strike Out Incidents
   
2. his 'schedule' of 41 motoring incidents.

Whilst in Alderney, Channel Islands, Maurice sent this fascinating and highly original letter to Cardiff County Court in which he asks the Judge to reconsider the basis for striking out one of the actions.

Hobbling along memory lane, where Maurice is hugged by old ladies whose dogs and cats he operated on, he's also applied for asylum. According to UN regulation, a refugee is a person who has fled war or OTHER VIOLENCE in their home country. 

Having read the 40-page judgment, which needs a response within 7 days (!), one must talk about the adversarial system of law being a kind of legalised violence in itself, especially as “the one great principle of English Law is, to make business for itself…”

As I helped with the first document, I feel like writing

"Your Honour, or Dear Judge, (I know it's not done to write to judges at all...)

As a former computer programmer, my brain is highly trained in logic. This is to suggest that the logic applied in your 152 paragraphs of judgment is biased. Biased towards the Defendant as a "public authority". "Public policy"is used as an excuse for assuming that the Police can't do wrong."

I consider it utterly disgusting that "the Law" is used to split hairs between oodles of incidents that one individual has endured instead of looking at the experiences of the individual as a whole. Typically male and analytical, instead of balanced and holistic, despite the "abundant caution" supposedly exercised.   

Here are my observations - for the Court of Public Opinion (website readers instead of a jury): 

1. good resume of Maurice's issues in para 1
2. the Police's issues in para 2 read questionable to me: "public policy vs no cause of action to an individual", "no privately actionable duty of care", "not entitled to re-open". The rat I smell is about "the establishment never acting on individual cases" while, in my view, society consists of individuals, even if they are employed in organisations pertaining to HM Establishment
3. the next paras show his "abundant caution" to take into account that Maurice is a litigant in person
4. paras 4 to 13: the Yorkshire Ripper case and others are cited to defend the Police's absence of "negligence of care" or "privately actionable duty of care" as "public policy" or the "Hill principle"
5. paras 19 to 29 are grouped under "Duty of Care: the allegations subject to application to Strike Out"
   
6. in para 21 you believe that it is NOT the "duty of care" to investigate stolen cheques. I wonder why ex-policeman Albert Burgess writes that it is illegal not to investigate a crime... You feel that malicious intent should have been repeated. Oh dear, what a mistake made by the Claimant Maurice who puts together lots of incidents to prove malicious intent as the underlying attitude...
   
7. para 24: what twists between the 'general' and the 'specific': an individual police officer and the Police as a whole to conclude that the stealing of cheques must be struck out. I can only call this logic "interesting" and distinctly NOT taking the full picture into account.
   
8. para 26 and 27: "no privately actionable duty of care" to investigate crime. What a twist of argument, I'm sorry to say. 
9. paras 30 to 37 cover Liability of the police as bailee of property and/or in negligence. They claim that the investigation and suppression of crime allows the Police to commit further 'damaging actions'. Nice to know. Is it "just, fair and reasonable" to expect Mr Kirk to write the best arguments in the best style whilst in pain and the side effects of morphine?
10. "public policy" reasons apply to ALL police forces, but could it not be "organisational policy" to harass a particular targeted individual?
11. paras 38 to 43 cover Claims alleged to be an abuse of process. Legal principle itself and refer to precedent cases. The most ironic quote is "the one the one great principle of English Law is, to make business for itself…..” LOTS of victims have experienced how true that is!!! Maurice calls it the public gravy train, when the public purse is concerned as when a Police Force is involved...
12. para 42 quotes: He claims however that bif the right arguments had been used or evidence called, it would have been decided differently.
13. paras 44 to 52 cover Claims alleged to be an abuse of process. Application of legal principle to the acts alleged by Mr Kirk. 
14. para 53 to 66: Claim in Action 1 – Paragraph 8.12 4th October 1993
    
15. para 61: "It is also at the very foundation of this case that Mr Kirk has a burning
    sense of injustice about past wrongs. Whether that burning sense of
    injustice is based upon real or imaginary fact is of no consequence to
    us. ….. Mr Kirk told us in evidence, and I suspect will always believe,
    that there is always some form of conspiracy against his interests. It
    was a constant theme in his questions to the police constables. He put
    to them that each constable knew all about him and that they were
    involved in some kind of vendetta or, perhaps cover up of police wrong
    doing or, maybe inefficiency." 
16. para 67 to 77: Claim in Action 2 paragraph 3.1- 12th May 1996 - crossing a white line - struck out.
    
17. para 78 to 82: Claim in Action 2 paragraph 9 – 1.12.1999 – driving at Llantwit Major - struck out.
18. para 83 to 86: Action 2 paragraph 11 – 5.4.2000 – driving in Albany Road - .
19. para 87 to 99; para 114: ... in respect of the other road traffic offences, Mr Kirk is entitled to invite the court to consider a claim for malicious prosecution. I am dealing with whether it would be an abuse of process to pursue them, not with whether they appear to me to be strong or merely “arguable” claims.
20. para 100 to 114: The video issue: Maurice is entitled to invite the court to consider a claim for malicious prosecution.
    
21. para 115 to 131: Action 3 paragraph 2 – 19.8.1998 – Vale of Glamorgan Show.
22. para 132 to 151: MAPPA documents
23. para 143 states The Defendant (Police) submits that the Executive Summary itself should not be disclosed to Mr Kirk, on the basis that (i) it is not material to his proceedings and (ii) that it should not be disclosed for reasons of public interest immunity.