Maurice Kirk

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

How police harassment has led to depriving me of my livelihood.

Breaking News:

Key videos: Here we see Maurice being interviewed in Jersey in Dec 2010 and talking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, in June 2008. Here he introduces himself to a meeting of the Forum for Stable Currencies at the House of Lords, on March 9, 2010. In July 2010, Maurice speaks to the British Constitution Group in Stoke on Trent. For first-time visitors, a complementary and introductory blog offers a one-page summary of his ordeals and battles. Our online petition asks for Fair Trials and Compensation.
  • South Wales Police Chief, Barbara Wilding, is to be Arrested for Swearing False Affidavit

    This one document contains texts that relate to the collusion between the South Wales Police and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. 

    Maurice was struck off the Register of Veterinary Surgeons in 2002 - because of convictions caused by South Wales Police. Repeated appeals for re-instatement were refused. Meanwhile, he was arrested, imprisoned, registered for MAPPA surveillance, sectioned and intended to get shot, as became apparent from leaked documents later...  

    06 April, 2009: Letter to Cardiff County Court about Barbara Wilding's False Sworn Affidavit that relates to 5 Actions of Police Harassment

    22 April, 2009: Letter to John Smith MP about the Abuse of Process Application of 25 November, 2008 Application in 5 Actions of Harassment by South Wales Police

    09 April, 2009: Letter to Clerk of Cardiff County Court, regarding the Abuse of Process Application of 25 November, 2008 Application in 5 Actions of Harassment by South Wales Police

    07 April 2009: Letter to Martyn Jones MP about Malfeasance and Royal college of Veterinary Surgeons

    25 March, 2009: Letter to John Smith MP about the Abuse of Process between South Wales Police, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons & Welsh Assembly

    17 March, 2009: Letter to John Smith MP about the Police Complaint against Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

    02 March, 2009: Letter to Police Solicitors to arrest Barbara Wilding

    09 March, 2009: Letter to Police Solicitors about Barbara Wilding's False Sworn Affidavit that relates to 5 Actions of Police Harassment

    04 October, 2008: Letter to Barry Police Station requesting police incident numbers

    06 March, 2009: Letter to John Smith MP about the Abuse of Process between South Wales Police, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons & Welsh Assembly

    03 March, 2009: Letter to John Smith MP about Barbara Wilding's False Sworn Affidavit and Abuse of Process 

    01 March, 2009: Letter to John Smith MP about Abuse of Process

    27 February, 2009: Letter to Clarence House about the wickedness in the Principality

    26 February, 2009: Letter to John Smith MP about Abuse of Process by South Wales Police

    28 January, 2009: Letter to John Smith MP about Barbara Wilding

    20 December, 2008: Barrister Brief for Court of Appeal - Maurice Kirk v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons 

    13 February, 2009: Letter to John Smith MP about Abuse of Process 

    11 February, 2009: Letter to Penningtons, the solicitors of the RCVS, asking for "Summary Grounds of Resistance"

    For John Smith MP: Random Samples of Proof to confirm malfeasance by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons 

    Complaint One:

    On  30th March 2009 I am interviewed at Bridgend Police station re my complaint of the 26th Feb 2009 False Affidavit full of the easily proved lies by Barbara Wilding......well I thought I could!

    Dream on Maurice, the Detective Inspector Mark Williams refused to take the complaint. But I could make a complaint to the South Wales Police Authority, based in Bridgend Headquarters, just down the road! But I had tried all that more than once, what a classic example of their usual 'treacle treatment'.

    Complaint Two:

    Experienced in these matters of police tactics, I sprung a new complaint about his inferiors. This time, he could not refuse.  Conduct of Barry Police Station he could not ignore, having just been made to explain the current 'ground rules' on what complaint could be taken.

    Barry Police Station had refused to give any information on 39 incidents listed in my 4th Oct 2008 letter, each with a police 'occurrence number' allocated. He took my  statement of complaint for the paper shredder, so I will not be holding my breath for a substantive reply.

    Complaint Three:

    Well, let's make another complaint, I thought, if not just for a bit of fun, to show people around the world, just how thoroughly deceitful South Wales Police tactics really are. I told him how, having complained of his boss delaying writing down her lies by a month, contrary to Court Order, lying through her back teeth, instead, signed her 25th Feb 2008 Sworn Affivavit, it appeared just minutes from my leaving her solicitor's office! Within the hour I am stopped by police and made to produce driving documents, including an MOT for a foreign car!  I am stopped by police a total of 4 times before I even get out of the built up area.

    So I find the nearest police station, Penarth, in order to lodge a complaint....what a joke.  My property in Cardiff had recently been burgled and vandalised. So I asked for the progress on the incident .She promised 'The Earth'  but could not, apparently, even find any record of the incident number or proof the complaint had been lodged....proving the police continue to refuse to investigate crimes against me.

    This 3rd complaint was supported by my 26th Feb 2009 complaint letter to John Smith MP, written on the very same day of the false affidavit and visit to Penarth Police Station.

    Oh what a farce. On 27th Feb 2009 I went to see the Chief of Police at Bridgend Police HQ to establish if she had realised her affidavit was false and contrary to the Fraud Act. The chief inspector said I would not be able to see her, so the only alternative was to make a formal complaint. "Oh yes, of course you can, Mr Kirk" and promptly refused to look at the affidavit or take down a detailed statement. The content of her affidavit is explained in my 1st March missive to John Smith MP.

    This week I am getting some late disclosure of the RCVS/South Wales Police 2001 conspiracy with Members of Parliament and Welsh Assembly Members being named and explaining the bizarre conduct of the 2002  RCVS  trial, refused an witnesses of fact and under the control of a mad man, John Wood QC, just to bow and curtsey to the whims of political pressure from that talking shop, the Welsh Assembly and left wing MPs in Westminster, in the direct employ of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, claiming 'privilege', would you believe!!!!!!!

    7 years it has taken me to find out what this was all about, with the 10 week trial fixed for 2010 and witnessess only now being disclosed! 

    Time to stir my Member of Parliament again, NOW I HAVE A NEW TUG AIRCRAFT TO PULL BANNERS AROUND MP's SURGERIES


    John Smith MP, Labour Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, UK.     CO/397/2009

    House of Commons

    25th March 2009                                                                          Your Ref k/2002



    South Wales Police, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons & Welsh Assembly


    Dear Mr Smith,

    An example of the current state of our UK courts, ultimately your government's responsibility.

    1. I make a ‘de novo' application for re instatement to the veterinary profession.

    2. Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 states I may apply every 10 months and that a public court must be convened within 3 months of my July 2008 application.

    3. The College chairman, alone in October 2008, refused a hearing or disclosure of her reasons.

    4. 17th March 2009 Royal Courts of Justice Judgment has now refused my Judicial Review Application of a clearly unlawful act with the Honourable Mrs Justice Dobbs stating:

    a.       "The grounds challenged are general, vague and incoherent".

    b.      "This claim is traversing old ground"

    c.       "The court should fix a hearing for consideration by the court of its own motion of the imposition of a further Civil Restraint Order".

    Yet another ‘Abuse of Process', Mr Smith, from the 2001 conspiracy of embittered welsh police on your patch with thoroughly deceitful RCVS lawyers falsifying and withholding evidence, all enjoying ‘Her Majesty's Prerogative' immunity to prosecution. Why? The pressure caused from your colleagues, running amok like headless chickens, having been fed false information from a lying Ms Felicity Norton hell bent on completing some television documentary commissioned by ITV Wales.

    It all stinks, Mr Smith, doesn't it, but what will you do about it?

    Yours sincerely,


    Maurice J Kirk BVSc                          

    Copy to Vince Cable MP and


    House of Commons

    17th March 2009

    Dear Mr Smith,

    I enclose my latest statement of complaint to an indolent Welsh organisation, riddled with deceit and intrigue.

    We are demonstrating at Buckingham Palace on Sunday and again in early April around London.

    Demonstrations are being mobilised across the country, as I write, on the current state of UK Law and Order.

    I wish to know what progress there is, as soon as possible, on the points raised in my 6th March letter.

    Thank you.

    Maurice J Kirk BVSc


    Police Complaint against Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons           

    My complaint is supported by documentary evidence referred to in my communications with my Member of Parliament, Mr John Smith MP, to indicate a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, perjury and breaches of the Fraud Act committed by lawyers and members of Royal College Council.

    • 1. In January 2002 I was prosecuted before the College Disciplinary Committee upon the decisions of the Preliminary Investigation Committee.
    • 2. On the 29th May 2002 my name was removed from the veterinary register, subject to my appealing to the HM Privy Council within twenty eight days, my having been refused witnesses of fact or disclosure of the contemporaneous material gathered by the prosecution.
    • 3. On the 19th January 2004 Their Lordships upheld both the ‘findings' and ambiguous RCVS ‘judgment' having been ‘assured' by the College, in five different hearings, that there had been full disclosure of the relevant material gathered by their team of investigators across South Wales, England and Scotland.
    • 4. No RCVS contemporaneous notes of evidence have ever been disclosed to me, relating to either Charge A, my criminal convictions or Charge B, that I had brought the profession into disrepute. The RCVS repeatedly lied before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Royal Courts of Justice Administrative court and Court of Appeal reliant, each time, on immunity to prosecution by the 1967 RCVS Royal Charter which states UK HM judges must favour the Royal College or agents thereof when cited as a litigant in either civil or criminal proceedings.
    • 5. The RCVS went on to repeatedly inform other courts, while still on oath, that there had been full disclosure and that the original material before the 2001 Preliminary Investigating Committee, to obtain a court hearing, had all been disclosed to me when it had not. Discovery now, under the 1966 Data Protection Act, of UK politicians' communications directly with the College lawyers and members of council confirms this was also a deliberate lie.
    • 6. It was not until November 2006, at an application hearing for my re instatement, did the College finally admit that their years of mounting contemporaneous notes of evidence were all protected by ‘legal professional privilege' and therefore need not be disclosed. Again the College was lying as a witness is anybody's property and withholding relevant evidence was both fraudulent and contrary to the laws of discovery.
    • 7. Despite court directions to make the RCVS acknowledge my list of documents requested, (I assume based on CPR standard procedure for discovery of evidence), the College has continued to refuse even to disclose whether the interviews by their lay staff with Ms Felicity Norton and numerous other clients of mine, as potential prosecution witnesses, was evidence being withheld as ‘qualified' or ‘absolute' privilege?
    • 8. Before the 2002 trial commenced I had asked the College, in writing, for disclosure of the evidence gathered in enquiry in the Vale of Glamorgan but I was refused every time.
    • 9. Now I know why. The political threats and interference of ‘due process' by Members of Parliament and Welsh Assembly, one actually on the RCVS Committee, another recently resigned, all based on erroneous information, known to be deliberate, was left to lawyers, accountable to know one, to hide the paranoia so clearly displayed in the withheld documents of evidence now disclosed.
    • 10. During the 2002 trial I was repeatedly refused evidence with the Chairman, a Mr Brian Jennings, finally saying I could not because a Sir John Wood QC, the Legal Assessor to the Committee and me, had ‘said so'! It was plainly obvious, to all, the gentleman in question was both mentally incompetent and his judicial role had been set down by Statute as one of giving advice only.
    • 11. Members of the almost permanent RCVS jury, I now know, knew that their judicial procedure had already been accepted by the College as being contrary to the 1998 Human Rights Act.
    • 12. The RCVS Registrar mysteriously arranged for a van load of South Wales policemen, the original complainants to the College and previously interviewed as prosecution witnesses, to attend court for my defense, contrary to the Court of Appeal Court Order ruling, handed down only just a few days before.
    • 13. The RCVS continue to refuse to disclose the official court transcript, apparently not a public document anymore, protected by Crown copyright, required to support this criminal complaint.
    • 14. I have established new evidence, since my last court application. In order for an RCVS trial, under the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act, the gathered information had to first go before the President or Vice President of the College and then, if need be, onto the Preliminary Investigation Committee. Only the PI Committee can cause a College court to be convened.
    • 15. This was achieved by College lawyers in 2001 who, deliberately withholding favourable evidence, tendered, instead, the false evidence on the PI Committee which was an indictable offence, as all this complaint is, not being time barred by Statute.
    • 16. A 20th June 2001 RCVS College internal memo identifies the main issues before the PI Committee that day that were never revealed either to me or Legal Assessor in open court.
    • 17. Issues included a long list containing my purported police criminal record, dominated with motoring and public order offences, gathered from just where is still to be established. This list matured, it appears, following the refusal by the HM Crown Prosecution Service, in Cardiff, to a direct request from politicians, despite Home Office Regulations 1987/45.
    • 18. Sixteen of those convictions on the list, before the PI Committee, were deliberately false.
    • 19. The Deputy Registrar of the College, Mr Gordon Hockey, even wrote to politicians asking them to use their ‘influence' to obtain the confidential police files from the South Wales Police when external RCVS lawyers, Penningtons of Gutter Street, London, next visited Cardiff police station.
    • 20. My letter of 4th October 2008 to Barry Police station refers and particularly asks what progress has been made in any of the forty one police identified incidents (occurrence numbers) relating to the RCVS's unlawful failed disclosure.
    • 21. I have, to date, received no response from the police concerning my requests in that letter which is placing me in some difficulties in disclosing all the facts for this complaint.
    • 22. Convictions before the PI Committee were either withdrawn before a magistrates hearing took place, overturned at Magistrates or Crown Court, withdrawn part heard or having never existed in the first place!
    • 23. Approximately one hundred and twenty one charges fell into these categories, during the ten years of interest the South Wales Police had in my welfare, while I attempted to run my veterinary hospital in Barry in The Vale of Glamorgan.
    • 24. Police examination of court record, Data Protection Act disclosure on the HM Attorney General and content of letters to John Smith MP, will confirm I now have proof these politicians are still frantically writing letters, as they did in 2001/2002, now attempting to change the law, literally overnight, in order to prevent my applying ‘to practice veterinary surgery', every ten months. A minimum of five years is their target, just to prevent disclosure of their conduct. My family's profession has been ridiculed by this ongoing ‘web of deceit' being spun by those, in positions of privilege, dependent, as always, upon their daily abuse of ‘Her Majesty's Royal Prerogative'.
    • 25. Politicians implicated by documentary evidence, now found, include Jon Owen Jones MP, Central Cardiff, David McClean MP, somewhere in Scotland, Martyn Jones MP, Flintshire and Ms Jenny Randerson AM of the Welsh Assembly. They even tried, at one point, to drag in Alison Halford AM as a witness, a client, my never ever knowing about it.
    • 26. Erroneous undisclosed evidence from A Ms Felicity Norton, before the PI Committee included allegations of a breach in ‘professional privilege'. Hearsay evidence suggests she was in the process of gathering information about the veterinary profession for a TV documentary program, at the time my services were needed, the lady being unable to obtain veterinary help from elsewhere at the time.
    • 27. A Ms Wall, in similar circumstances, concerning ‘her' injured dog having fallen over the cliff at Llantwit Major, had also made an erroneous complaint but, again, this undisclosed evidence, was only put before the PI Committee to influence their final solution.
    • 28. Recent discovery of documents, referred now to my Member of Parliament, reveals that the Royal College falsified witness statements, some of which were served on me, as true copies of the originals, while other statements were unlawfully drawn up but refused by the relevant potential witnesses. All these witnesses were withheld completely from the trial, College Council members present knowing, full well, it had been unlawful to deny me the witnesses.
    • 29. On the 20th June 2001 the Preliminary Investigation Committee, by majority vote, put my name forward to be prosecuted before Disciplinary Committee court reliant on false information.
    • 30. The Clerk to HM Privy Council, a Mr Galloway, refuses, in writing, to acknowledge receipt of these complaints by way of my Humble Petition, to which I am entitled, under the Act.
    • 31. K Reid, female, of the 1948 European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in writing, refuses to acknowledge receipt of any further complaint from me relating to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

    The content of this, my statement, is true to the best of my belief.


    Signed:       Maurice J Kirk BVSc      17th March 2009


                       St Donats
                       Llantwit Major
                      Vale of Glamorgan
                      South Wales CF61 1ZB 

    Copy to John Smith MP and Barbara Wilding, Chief Officer of South Wales Police.

    Police solicitors 

    2nd March 2009

    Dear Sir,

    Kirk v South Wales Police

    The content of Barbara Wilding's final drafted sworn affidavit, dated 25th Feb 2009 and one of Inspector Griffiths, of May 2000, clearly indicate she must be arrested and prosecuted under Sections 3 and 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 before other offences, concerning court proceedings, are considered.

    Do you intend to file a complaint to the police to arrest her or are you leaving it to us?


    Maurice J Kirk BVSc




    9th March 2009

    Kirk v South Wales Police 5 Actions of Harassment       

    CF6141, BS159‐MC65,  CF101741, CF2041,  7CF07345, 8CF02269

    Dear Sir,

    Barbara Wilding False 25th Feb 2009 Sworn Affidavit

    In the light of your client being unable to exchange witness statements and continues to refuse to identify forty one police recorded incidents relating to the two hundred plus incidents over ten years, purely to have my name removed from the veterinary register, may I suggest a way forward?

    • 1. You advise your client to disclose the records, not already done so, still under her control.
    • 2. Advise her to order Barry police to disclose records identified in one of my many applications for disclosure, over the past seventeen years, below, my unanswered 4th October 2008 letter.
    • 3. Inform me as to what progress my complaints have achieved, if any, in order I may call those responsible as witnesses in the trial.
    • 4. You may recall I put into your safe keeping my own records in eighty odd full leaver arch files following the Crown Prosecution Service admitting deliberately they destroyed the court records, despite pleas and Crown Court orders to the contrary. My court records, with you, included the evidence relating to one hundred and one dismissed criminal charges brought by your client and facts about my numerous false imprisonments.
    • 5. Barbara Wilding's Affidavit, obtained by my Nov 2008 Abuse of Process Application, now smouldering somewhere in HM Whitehall, confirms both the police and HM Court Service have also deliberately destroyed the evidence, contrary to my solicitor's requests from 1993 onwards, contrary to judges and magistrates orders and my own applications, directly to the police, exceeding well over one hundred in number, my secretary is about to confirm.
    • 6. I wish those, apparently, last remaining records of my false imprisonments, assault upon my person, perjury by police, refusal to properly investigate crime upon my property and those of my staff at the then Barry Veterinary Hospital etc., etc., be handed immediately today to the Management judge, HH Judge Nicholas Chambers QC, forthwith, as evidence.
    • 7. They are NOT to be left in the custody of Cardiff County Court as they will go missing as with so many previous files of mine while the HM Treasury Solicitor continues to order the rounding up of any ‘new material' in his seven year investigation to have certified as a vexatious litigant [see enclosed HM internal memo from HM Attorney General's communications with Mr Justice Andrew Collins QC].
    • 8. If you cooperate I wish to attend today and remove any sections within those eighty files, not relevant to the five and yet to be served sixth Action, in order to assist both management judge and the trial judge in January 2010.
    • 9. The conduct of her affidavit causes me, unfortunately, also to now call for a further hundred or so witnesses, with or without statements, as they may be hostile.
    • 10. I need to liaise with South Wales Police stations to have interviews with constabulary, tape recorded on their own equipment for me to prepare a truthful account, something your client's advisors to the Chief of South Wales Police and lawyers to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons definitely are not.
    • 11. It has also come to my attention, that Members of Parliament and Members of the Welsh Assembly are implicated in the obtaining for the RCVS erroneous police confidential records released contrary to the Home Office regulations 1987/45. What was your involvement in that when your client, supported by oodles of tax payer's cash, had both motive and incentive?
    • 12. Refusal by your client may lead to applications to the RCJ and Appeal to the Court of Appeal.


    Maurice J Kirk BVSc

    Cc HRH Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales, John Smith MP, John Cameron MP, Vince Cable MP



    John Smith MP, Labour Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, UK
    House of Commons

    6th March 2009

    Dear Mr Smith,                      Your Ref k/2002



    South Wales Police, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons & Welsh Assembly


    1. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons convened a court to have my name removed from the veterinary register for life relying on the evidence of a Miss Felicity Norton, Miss Wall, Inspector L A Collins of the South Wales Police and a dubiously acquired list of erroneous criminal convictions obtained, it appears, by  Members of Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and College external lawyers visiting Cardiff police station.
    2. Complaint made no mention of ‘animal welfare', ‘deceit', ‘use or misuse of drugs' or ‘interfering with one's patients', being the usual list for professional people to deliberate upon when considering a colleague's demise.
    3.  Their Lordships at the Privy Council Appeal went so far as to complimenting me on my only commitment under the 1966 Veterinary Surgeon's Act, that of animal welfare.
    4. Information before the Preliminary Investigation Committee, prior to and Disciplinary Committee and 2002 trial, was only obtained by my application of the1998 Data Protection Act after I was struck off the veterinary register.
    5. The RCVS continue to refuse just what was before them in 2002 and disclosure of the South Wales police complaint enquiry, the College even write, was not relevant .
    6. I was refused any witnesses referred to in the College's protracted and expensive enquiry, identifiedbelow, being only allowed restricted cross examination facilities of cherry picked South Wales Police officers and others summoned by the College.
    7. I was refused the right to serve witness summons on any one, for my defence, including the RCVS case workers who had originally gathered, I now know, favourable contemporaneous notes of evidence, even from a Welsh assembly Member, before handing it over to Jane Hearn, Registrar and barrister for the College and Gordon Hockey, Deputy Registrar and barrister, two of the main players in their game of deceit.
    8.  Partially disclosed material, below, clearly indicates paranoid communications between Members of Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to obtain confidential police records about me.
    9.  Potential RCVS witnesses, many my own clients, were first interviewed but then served false witness statements to sign, drafted by G Hudson of Penningtons, Solicitors, of Gutter Street, London. At least one witness refused and others were soon ‘air brushed out', Austin Psychiatric Hospital Court style, once their credibility came into doubt, as if they never existed.
    10. THE RCVS continue to refuse to disclose, contrary to the Act, any contemporaneous notes that were taken by any of RCVS case workers relating to the evidence heard in the 2002 court.
    11.  Only five years later did the RCVS barrister, Ms Fenella Morris, let it slip that their original enquiry was ‘privileged', ‘absolute' or ‘qualified, 'still remains a complete mystery.
    12.   The protection by the 1967 RCVS Royal Charter, bestowing HM immunity on College personnel and agents, such as Penningtons, to any criminal or civil prosecution, is quite wrong.
    13.   I watched a High Court deliberate this very point of law with an RCVS barrister. The transcript will be on website shortly for web site readers from around the world to decide.
    14.  HM Information Commissioner, for the very same reason, therefore, refuses to disclose any RCVS documentation, at all or of his clearly perfunctory enquiry.

    The ‘Royal' College had told their Lordships of the Judicial Committee HM Privy Council, at least ten times in five differently convened courts, that there had been ‘full relevant disclosure' and then served on me a fraudulently concocted bill of costs, exceeding £66,000.

    1. HM Privy Council have the power, with or without the 1966 Statute, to intervene tomorrow, if they feel so minded but the Chief Clerk,  Mr Galloway, refuses even to receive my ‘Humble Petition' containing this new evidence of criminal conduct of those also under the protection a of ‘ The Memorandum of Understanding between Chiefs of Police and the Law Society'.


    Felicity Norton


    She could find no Cardiff veterinary practice open on a Sunday for an emergency. I was therefore presented with a distraught stranger and a dying cat needing immediate hospitalisation and 24 hour critical care with no access to medical history.

    Following the demise of the cat Ms Norton, anxious to promote a TV documentary on ‘24 hour cover in the veterinary profession', caused well over two hundred letters to be written, at least, that I now know about, to anyone conceivably remote enough to assist in my name being removed from the veterinary register even phoning politicians and council members for the college on their home numbers!

    Even after I had been referred to the Disciplinary Committee, on her false information before the Preliminary Investigation Committee,  even more statements were drafted for her, should the first not stand the test of proof!

    Should the first disciplinary committee hearing fail, this lady, I am told now, while pursuing all but the Arch Bishop of Canterbury on the matter, was ready to give evidence on yet another re interview in a Cardiff hotel.

    She as with the College case workers, holding my ‘character witness evidence' for re instatement, refuse to voluntarily appear on my behalf in my seventh application court hearing to be re instated as a practicing veterinary surgeon.

    The RCVS continues to refuse my applications, contrary to their own drafted 2004 statute, drawn up by the very same members of Royal College Council who had earlier communicated with Ms Norton, police and other alleged complainants back in 2001, like Ms Wall,  their documentation, incidentally, having been carefully  withheld from the 2002 Disciplinary Committee hearing and now despite my  Data Protection Act Application.

    Just how incestuous, Mr Smith, does this case have to become for you to act on my behalf?

    The RCVS can never allow an oral hearing, yet alone ‘character witnesses' for fear of the consequences now that it is known so many politicians were active in the enquiry.  No wonder I was refused and witnesses or access to the RCVS investigation.

    Extract from RCVS records partially disclosed  under the 1998 Act.

    1.    6th July MJK explaining and asking Jon Owen Jones MP, Labour Member for Central Cardiff, for help on ‘24 hour service difficulties within the profession', in the light of ‘learned helplessness' rife in our society, having been first introduced  in 1946 by HM government of the day. MJK received no reply.
    2. 10th July 2000 Ms Norton's Complaint Form to RCVS
    3. 21st July RCVS internal memo reveals Ms Norton's true agenda.
    4. 3rd August 2000 Jon Owen Jones MP to RCVS letter pressing the College to prosecute me, enclosing thirty five press cuttings!

    Mr Jones was one of the almost permanent RCVS lay jury members, contrary to the 1998 Human Rights Act, available to sit on my disciplinary committee hearing due that very September.

    1. 24th Aug 2000 Ms Jenny  Randerson, Lib Dem AM, letter pressing the RCVS to  ‘explore' the thirty odd enclosed newspaper cuttings provided by Ms Norton, in order to prosecute me.
    2. 4th Sept 2000 RCVS letter asking Ms Jenny Randerson, Lib Dem AM, ‘for any information she can uncover' relating to my alleged convictions.
    3. 4th October 2000 Jenny Randerson Lib Dem AM to RCVS enclosing newspaper cutting.
    4. 12th September 2000 MJK's detailed explanation, point by point, to RCVS enclosing staff witness statements of Ms Norton's abusive language, verbatim, each time she entered my premises  with clear indication she would complain should she have to pay. Not an uncommon experience for a veterinary surgeon when dealing with a stranger on a one off basis, unable to refuse veterinary assistance for fear of being struck off.

    I have now found time in Brittany to read my own staff and VN two page statement, for the first time and I must say I can feel some sympathy for others who may have had to deal with the lady, RCVS lawyers apart.

    1. 19th Sept 2000 Jon Owen Jones MP to RCVS enclosing newspaper cutting and a ‘new' statement by Ms Norton.
    2. 2nd Nov 2000 Ms Jenny  Randerson Lib Dem AM letter again to RCVS  complaining of delay in litigation and that I am still practicing.
    3. 13th Dec 2000 Crown Prosecution Service letter refusing Ms Norton my criminal record and suggesting she writes to RCVS to ask the South Wales Police to disclose, knowing full well it was all contrary to 45/1989 Home Office Regulations.
    4. 20th Nov 2000 RCVS receive a video from Ms Norton. MJK never seen it or notified.
    5. Nov 2000 RCVS internal memo by Vice Chairman stating  "this case can only go to Disciplinary Committee"
    6. HMCPS letter even suggested to the Welsh Assembly Member that the RCVS should ask the police!
    7. 20th December 2000 Welsh Assembly Member letter to the RCVS confirming there was to be a Disciplinary Committee hearing in January 2001, relating to Ms Norton and expected the RCVS to obtain confidential police records from her constituent's police station. Which they promptly did.
    8. 1st Dec 2000 RCVS letter to MJK referring to Ms Norton's complaint omitting to furnish information gathered or that Ms Norton had caused around four other complainants, yet to be identified, to press for my name to be removed from the veterinary register
    9. 1st Dec 2000 RCVS letter to Ms Norton arranging for Geoffrey Hudson of Penningtons to interview Ms Norton in the morning and partner, Roy Irvins in the afternoon and he would be bringing them their expenses.
    10.  15th Dec 2000 RCVS Ms Penny Butler, case worker, refers to web site content for PIC.
    11. 18th Dec 2000 RCVS Head of Professional Conduct Department, Gordon Hockey, asking Jenny Randerson Am to obtain MJK criminal convictions from the police.

    "If you could use your office to persuade the relevant authorities to release these details to the College it would seem to me that there is an overriding public interest that would make this possible".

    1. 13th Dec 2000 Crown Prosecution Service letter refusing Ms Norton my criminal record and suggesting she writes to RCVS to ask the South Wales Police to disclose, knowing full well it was all contrary to 45/1989 Home Office Regulations.
    2. 8th Feb 2001 RCVS lawyer letter to Ms Norton stating MJk will only be supplied by the Geoffrey Hudson drafted statement for Ms Norton to sign, despite contemporaneous notes taken over one working day in a Cardiff hotel, never yet revealed and contrary to law. Gordon Hockrey quote:

    "Complaints to the College are not normally discussed with third parties and the average number of complaints against a vet surgeon is about 1 in every 10 years".

    1. 23rd Feb 2001 David McClean MP, Lib Dem, letter referring to Welsh Assembly Member's pressure, based on obtuse, unverified information from an apparent  lunatic, all three now pressing the RCVS to prosecute me on the information of Ms Norton's personal phone call to his private House of Commons number!

     Mr McClean just happenened to be the other Member of Parliament lay member of the RCVS  jury  due to sit in a few weeks.

    David McClean MP's warning to the RCVS was that the case, "needed to be ‘cast iron' or he would immediately seek a Judicial Review", "I decided to look at his website and I must admit it is Bizarre".

    [Just how many more lorry loads of ‘devil worshipping freemasons' do you want me to mention in my complaint to your Government, Mr Smith, before there is violent insurrection?]  

    • 23 27th February 2001 RCVS Registrar letter to Mr McClean MP telling ‘David' she is keeping everybody informed of ‘developments',

     "I am happy to notify you if, as a consequence of his convictions, there is a disciplinary hearing"

    • 24 15th March 2001 Charity Commission for England and Wales to Jenny Randerson AM her concern "a veterinary surgeon has donated £10,000 in order to assist in the creation of a new animal charity in Wales"
    • 25 Whose money was it, anyway, that worried a Welsh Assembly Member so much as to write to a government department without first asking me?
    • 26 2nd April 2001 RCVS letter to Ms Norton for Nicola Tucker, case worker, to re interview Ms Norton at Moat House Hotel Cardiff on 5th April 200 there being a refusal by Ms Norton and Mr Irvin signing the GH drafted statements (as with Magistrate Williams and sister, witnesses on the Barry beach, false Penningtons' statements?).
    • 27 5th April 2001 RCVS letter to Ms Norton assuring her that a named veterinary surgeon in her area was also pressing for a College prosecution and that Mrs Tucker and G Hudson would have to be stay an extra day in the area to pursue her other complaints.

    Gordon Hockey assures Ms Norton that should she not pursue her complaint by not signing the RCVS version of her evidence it may not be "practical" to prosecute later if College only proceed with convictions.

    • 28 11th April 2001 RCVS Tucker letter to Ms Norton confirmed 2nd interview took place in Cardiff and that the College "utilised" her list of contacts to pursue complaint in the Cardiff Area
    • 29 Ms Tucker also confirmed Ms Norton's worry that if she signed the typed RCVS witness statement it may allow MJK to be able to examine the ‘contemporaneous note of enquiry'.
    • 30 Miss Tucker confirmed her return to Cardiff to see her yet again and interview other witnesses after Easter
    • 31 27th April 2001 RCVS Hockey letter to MJK cited 4 complaints: Ms Norton, Ms Wall, Chief Inspector LA Collins, South Wales Police and alleged police convictions'.

    Hockey stated, "I do not consider your requirements for disclosure of police material a matter for the college", "and your response will be copied to the complainant" which, the RCVS assures me has always been the case for me.

    • 32 30th April 2001 RCVS Ms Tucker letter to Ms Norton stated that the College was not to proceed with her complaint. So did she sign the first drafted statement or not and if not, why not? Why tell her when her case, on the 20th June, went right back before the same PI Committee, NOT DROPPING IT, but, instead, referring her case to the full court? Why tell her something different? Ms Tucker told Ms Norton, in the letter, the College could not prove MJK was in the vet hospital when the cat died, Ms Norton saying MJK was in court at the time! (MJK, again, was not notified of any of this utter nonsense)

    •33     19th May 2001 RCVS e-mail memo indicates Ms Norton had telephoned Austin..."she blames us for putting her in a position so she cannot sign her statement-if we had acted promptly Kirk would not be as threatening".

    • 34 21st May 2001 RCVS Ms Tucker 4 page letter to Ms Norton admitted that the RCVS had supplied Ms Norton with MJK‘s criminal record and circumstances surrounding each conviction and details of other confidential, some false, information about other complainants and the RCVS gathered material by numerous visits to the Cardiff area, including written communication with surrounding veterinary surgeons writing to the College. None of this was made known to MJK.
    • 35 23rd May 2001 RCVS Hockey letter to MJK referred to complaint by Ms Herbert (Ferret ITV footage, it is guessed) and Dogs for the Disabled, a charity with more money than sense. Despite the court hearing from the defendant's barrister, I had been given permission to put a dog to sleep, they still had refused to pay the modest veterinary fees following protracted orthopaedic surgery on a poor dog that should never have been subjected to their work in the first place.
    • 36 6th June Alison Halford, Welsh Assembly Member letter has been disclosed, far too late, under the Act, as being copied to Jenny Randerson AM an ideal character witness for the trial and speaker on the Home Office Regulations relating to confidential police records.
    • 37 18th June 2001 RCVS letter being evidence that Ms Norton wrote to members of the PI Committee asking and getting further information MJK still knows nothing about.
    • 38 20th June 2001 RCVS Preliminary Investigation Committee Memo, only obtained under the 1966 Data Protection Act, voted a majority vote for MJK to be prosecuted on evidence furnished by Ms Norton, her partner, Mr Roy Irvins ( employed by the media), Ms Walls evidence (dog over a cliff) and that ever could be obtained from of the South Wales Police.

    One committee member, present, caused to be recorded:

    "asked the committee to consider the problems there would be if disciplinary were taken, because the case would be both expensive and protracted".

     Susan Pyper, the lay observer present, comments were also fortunately recorded but she refuses to reply to my letters in the light of new evidence previously withheld from her.

    • 39 29th June 2001 MJK to RCVS letter, following being notified of court action, I state:

    "Further to your previous correspondence I require, for my defence, full details of your enquiries on all matters of alleged complaints and otherwise, especially those that are not before the college enquiry in September. I ask because I have become aware that members of the public, including my clients, have been approached by lawyers of the college, what could only be information to support the college's allegations against me. I therefore require private investigators records and copies of any statements relating to me that followed from this investigation".

    Maurice J Kirk BVSc MRCVS

    Remember, Mr Smith, I was refused all witnesses, refused the right to issue any witness summonses or see any contemporaneous record  of the RCVS enquiry at the 2002 trial. Even Gary Flather QC ordered the College to accept my list of disclosure requirements, in November 2006, in yet another farcical but equally illegal hearing, to be re instated,  witnessed and clearly understood  by Mr Patrick Cullinane Esq.

    I wish you to meet Mr Cullinane and other well informed witnesses of this conspiracy between the police and a bunch of reject attorneys.

    What is my 29th June 2001 letter asking for routine disclosure if it is not ‘The little list' to which the Learned Legal Assessor for the College had demanded that day [if nothing but to keep Mr Kirk's sanity]?

    Barrister Fenella Morris denied knowledge of it, again before court, before Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, now on appeal to the Court of Appeal. Another futile exercise.

     Gordon Hockey replied to my request refusing to disclose anything.  He was waiting for Ms Norton's third or fourth version statement to be drafted  as a back- up charge should the convictions case fail.

    New information that year caused the College to withdraw Ms Norton from the hearing all together there being no procedure to return the matters to PI now much material had been found to be incorrect.

    • 40 13th and 30th July 2001 RCVS letters to Ms Norton indicated further statements were sent to the College by her with appreciation given for her new ‘material' none ever disclosed to me.
    • 41 2nd August 2001 RCVS internal memo reveals Ms Tucker obtaining information from Ms Norton that a new a statement drafted by GH for the September trial had not yet been received for her promised signature.
    • 42 6th Sept 2001 RCVS letter to Ms Norton stated the Preliminary Investigation Committee had decided to refer her complaint to the Disciplinary Committee. But they had informed me on the 21st June and her third or fourth statement, none of which were ever released to me, I now find was dated 25th August 2001

    Ms Wall

    There appears to be little or no disclosure as to how the ownership changed at least 3 times during the night once this ‘Sunday emergency, dog over the cliff' was likely to die, the ‘3 owners' having not been unable to contact their own veterinary surgeon. The ITV Ferret film clarifies the position well, had it not been so mischievously edited.

    The above sequence of disclosed letters of some of  the ‘RCVS enquiry' came to an abrupt holt following suggestions by Members of Her Majesty's Parliament and the Welsh Assembly that they could override Home Office regulations to obtain confidential police records when chasing a constituent's misconceived believe I was expected to work a miracle on her dying cat.

    Enquiry causes me to believe David McLean MP and John Owen Jones MP just happened to be ‘cherry picked as lay committee members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons as was Sir John Wood QC was as RCVS Legal Assessor  when, clearly, quite ‘unfit  for purpose'. Politicians input into my case is worrying and far exceeds what I have so far been prepared to understand or manage to disclose.

    Convictions list

    On the 18th April 2001, it is now disclosed, the Preliminary Investigation Committee were ‘minded' to send these convictions, acquired since 1993, before the RCVS Disciplinary Committee to have me removed from the veterinary register.

     On 20th June 2001 when I was referred to the court for the criminal conviction sheet, acquired from I know not where, had no less than 35 convictions written on it.

     Examination confirmed 16 convictions were incorrect, nonexistent or won on appeal, while the remainder reflected on the statistics specific for the 35 times I had been made to produce my driving documents by South Wales Police , often when about my business.

    Since my  arriving in Wales, in 1992, to practice I ,instead experienced consolidated police harassment, over a period of 10 years, being subjected to around 130 charges brought by the police, 121 of which were later dropped, withdrawn, part heard or won on appeal with little or no compensation.

     The 30 odd Judicial Review Applications that followed, including the most trivial of motoring convictions, were all, without exception, trivialised by their Lordships unaware of the ‘end game' being played out by the deceitful lawyers employed by the RCVS.

     I knew, from past experience, these remaining convictions would be used by the RCVS to prevent my practicing veterinary surgery due to Masonic pressure, even if it meant politicians.

    So just where did these lawyers obtain such a distorted and clearly falsified criminal record to go before the June 2001 Preliminary Investigation Committee in order to have me struck off?

    It stinks, doesn't it Mr Smith?

    What can you do about it when HM Partnership already has your hands tied by your oath of allegiance to it, instead of it being to your constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan?


    Yours sincerely,

    Maurice J Kirk BVSc

    Copy to the Conservative Party


    John Smith MP, Labour Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, UK
    House of Commons

    3rd March 2009


    Dear Mr Smith,              Your Ref K/20

    Barbara Wilding's False 25th February 2009 Sworn Affidavit

    Abuse of Process

    I am in more difficulties being now in receipt of this late but false document to withhold evidence.

    1. 14th October 1993 letter notified the police of a claim for damages by lawyers requesting disclosure and retention of records for the court hearing before a civilian jury.
    2. In March 1994 police still prevaricated but eventually employed external lawyers who, in turn, refused, in May 1994, to settlement suggestions ‘out of court' or disclose previously requested custody related records under the laws of disclosure. 
    3. In Sept 1996 the 1st Action, BS614159, including 19 incidents from 1993 to 1995, was lodged.
    4.  30th October 1996 police solicitor's letter to my solicitors emphasised the need to retain police records of the fifty odd incidents now accumulated, later to exceed well over one hundred.
    5. Paragraph 10 of Barbara Wilding 25th Feb 2009 Sworn Affidavit encloses list of, "documents that remain in existence which are relevant and discloseable in respect of the 19 incidents"
    6. Paragraph 10 of Inspector Sydney Griffiths' 19th May 2000 Sworn Affidavit, relied on and referred to by Barbara Wilding to fail to disclose, contrary to law, states there was in existence then two separate police computer systems, CIS and IRIS that logged,  "deals with all crimes in South Wales" and  "dealing with complaints reports etc" but nothing there not already disclosed.
    7. He and she are both liars if I am to believe information from countless grateful clients from my Barry Veterinary Hospital, over a period of ten years, they working in either as police or as civilian staff in the Barry or Cardiff Police Stations.
    8. Other than individual police statements, prepared long after each incident designed only to prosecute, almost the entire list of ‘disclosed documents' submitted by Barbara Wilding are those that were originally served either on the police or on HM Crown Prosecution Service by myself.
    9. This is only the 1st Action, Mr Smith, there are four more in court waiting, yet to be taken seriously.

    It stinks, Mr Smith, doesn't it?

    In the light of their continuing  conduct of deliberate failed disclosure I am obliged to apply to the County Court, under my November 2008 Abuse of Process Application, to call as witnesses those police involved with the hundred odd incidents and apply for a year or two extension to examine them and take witness statements. In the absence of achieving such I must return to court and make application to be able to call an estimated two hundred hostile employees of Barbara Wilding, including her, to give evidence, again on oath but without prior Claimant witness statements served on the defence.

    For the protection of the tax payer's fuelled gravy train I will again be refused and the Appeal will be ignored in London just as the ones when I was refused a civilian jury or laboured under an Extended Civil Restraint Order for two years just to prevent these disclosure applications ever coming to court.

    Outstanding, also, are the other South Wales Police related Abuse of Process Applications against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.  An Emergency lodged RCVS Judicial Review application back in November 2007 took eight months, because of the colour of my skin, to get to court and that has been on appeal to the Court of Appeal since July 2008!

    My latest RCVS Chairman, alone, refused application, to allow me to practice veterinary surgery, back in October 2008, is also still buried by HM Partnership all ultimately the responsibility of my UK HM Parliamentary representative, your kind self.

    Evidence is being forwarded to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, Crown Prosecution Service, Cardiff County Court and Police defence lawyers for their respective shredders.

    Our letters, on the other hand, will remain on website,, until such time as the HM Cardiff judges  have the bottle to have my fully paid up cyber space withdrawn yet again, causing me, again, to go ‘off shore' to inform the citizens of the United Kingdom as to just  what really goes on in our courts.

    Yours sincerely,


    Maurice J Kirk BVSc


    John Smith MP, Labour Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, UK
    House of Commons

    1st March 2009


    Dear Mr Smith,            Your Ref k/2002



    The South Wales Police face 5 Civil Actions for damages. Barbara Wilding's ordered 25th Feb 2009 Sworn Affidavit, re DISCLOSURE, is riddled with deceit and weasel words deliberately avoiding the Management Judge's Order to confirm or deny there has been reasonable ‘disclosure' of police created documents for the first 3 Actions. Contrary to Court Orders and my 17 years of repetitive applications for retention of evidence there has been premeditated destruction of evidence, including tapes, custody videos and written documents in the control of Cardiff Crown Prosecution Service, South Wales Police and Welsh courts all conspiring in  the routine manoeuvre of ‘damage limitation' in order to restrict a Claimant against HM having  ‘contemporaneous notes' and witnesses.

    Barbara Wilding's  sworn affidavit is nearly 8 weeks late and deliberately avoids the 3rd Action, the case when retired police inspector struck me across the face and watched while an 18 stone security guard knocked me to the ground from behind, all on court record. Police then substituted and falsified new charge sheets, as was shown to the Recorder of Cardiff Crown Court, withdrawing the original allegation of a simple ‘Breach of the Peace' to substitute it for one of ‘common assault' on the security guard, 2 months later, obtaining a summary conviction without summonses even being served prior to the shambolic Bridgend Magistrates' hearing.

    Mr Smith, I will highlight examples of criminal conduct from the lady's limited affidavit:


    1st Action BS614519-MC65

    Para 16 (18.20)

    I am attacked by a man wielding a big stick as he tries to gain entry to my veterinary hospital. I had just been released from hospital from his previous attacks, one pushing me down the stairs in front of police. I was never asked to give evidence for any incident, one including arson and police were again called for this most recent event but, again, the affidavit denies it.


    Para 18 (8.23) Denial there was an incident and court case

    An aborted part heard Barry magistrates hearing for no MOT on a foreign car was stopped due to police perjury.

    She writes, "However, it has not been possible for any officer or member of police staff to identify any documents relating to the matters alleged by the claimant".

    This, despite the fact I gave her copies of part of their own 9 month surveillance ‘audit trail' caused by her vast team of staff repeatedly communicating with the Guernsey and Jersey Authorities, desperate to prosecute to stop my obtaining insurance cover. Despite my identifying the prosecution exhibits used in court against me and named the police officers involved. I cannot release court tape recordings as, apparently, they are not allowed in civil proceedings. Would you like to hear them before they go on web site?


    Para 19 (8.26) Denial there was an incident

    Lawful Eviction of Suspected Drug Dealers from my Cardiff surgery flat.

    The police break in to my surgery with sledge hammer and crow bar and re install the daughter of their South Wales Police Inspector despite my complaints of suspected drug dealing and extensive criminal damage.

    She writes, "I can also confirm that the enquiries that have been conducted on behalf of the defendant have recovered no documents in respect of this alleged incident"

    Almost, Mr Smith, the exact same weasel words used by Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to unlawfully retain the very same class of documentation, ‘under each defendant's respective control', called ‘contemporaneous notes' of the alleged incident(s) relied on for any fair trial.

    Barbara Wilding has been given dates and names sufficient to hand over the police record.


    2nd Action CF101741

    Para 23-26 (5.1)    Denial there was an incident and court case

    Barbara Wilding's continuing narrative  states that witnesses of both CPS and police say, "he has no recollection of the incident' of a disruptive and noisy magistrates hearing which included a hoard of police  storming the building following my arrest of Mr Sofa, HM Crown Prosecution Service prosecutor, being caught red handed perverting the course of justice.

    I had been prosecuted for speeding through St Nicholas, Vale of Glamorgan, despite the police having a clear photograph of Kevin, my employee, as the driver at the time and also having been notified by me, in writing, Kevin's current address.

    You must, Mr Smith, always let these day to day HM conspiracies run their course in court, sufficient for a Crown Court Appeal and audit trail for witnesses to be available, later, for subsequent civil action.

    I have never managed to get the IPCC, their predecessors, HMCS, HMCPS, Information Commissioner or any outside police force to instigate a public enquiry or Judicial Review in the Royal Courts of Justice. Many of my magistrates and Cardiff Crown Court hearings have been deliberately cut short by the presiding judges for no other reason but to protect their lucrative but iniquitous HM Partnership.

    Not one Crown Court Judge or magistrate has lifted a single finger to comment or have either police or HMCPS investigated due, I suspect, to their oath of allegiance to ‘HM'.

    This is the very same tactic used by the RCVS preventing a court hearing, contrary to 2004 statute, for me to practice veterinary surgery because each hearing is slowly winkling out the truth and wicked conduct of the lawyers behind my 2002 trial for the complainants, the South Wales Police, to have me struck off the veterinary register for life.

    In these 2 Barry Magistrates court incidents, with the subsequent arrest of the CPS prosecutor, following his perversion of justice and my written demands the file be retained for independent police investigation not be shredded, you must understand it was but a routine manoeuvre for my secretary, this then my 6th year of sustained welsh police harassment, to both record and write to the relevant departments?

    Having been subjected to invincible prejudice for so long I am in some difficulties now in avoiding causing some real damage to the name of ‘welsh law and order'.

    As for this so called ‘sworn' document of truth I have concluded that it is not what is ‘in' her ‘sworn affidavit' that matters a toss, it is what she has deliberately left ‘out'.

    What about the 40 odd police logged incident [occurrence] numbers, the police continue to ignore, all relating to these 5 Actions, needing to be identified before specific disclosure can be addressed for specific prosecution witnesses?

    If you examined her enclosed May 2000 ‘sworn' affidavit of Inspector Griffiths, the officer ‘investigating' and making ‘enquiries', you may note he has omitted to address any of the serious issues raised in the above paragraphs other than to confirm records, such as my arrest of the CPS prosecutor, were all shredded within 2 years of any incident.

    Politicians of all parties are regularly accused of such tactics but as with the Royal Chartered Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons with its guaranteed favouritism in a British court, as with Members of Parliament they and their agents enjoy ‘absolute privilege'. Barbara Wilding definitely does not.

    So, as I said to the inspector, do you intend arresting Ms Wilding for this flagrant deceit or do we have to do it ourselves?

    Yours sincerely,


    Maurice J Kirk BVSc

    Enclosed: one copy of 25th February 2009 Sworn Affidavit by Chief of South Wales Police

    Copy to


    Clarence House
    London SW1A1 BA

    27th February 2009                              Your reference:  16th February 2009 letter.


    Dear Mrs Holloway,

    Thank you for your reply and its confidential and constructive content.

    I enclose, just by way of record that you are informed, what wickedness has occurred in the Principality since my 10th January letter to His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales.

    Yours sincerely,

    Maurice J Kirk BVSc

    PS Both Grandpa Kirk and Uncle Kirk worked for many, many enjoyable years for the Duchy of Cornwall Estate the latter only leaving the Scilly Isles, as administrator, when a certain past Prime Minister decided to build his holiday home right next door!  


    John Smith MP, Labour Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, UK
    House of Commons

    26th Feb 2009


    Dear Mr Smith,                         Your Ref k/2002




    Chief Officer of South Wales Police swears on oath she has not preserved records  of 40 odd police numbered incidents including theft, assault, arson, burglary, court cases, police break ins, unlawful stopping of motor vehicles, perjury complaints, the arrest of CPS prosecutor, false imprisonments etc despite, as far back as 1993 when lawyers first pressed for damages, assurances were made CPS and police contemporaneous notes would not be destroyed.

    Chief of Police's Defence solicitors were visited yesterday afternoon to suggest it is long overdue that I speak to Ms Barbara Wilding, the defendant in this case, face to face, now entering its 17th year and riddled with deliberate failed disclosure and the destruction of evidence under her control.

    25th November 2008 Court Order for her sworn affidavit by the 5th January 2009 had not materialised.

    On leaving the Cardiff solicitor's office I was soon stopped no less than four times by police enquiring into my driving documents or details of the car. I was again ordered to produce an MOT despite my pleadings the vehicle was foreign.   On the 4th occasion, I had just left a Cardiff police station, having again been told that ‘police occurrence [incident] numbers' are issued for any incident involving the police for either party to refer to later, as to the progress of the respective investigation. My recent reported burglary/ criminal damage could not be ‘found' on the police computer, to no one's surprise.

    By the time I reached home an e-mail was waiting from the same defence solicitors stating Barbara Wilding had signed the sworn affidavit, dated 26th Feb 2009, presumably that very afternoon!


    Her sworn affidavit denies more than 30 serious incidents ever occurred and include:

    •1.    Numerous arson attacks on my property,

    •2.    an  assault on me by a raving man, wielding a large stick, causing my Veterinary Hospital staff to ring for the Barry police who attended, 

    •3.    that Police broke into my Cardiff branch surgery, en masse, using a sledge hammer and crow bar following my arrest and re installing a police inspector's daughter into my flat above  despite my naming the drug dealer tenant, Gaphael and police inspector's name etc.,

    •4.    a Barry court case ever happened when  police photos were used as prosecution exhibits, reporting me for my much featured court case veterinary ambulance, once again, for having no MOT,  there having been  months of police surveillance on this foreign vehicle as Barry police correspondence with Guernsey police and car registration department confirms and  despite copy of their own letters being  submitted to them, naming policemen, only recently to ‘jog the memory' for this significant but predicted further wicked  bit of nonsense from the welsh police,

    •5.    countless stoppings on the road to make me do breath test , disclose my insurance company or rectification certificates being issued {made to produce driving documents 35 times during period of harassment},

    •6.    I was attacked and thrown down the stairs of my own house in the sight and hearing of police and my wife, ambulance called, the man being arrested, detained and purportedly appeared in Barry Magistrates next day when other charges were disposed of. Even a letter of concern from Mr Walter Sweeney MP to the police, at the time is admitted,  as still being in existence,

    •7.     the excessive repeated vandalism ,setting fire to and smashing windows to my home witnessed and reported to Barry police with statements taken from numerous witnesses,

    • 8. of the theft of my very much court case featured BMW motorcycle, in numerous previous incidents, arrested for the theft of my own bike, for example and jailed in Cardiff prison when it had to be a client, a policeman with a Rottweiler, of my veterinary hospital to tip me off as to whereabouts the police had had it all the time I had been looking,
    • 9. Barbara Wilding admits that all relevant police and Crown Court records of one court case were destroyed despite the case collapsing when proof the police had had the photograph and correct name and address of the real driver, my employee, all the time, my arrest of the CPS prosecutor, in the court, being conveniently also air brushed from the record, with the police sergeant, called following my citizen's arrest, also denying full knowledge of the incident,

    •10.   Barbara Wilding deliberately avoids my specific repetitive application on 40 specific police numbered incidents indicating , for the court action, they are non existent

    (This list is not exhaustive)

    This Abuse of Process is ultimately the responsibility for my MP or Mr Brown?


    The Chief of Police relies heavily, in the 25th Feb 2009 sworn affidavit, on the police response to my circa 1993-1995 requests for disclosure and preservation of police records. Police Inspector Griffiths' 19th May 2000 statement, only now released, confirms any police record for most of the above incidents were all deliberately destroyed and the HM Attorney General refuses to disclose the court record/tapes of this very argument for preservation going on in the 90s court hearings, now under his control due to the collection of some 200 court files in 2003 (See leaked HM Internal Memos).

     My lawyers were assured retention of police records as far back as damages were first claimed, 1993, with reminders every year, as example, Judge's Orders and letter of 2002.


    Which is it, Mr Smith, Section 3 or Section 4 of the Fraud Act for this flagrant liar and when is it, most appropriate, to take the ‘law' into one's own hands in the Vale of Glamorgan?


    Yours sincerely,

    Maurice J Kirk BVSc

    Copy to:


    Ps  (I omitted the 18 exhibits in my 13th Feb 2009 27 page letter to you as I wait for a Court Order to make the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons release the 2002 court transcript and the unlawful communications with the South Wales Police to have me struck off )


    FAO John Smith MP                                                                              28th January 2009 

                                    Barbara Wilding

     1.       Today I am informed the Chief Officer of South Wales Police, Ms Barbara Wilding, is to sign a sworn affidavit that her police did not break into my veterinary surgery with a crow bar and sledge hammer and put back the daughter of one of their inspectors in the overhead flat with a local drug dealer NOR DOES SHE HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCIDENT.

    2.        Today I am informed the Chief Officer of South Wales Police, Ms Barbara Wilding, is to sign a sworn affidavit that her police did not take a statement from Christopher Paul Ebbs who informed Special Branch I had been smuggling pigs into the Vale of Glamorgan from Eire in my 2 seat Piper aircraft leading to a memorable court case.

    3.       Today I am informed the Chief Officer of South Wales Police, Ms Barbara Wilding, is to sign a sworn affidavit that her police did not leave my confiscated BMW for 6 weeks, on the road side and un locked, with Immobilon drug on the back seat sufficient to kill a three figure number of the general public passing through the Vale of Glamorgan.

    4.       Today I am informed the Chief Officer of South Wales Police, Ms Barbara Wilding, is to sign a sworn affidavit that her police did not arrange the theft of my veterinary ambulance nor did they prosecute me in Barry magistrates on this foreign vehicle for ‘no MOT or road fund tax’ and saying, “there was no court case” NOR DOES SHE HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCIDENTS.

    5.        Today I am informed the Chief Officer of South Wales Police, Ms Barbara Wilding, is even going lie that her police did not arrange unlawful recording, whilst under cross examination, causing the jury to object, more than once but blocking my Crown Court trial to be dead in the water.

    6.       Today I am informed the Chief Officer of South Wales Police, Ms Barbara Wilding, is to sign a sworn affidavit that her police did not have record, for CPR court disclosure, of some 40 other odd incidents against me and my veterinary staff, most carrying police ‘occurrence’ numbers, their letters always inviting me to quote their reference when communicating with the South Wales Police NOR DOES SHE HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCIDENTS.

    7.       Today I am informed the Chief Officer of South Wales Police, Ms Barbara Wilding, is to sign a sworn affidavit that her police did not know who I was when they appeared to persuade Cardiff Magistrates to my being remanded to Cardiff prison until some passing pigeon ‘recognised me’ NOR DOES SHE HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCIDENT.

    8.       Today I am informed the Chief Officer of South Wales Police, Ms Barbara Wilding, is to sign a sworn affidavit that her police did not conduct a campaign of harassment, leading to my having to present my valid driving documents 35 times, almost all harassment ceasing the very day, 29th May 2002, 10 years later, my name was removed from the veterinary register following their  direct complaint to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons just coinciding with well over 100 failed police prosecutions despite the stench of our current UK judicial system,  NOT INDEPENDANT but controlled by HM Attorney General and HM Government.Oh yes, I almost forgot, NOR DOES SHE HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF MANY OF THOSE INCIDENTS EITHER but her planned retirement before we go to court, without a jury, is unlikely to deter the issuing of a witness summons along with an estimated 3 figure number.

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

    The complainant wishes to make an allegation of Fraud against Chief Constable WILDING. This is in relation to a signed affidavit served on the complaint, which he says is false.

    The complainant has requested a meeting with the Chief Constable, which has been declined by Chief Inspector Smart.

    South Wales Police 27th Feb 2009 record purportedly bound for the Independant Police Complaints Commission, another big joke


    From Mr KIRK:

    "I have been trying to get a response from South Wales Police for over 40 occurrence numbers, identified on Police letters referring to specific incidents of complaint over a period of 17 years"





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



    Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon's Terminological Inexactitude

    I am having to come back from Brittany early just to trawl through the legal arena, yet again, to try and find another barrister, having just found out, lawyers proposing to act on my behalf  at the Court of Appeal, now refuse. OVER THIRTY law firms, specialising in police harassment cases,have now backed down.

    Meanwhile one supporter sent me this:

    The primary duty of the police has always been to "keep the King's [or Queen's] peace".  That means keeping the lid on embarrassing things and explains why people lie, cheat, steal and even murder with immunity--they're allowed to by clauses like the one in the RCVS charter.  Irresponsibility runs through the entire culture and has done so for centuries.  Cleaning out the Augean stables was child's play.

    Draft  70% complete

     Barrister Brief for Court of Appeal     20th December 2008

    Maurice Kirk v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

    I have been refused re instatement to ‘practice veterinary surgery' six times contrary to Articles 1, 6, 8 and 10  of The European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms


    • 1. 1967 RCVS Royal Charter and HM Judge's Oath to Her Majesty demands favouritism to RCVS and their agents. This outrage is a breach of Human Rights Act 1998, even admitted by RCVS and must be exterminated.


    • 2. 2002 Original RCVS Tribunal Hearing, following a complaint by the South Wales Police.


    Charge 1.  11 convictions over 10 years. 5 minor motoring, 3 common assaults and 3 of public order.


    Common Assault Convictions:

    1994. Catching a thief by the arm in my own house with medical evidence, relied on originally to prosecute but following cross examination of their only witness, the claimant for monetary compensation, the evidence mysteriously became ‘unavailable'.

    1997. Evidence from Christopher Paul Ebbs, alone, a compulsive liar with extended mental health and criminal history.

    1997. Despite prosecution barrister informing the RCVS case should never have come to court, Mr Kirk having been first struck across the face by a recently retired South Wales Police inspector, Howard Davis and knocked to the ground by a security guard bigger, than himself. CPS Switched BOP ‘charge', months later, to assault!


    Verdict:     Name removed from veterinary register.

    Charge 2.  ‘Unprofessional Conduct'.

    Incident involved 2 dogs purportedly fallen over a cliff. In reality the police had failed to call me for 90 + minutes my arriving at the scene within 17 minutes of the call to witness, in my clinical opinion, criminal negligence by others, all later identified, when presented with a dying dog having a neglected suppurating and bleeding tumour, almost the size of a cricket ball, in the angle of her mouth. The RCVS took the view my refusal to divulge confidential client/criminal information to the gathering crowd, as I tried to struggle carry a large dog across the stones of the beach to my veterinary hospital, was unprofessional.

    Verdict:    6 month suspension.


    Throughout the trial, ending on 29th May 2002:

    a. I was refused ‘witnesses of fact', including any investigating police, investigating RCVS staff or external lawyers, complainants or eye witnesses of any of the convictions being considered.

    b. I was refused any information on how evidence was gathered, by whom and why and when?

    c. I have been refused any of the ‘contemporaneous record' of that enquiry (even evidence gathered from my own veterinary hospital clients). The South Wales Police was the complainant in 2001, to have my name removed from the veterinary register, having just lost 121 criminal prosecutions against me exposing their widespread perjury and perversion of justice with not a finger raised by the series of judges in the courts.

    d. Favourable witness statements were withheld and some altered and served on me as originals.

    e. Witnesses tendered by the RCVS had fictitious addresses and could therefore not be contacted for the trial.

    f. The RCVS ‘cherry picked' a van full of hostile policemen to be my ‘defence' witnesses my only to being informed of their presence in the building as they were due to enter the witness box! The Court of Appeal had already refused them the right to give evidence following my failed appeal to serve any witness summonses.

    g. The QC, Alison Foster, for the prosecution, repeatedly deceived the court on facts.

    h. The Legal Assessor, Sir John Wood, was clearly medically unfit to conduct his responsibilities in ensuring the trial was conducted in a lawful manner.

    i. The Legal Assessor demanded I disclose to the prosecution team the full content of my proposed defence evidence by identifying my witnesses and their information even before the defence case was opened. He then refused any of them to give evidence even those not requiring witness summonses or hade not indicated they would attend voluntarily.

    Privy Council Appeal, 19th January 2004, Verdict:  Dismissed with costs exceeding £66,000.

    •a.      The first 4 hearings from January 2003 onwards were my applications for disclosure of witness evidence. Each time the college QC informed their Lordships all relevant evidence had been disclosed prior to the trial. This was again proved incorrect in that later, in 2003, witness statements in my favour, one from a magistrate and significantly different to the one served on me before the trial, were ‘disclosed' but far too late for the politics in all this scandal to prevail. It further proved there must have been interviews and notes taken when my clients were gathered up by the RCVS in various buildings around Cardiff, several times in 2001.

    •b.       Since the appeal the RCVS now admit there are contemporaneous records  of potential and used witnesses interviewed by the RCVS staff and external lawyers but they are deemed as ‘privileged' between their client , the South Wales Police, and my own veterinary clients now, apparently, clients for the college! Where are all the Law Society Contracts for all this?

    •c.       The PC Judgment is particularly significant in that my veterinary expertise was never considered in doubt and that their Lordships indicated their ‘hope' I would be re instated to the register by November of the very same year.  So why was I not just suspended?

    The RCVS maintain I was rendered ‘unfit to practice veterinary surgery for each conviction' while the Judicial Committee ruled, in June 2004, I had been struck off for the ‘cumulative effect of all the convictions'.

    In January 2008 Magistrates quashed one of the convictions relied on by the RCVS following wrong information from my confidential police files shown to the RCVS investigation team when records. Police knew they were knowingly incorrect.

    The November 08 Disclosure Order on the South Wales Police, following  my 10 years attempting an ‘Abuse of Process Application', currently being heard in Cardiff Civil Court, will disclose, if not blocked again by HM Attorney General, further information relating to the unlawful conduct of the respective defendants.

    [5 Civil Actions for harassment damages against the South Wales Police, the first lodged 16 years ago, following 121 charges lost by the police, numerous imprisonments after countless court cases and involving some 100 + other incidents of alleged harassment ‘too document heavy' for a trial by jury.

    • 3. I am refused any information on how evidence was gathered, by whom and for why? No ‘contemporaneous record' of that enquiry, for the charges (even from my own veterinary hospital clients) have been disclosed. [South Wales Police was complainant to have my name removed from the veterinary register having just lost 121 criminal prosecutions suggesting unlawful conduct, hence the HM Partnership conspiracy to prevent disclosure ‘at all costs'.
    • 4. HM Privy Council 19th Jan 2004 Judgment, in my appeal, is a breach of ECHR Article 8 re ‘private life' when Lord Hoffman stated, in effect, I had ‘special responsibilities' in society even in my private life. This abuse may apply to all professions. RCVS rely on this abuse today refusing me re instatement.
    • 5. My Abuse of Process Application is being blocked, re ‘Vexatious Litigant' Enquiry by HM Attorney General and HM Home Secretary's department, admitted in court by Government on 31st Oct 08 to be ongoing.
    • 6. I am refused a ‘Trial by Jury' at Court of Appeal in South Wales Police 16 year ongoing case compensation. Police disclosed wrong confidential police records to college staff and their outside lawyers, contrary to Home Office Regulations 45/1987.
    • 7. Ever since the RCVS have refused 'Disclosure' of their gathered evidence despite assurances in court, time and time again, that it would. Apparently disclosure will occur once I am re instated. Police, in Nov 08, now ordered to swear affidavit they have fully disclosed evidence relevant to 3 of the 5 Civil Actions lodged for police harassment.

     Reinstatement to practice veterinary surgery An Application can only be repeated every 10 months. There have been 6 refusals so far with a different procedure each time, almost the same jury each time and specific demands to which I must agree, if I am ever to be allowed membership, never metered out before.  

    1. Oct/Nov 04 Application was refused without a tribunal decision leading to 1st Judicial Review Application conducted ex parte later for me to be told the 2nd application would le listed in 2005

    2. 6th January 05 Application Hearing was before the tribunal with a decision that, although all requirements for re instatement had been complied with, due to my apparent recent change in attitude re instatement was refused. April JR application led to9 both 4th and 5th application refusals JR applications on paper being heard in open court in July 2005 with £12,000 costs awarded ,not even questioned or taxed as to how it had arisen. The Judge admitted he had not and did not need to read the lodged papers of both parties for both JRs.

    3. Nov 05 Application Hearing refused led to a 27th Jan 06 JR Application when an Extended Civil Restraint Order was handed down following an application by the RCVS. This ECRO blocked outstanding disclosure applications needed for each Re instatement Application.

    4. October 06 Application Hearing was refused following refusal of an adjournment to call character witnesses blocked by a telephone call to the Cardiff judge by the RCVS to block the issuing of witness summonses. RCVS used the excuse the ECRO prevented the issuing of witness summonses despite the court being told the office lawyer in the Royal Courts of Justice could possibly arrange the temporary lifting of the ECRO in order that evidence could be available.

    5. September 07 Application was refused by the chairman of the tribunal alone and without legal advice, removing my name from the court list ,for the following week , stating that as I had raised irrelevant issues, my application to call character witnesses, there was little likely hood of my being successful. This led to a JR Application that was refused. It is currently lodged with the Court of Appeal for leave.

    6. October 08 Application was refused by the chairman alone with a letter of legal advice from the current Legal Assessor. I was given until the 30th September 08 to tender information in my application I was supposed to second guess in order for the same chairman as the year before may be minded to list the application for a hearing before the tribunal. A JR Application is currently being prepared.

    Suggested Extra Reading

    • 1. Original transcript in Word/PDF. RCVS refuse to release, used by their lawyers for each Re Instatement application, for fear it will straight on to for the whole world to decide, if interested.
    • 2. Privy Council Judgment(s) [ 7 hearings, 5 for failed disclosure and 2 for taxing of costs]
    • 3. 6 RCVS files/demands and their submissions on each re instatement application
    • 4. 6 JR Orders and transcripts/directions
    • 5. Leaked HM Attorney General etc. internal memos.
    • 6. Disclosure obtained from 8 currently running cases in civil courts.
    • 7. Disclosure obtained from pending criminal court.

    The ‘Balance of Probabilities'

    Whilst we all know both the RCVS and South Wales Police will succeed in failing to reveal proper disclosure, contrary to law, due to the current politics of our UK judicial system, it is just how they have managed between them to have me struck of the veterinary register in such unique circumstances and continue to prevent my re instatement, contrary to their Lordship's apparent wishes, needs to be made public across the world. Who's turn is it next if they are allowed to get away with it?

    Based on the ‘balance of probabilities' if we are allowed to examine what they have done, in past disciplinary hearings before my May 2002 departure from my profession and since with other applicants, I am confident in  the outcome. Alas, the RCVS Registrar refuses to disclose such material.

    The RCVS will not allow reinstatement is nothing whatever to do with my apparent demeanour as court record alone will confirm. I have complied to their ever changing demands, following each JR Applications. It has been admitted by college members that should I be re instated as a member of the profession then their ability to continue in refusing disclosure will become untenable, should I become elected on to the Council.

    Legal advice informs me the RCVS are Charter immune to awarding compensation.

    50% completed but is these are the main bones of contention before meeting. I am about to fly to South Africa in my cub so hit me with the list below or try bush telegraph and  buy some drums !  

    Best Regards,

    Maurice J Kirk BVSc


    John Smith MP, Labour Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, UKHouse of Commons


    13th Feb 2009

    Dear Mr Smith,

                                                       ABUSE of PROCESS


    Exhibit 11. This was my repeat application before the 2002 RCVS Disciplinary Committee for ‘disclosure' of evidence, as laid down by 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act and Paras. 7/8 Statutory Instrument 2004 No.1680, [Exhibit 16] asking as to just how, who, what, when, where and why obtained the contemporaneous notes of evidence and recorded witness statements necessary for consideration of a prosecution to remove my name from the veterinary register (for life)?

    No RCVS lawyer, until November 2006 [Exhibit 6],  referred to ‘legal professional privilege' (absolute) as their excuse for failure to disclose the 2001/2002 years of  enquiry record when different RCVS Legal Assessor ‘advised' the RCVS Disciplinary Committee there must be proper ‘disclosure'. There has been no ‘disclosure', at all, since the hearing.

    RCVS lawyers have repeatedly stated before seven RCVS Disciplinary Committees, countless High Court Judges and seven Privy Council Courts in Downing Street, saying, each time, "There is no undisclosed evidence". Even Lord Hutton's ruling, [Exhibit 15] in January 2003, that there were to be ‘undertakings' assured by the RCVS lawyers to make full ‘disclosure' of original evidence, before my 19th January 2004 Appeal, was treated with similar contempt.   

    This withheld ‘disclosure' of evidence included what was before the 20th June 2003 Preliminary Investigation Committee to have caused the order for a disciplinary hearing in the first place! [Exhibit 3, RCVS Internal Memo]. 

    The 2002 RCVS Chairman, Brian Jennings, said, Line C, [Exhibit 11]  in reply to my request, under Article 6 of ECHR Convention and 1989 Human Rights Act,:

    "The Legal Assessor says you are not allowed to know that"

    This was uttered in the full face of the court and before the then President of the Royal College, Roger Eddy, who had earlier sat on the Preliminary Investigation Committee to have me prosecuted. He put his signature to the drafted para.7/8 Statutory Instrument 2004 No.1680, [Exhibit 16]. He announced to the media, on 29th May 2002, that there had been a fair trial.

    Also in court were three college, two external and two Queen's Council lawyers all of whom remained silent, on the matter of this ‘refused disclosure', throughout the four month trial knowing, every day, the court was being conducted in  an unlawful manner. RCVS lawyers falsified witness statements, hiding my own clients from giving evidence, refusing me any ‘witnesses of fact' and knowing the Legal Assessor's job was completely independent and only to ‘advise' either party, not to ‘order'.

    The prosecution legal team were even so bold, under ‘HM immunity' to prosecution, to ‘represent' the Legal Assessor at the 2002 Court of Appeal to again block service of summonses on relevant witnesses, the evidence from whom would, also, have further uncovered the conspiracy between the South Wales Police and RCVS enquiry team that  operated across South Wales.

    Recent admission by HM Treasury Solicitor causes me to include the HM Attorney General's name to these years of ‘Abuse of Process' started shortly after my arrival, in 1991, to practice veterinary surgery in the Principality of Wales.

    Due to obvious medical reasons this retired High Court Judge, employed by the same RCVS lawyers, to be Legal Assessor, was unfortunately, see official transcript, clearly ‘unfit for purpose' to ensure that court proceedings were conducted in a lawful manner.

    Her Majesty's Privy Council was Statutory and ‘HM' power to cause an enquiry.

    This Abuse of Process is ultimately the responsibility of Parliament.

    HM Conundrum

    Further to our constructive meeting and my 4th, 8th ,10th and 11th Feb letters on this matter let us first ‘knock on the head' this long running ‘All British' fraudulent nonsense of ‘HM' and the perpetual apparent injustice to Her Majesty the Queen, [Exhibit 1.] RCVS 1967 Royal Charter extract.

    Respective UK Governments of any colour, with monotonous regularity, hide behind the title ‘HM' especially when "there's trouble at mill" and things are not going so well. This is exactly what is going on in our courts right now and it is for MPs to take this new surge of complaint, around the United Kingdom, more seriously.

    Numerous ‘HM' Institutions, such as Inland Revenue, the judiciary, including the Privy Council, parliamentary watch dogs such as the Attorney General and Information Commissioner for the 1966 Data Protection Act, Royal Chartered organisations such as the Royal College of Veterinary surgeons and those of the medical professions have, with my personal experience, ALL hidden behind the pleated skirts crying "‘Her Majesty's Prerogative'" for immunity from prosecution.

    'HM' function, whether it is to gather taxes, manage that man made concept called ‘justice' or simply to control those in positions of privilege, like lawyers, judges,  is your responsibility when it goes wrong.

    Our ‘wonderful Queen', as we are given to believe, is the ‘Titular Head of Government' and ‘Constitutional Monarch', there to protect us from the nefarious conduct of others and it is on this fraudulent concept and abuse of process which my grievance is based.

    'HM' is Government.

    Daily ‘HM' impropriety, anywhere in Great Britain, Channel Islands included, is the responsibility of the currently elected Government and the whole of Parliament.

    The UK judiciary is no more independent of Government than is the Privy Council or any other Freemason dominated organisation. The Privy Council, for example, by statue has the power to intervene in  the conduct of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, South Wales Police and HM Attorney General current conduct but chose, time and time again to ‘turn a blind eye' for fear of opening up a  ‘can of worms' and for fear of what else they may find?

    I enclose a statement from your Justice Ministry in the writings of another disillusioned citizen, another ‘litigant in person', no doubt, also unable to get independent legal representation.

    Britain's freedom has meant a great deal to the freedom of people everywhere. Britain's freedom in peril places the freedom of people everywhere in peril.

    We now face the takeover of British laws and liberties by the European Union. A feckless Parliament, unresponsive to the people, has allowed this to happen.

    Consequently I've been engaged in correspondence with Her Majesty The Queen, our Constitutional Monarch. My concern is that The Queen has not been acting as a constitutional safeguard against unlawful and undemocratic power. To serve as that safeguard is the Sovereign's primary responsibility according to the Coronation Oath.

    The Queen explicitly acknowledged her role in 1964 -

    "The role of a Constitutional Monarch is to personify the democratic state, to legitimate authority, to assure the legality of its measures and to guarantee the execution of its popular will."

    The Queen forwarded my September letter to the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry responded by saying that "The Queen no longer has a political or executive role" and that Parliament, not The Queen, "holds sovereignty".

    Since this position subverts the British Constitution, and the people's covenant with their Sovereign, I wrote to The Queen again to ask her when this vital Constitutional change had taken place, and on whose authority.

    MR SMITH, the RCVS know they can never risk allowing me back on the veterinary register for fear it will allow my direct access for the withheld disclosure, as a member of the profession, unlawfully withheld from the 2002 trial and ever since.

     RCVS's conduct was fraudulent, see Section 3 of the 2006 Fraud Act, for failed disclosure and when they successfully claimed the £66,000 costs for the seven Downing Street hearings, mainly convened for applications for their failed disclosure!

     My refused request for the original trial transcript, to be in electronic form was, likewise, was a fraudulent move of the RCVS to obtain money and further costs of £12,000 at the Royal Courts of Justice for my applications for ‘character witnesses', ‘disclosure' and re instatement, the latter being a wish clearly indicated by the Privy Council Judicial Committee.



    RCVS and Barbara Wilding, Chief of the South Wales Police

    Sufficient time has now lapsed since that treacherous pantomime in the RCVS building, in 2002, to prove malfeasance in just too many other ‘HM' departments. Following my Application of the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts on the leading culpable parties, the RCVS, HM Attorney General and South Wales Police, all defendants now, for what it is worth, shortly to heard in another if not farcical ‘de novo' Judicial Review Application, following the 6th refusal from practicing veterinary surgery by one committee member, sitting alone and again, contrary to statute law,

    I enclose the very latest, this week, from both the RCVS and Barbara Wilding, the latter looking for early retirement.

    Extract of 9th Feb 2009 police lawyer letter in our 18th year running charade of failed disclosure.

    Dear Mr Kirk,

    RE:  YOURSELF v SOUTH WALES CONSTABULARY - BS614159-MC65, CF101741, CF204141 & 7CF07345

    We are awaiting the return of several signed witness statements on Action 1, namely BS614159-MC65. In the circumstances, we seek your agreement for the parties to delay exchange of witness statements on Action 1 until 27 February 2009. The Court has not yet notified the parties of a trial date and in the circumstances, we are of the view that a delay of several weeks will not prejudice the position of either party. We look forward to hearing from you........

    My similar request for failed disclosure to RCVS and their 12th Feb 2009 reply;

    11th Feb 2009


    Penningtons of Gutter Street

    Dear Sir,

    I would be grateful if the RCVS Summary Grounds of Resistance be sent in 'Word' as similar documents have been done in the past.

    I do not have the knowledge to convert and some helping me from around the world are unable to open the file.

    I wish to refer to a previous RCVS transcript in detail at the JR and with the HM Attorney General beforehand so could that also be sent in 'word', my covering any expences.

    Time is of the essence.

    Thank you

    Could I have confirmation that College Council is aware of its content and if not, why not?

    You know it is riddled with lies.


    Maurice J Kirk BVSc

    Dear Mr Kirk

    I have discussed your e-mail with the College and we do not propose to provide you with further documents or to respond further to such offensive e-mails.

    I reserve the right on the College's behalf to refer to your e-mail at any subsequent hearing in the High Court or in front of the College's Disciplinary Committee.

    Yours sincerely


    Mr Smith,

    I will donate our English Springer Spaniels to the Labour Party, even my WW2 Piper Cub, G-KIRK and even, possibly, persuade Kirstie to come and clean once a week for you, if you obtain that relevant disclosure that is lawfully mine.

    I will never ever forgive you for pushing out my very dear, dear friend from his parliamentary seat, Walter Sweeny Esq., brilliant lawyer, political visionary, ‘bon viveur' and great family man but your personal assistance in the past has been nothing but exemplary and I am confident, therefore, you will not shirk entering the lion's den, dented a little by the Magna Carta and early 18th Century Act, maybe, that ancient cartel of ‘HM' deceit, licensed to print money and spend it with gay abandon.

    Yours sincerely,


    Maurice J Kirk BVSc
    Marlpits, St Donats Aerodrome,
    South Wales CF61 1 ZB

    Copy Lord Foulkes, David Cameron MP, Vince Cable MP, &


  • Oh, Just Watch This Space!?

    Will there ever be any disclosure of the original 2001 RCVS investigation, to have my name removed from the veterinary register or release of the damming court transcripts and unique legal advice featuring Sir John Wood QC, the Royal College's Learned Legal Assessor?

    From at least 2001 onwards and six times before the Judicial Committee of HM Privy Council, in Downing Street, the RCVS repeatedly refused to release information on just why, how, where and by whom the investigation was conducted and got away with it!. The RCVS had withheld evidence even from my own clients of Barry Veterinary Hospital and eye witnesses, including a Cardiff magistrate, a Ms Williams, present at the incident of 'two dogs over a cliff' that fuelled this war of attrition since my settling in Wales.

    Or so I once thought.

    Leakage now of HM Attorney General, HM Home Office, HM Privy Council and RCVS internal memos suggest a Ms Felicity Norton of Cardiff and others made the original complaint, as a plant, causing RCVS disciplinary proceedings to commence. The South Wales Police, with whom I have had not just a passing acquaintance, appear to feature in this now proved conspiracy.

    My attempts through HM courts, to obtain disclosure of evidence, to which I am entitled, have been blocked by each successive HM representative. The HM Court of Appeal in 2002 refused me any defence witnesses at all, including Felicity Norton. Mr Justice Sullivan gave no reason other than Sir John Wood QC said so!

    Then the RCVS, at the reconvened court, a few days later, produced a van load of policemen as my ‘defence witnesses' having served on me the magistrate's witness statement, Ms Williams had never even seen or later agreed with!

    After seven tedious years of having to climb down into the gutter to argue, in the pursuit of facts, HM Partnership has now been carefully winkled out from ‘behind locked doors' for the tax payer to decide for themselves. Most ‘litigants in person' for years have been saying my case is yet another example of multimillion fraud in our courts reliant on the awesome umbrella of immunity, the 'HM gravy train'.

    HM Attorney General, HM Treasury Solicitor, Data Protection Act Information Commissioner, RCVS external lawyers and in house lawyers all plead ‘legal professional privilege', all utter nonsense, in their desperate attempt to prevent further disclosure of evidence implicating the South Wales Police and others.

    Please follow the tactics of HM Partnership on this web site as 2009 unfolds, while it continues to ridicule democratic ‘due process' and ‘rule of law'. The Court of Appeal, Royal Courts of Justice's Administrative Court, Cardiff County Court and RCVS tribunals will all feature, my having been refused now access to either HM Privy Council or the European Court of Human Rights courts.

    Before I set off with a road trailer to pick up my old girl of 30 years ago, a 1943 built WW2 D-Day Piper Cub, registration G-KIRK, destined for a flight to Tibet, I enclose in this blog an extract of the 1967 RCVS Royal Charter. Had I read it in 2001, I would never have bothered to fight the string of deceits.

    Had the college lawyers, a member of college council or any self respecting judge brought it to my attention that the Royal College is immune to prosecution due to its 1967 Royal Charter, then I would not be facing losses exceeding £500,000.

    Because of their deliberate conduct, it is my intention to take all of them to the grave. 

More Posts Previous page