Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons police harassment has led to depriving me of my livelihood.enCommunityServer 2007 SP2 (Build: 20611.960)Correspondence with Mr John Smith MP, 25 Sep 2010 21:28:00 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:1597SabineKMcNeill2<p><i>Mr Smith,</i></p> <p>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.</p> <p>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 18<sup>th</sup> Century Act, maybe, that ancient cartel of<b> <a href="">'HM'</a> </b>deceit<b>,</b> licensed to print money and spend it with gay abandon.</p> <p> </p> <p>Yours sincerely, </p> <p>Maurice J Kirk BVSc<br />Marlpits, St Donats Aerodrome<br />South Wales CF61 1 ZB</p> <p>Copy Lord Foulkes, David Cameron MP, Vince Cable MP, <a href=""></a> & <a href=""></a></p> <img src="" width="1" height="1">John Smith MP18 Exhibits to Confirm Malfeasance concerning the 2 dogs on the beach incident, 25 Sep 2010 21:05:00 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:1596SabineKMcNeill2<p>I will now introduce random samples of proof by a few Exhibits to confirm <b>malfeasance</b> or as Mr Justice Andrew Collins would say, in the HM Attorney General's 2003 ‘internal memo' [Exhibit 17] leaked to me, given to you when we met in the House... <b>"(Tab 28) leads me to suspect that (Kirk) is vexatious in litigation in all possible arenas".     </b></p> <p>Would you like to see some of the other Tabs of Collins J, Mr Smith? Not all in the judiciary, you would see, approve of what is going on.                                </p> <p><b>Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons</b></p> <p>The charges against me in 2002 were <b>A</b>, relating to two dogs purported to have fallen over a cliff in Cod Knap, Barry and<b> B</b>, my criminal convictions, which ones and when decided, is still yet to be disclosed by the RCVS.</p> <p><b>Charge A.</b></p> <p>The police could not raise any other veterinary surgeon that 7th<sup>th</sup> January 2001 Sunday morning, so they had to call me, whether they liked it or not, just home from an arduous task of putting a womb back in an old cow, trapped in a freezing wind swept dung pit on Llandough airfield. As I lay in a hot bath, having just washed out the dried blood and excrement from my matted hair and off my torso, I was handed a pheasant sandwich, I think it was, and the portable telephone by my wife, Kirstie, to answer a police call and to obtain directions for the emergency.</p> <p>From the time I received the call at St Donats village to my getting to Barry beach, dressing and drying my hair on the way, with the time being logged by police HQ, it would have taken some pretty clever explaining in a magistrates court, later, to avoid a conviction had it not been apparently overlooked and by a police force so concerned, at the time, with my day by day welfare. </p> <p>At the scene I found one dog collapsed and moribund, freezing cold and in my opinion, near to death due to hypothermia. From the dog's mouth oozed pus and blood from a neglected infected tumour, almost the size of a cricket ball, making the poor creature unable even to close her mouth.</p> <p>A few questions to the small gathering of worried members of the general public, at the foot of the cliff, blood and saliva splattered about on the rocks, soon established the fact that this dog had been found well over two hours before. Clearly the reason for the delay in local emergencies was staring me in the face yet again.</p> <p>Another example of criminal negligence by the local veterinary surgeon and/or his owner. The dog had <b>not</b> fallen over any cliff and what I saw, disgusted me sufficiently to comment. But my client, the South Wales Police, has preferred, ever since, to not even investigate the matter, despite their ardour in complaining to the RCVS about me, locate witnesses for them and attend the London courts by the ‘van load'.</p> <p>Speed was of the essence, if this dog was to be saved. I had to carry the heavy dog on my own and struggle, with my arthritis caused from numerous hang glider accidents not helping, along that boulder strewn beach, you know, with no one even offering to carry my emergency equipment put down part way on the journey.</p> <p>One quite useless police woman was whimpering in the cold wind crying into a handkerchief, while the other, I now realise, was more intent on writing down in his note book, <b>contemporaneous notes,</b> including my apparent passing comment of the local RSPCA branch, the iniquitous ‘Cardiff Animal Shelter', having put their ‘penny worth' in, as well, to cause such unnecessary suffering that day.</p> <p>The RSPCA appeared to have been trying to contact their own, once employed, veterinary surgeon not but a ‘stone's throw from the incident, despite the RSPCA having previously experienced Andrew Thomas relied purely on an indecipherable taped message at weekends for his emergency answering service.</p> <p>This example, on 24 Hour cover for clients, was just the basis of Felicity Norton's original decision {Exhibit 4] to make a television documentary, she having been unable to contact her own veterinary surgeon on Sunday, as her cat lay dying and having had to rely on a stranger, myself without access to medical records and in such emotional and stressful circumstances. </p> <p>The Cardiff and District Veterinary Practioners' Association had been lobbying the RCVS and RSPCA Horsham head office for years on the behaviour of this veterinary surgeon and his apparent irregular relationship with the Cardiff Animal Shelter. Their policy for stray animals was supported by this veterinary surgeon to cause such unnecessary suffering until, thank God, the organisation was forced to close down.</p> <p>Also in the politics, behind this complaint by the police to have me struck off, was that I had recently discovered £10,000 of rate payers money was being ‘donated' each year by Barry police station to the Cardiff Animal Shelter for no apparent reason. When tackled on it, I received a letter from Barry police station actually denying it, when it clearly featured in the audited accounts!</p> <p>This concern of mine of the South Wales Police was aroused only because of their daily harassment when going about my veterinary business in The Vale. Information was given, unsolicited, by grateful clients employed within the local police force. Some admitted to be freemasons, but informed me of other substantial sums of money having been bequeathed to the Cardiff Animal Shelter, but appearing to go ‘sideways' the Chairman boasting to the Cardiff Veterinary Practioners' Association of having immunity to investigation by RSPCA head office [or South Wales Police?] as the Shelter only used the RSPCA name to acquire cash from the ‘uninformed' general public and were quite ‘independent' of Horsham. Déjà vu, Mr Smith? </p> <p>At the RCVS trial, a year later, I was refused L A Collins, the Barry Police Inspector, who had compiled the complaint, in less than a week, for the college but on cross examination of two police on the beach, one, a PC Mark John, said, apart from the rest of his voluminous erroneous material, notes taken at the scene, </p> <p>"<b>We then witnessed KIRK virtually throw the dog in the boot of his car without any care of compassion, he then quickly walked up to Mrs WILLIAMS, took the other dog out of her hands and also put that dog in the boot, and slammed the boot".</b> </p> <p>The other police officer, WPC Ceri Western offered a similarly inaccurate but different tale making me wonder just how many have been hanged or just jailed in Wales on police evidence alone?</p> <p>Her statement, eight months later, specifically written for the RCVS, was quite different to her contemporaneous record and cross examination evidence and included, </p> <p><b>"However, Mr Kirk took no notice of me; he did not even look at me."</b></p> <p><b>"I remember him saying forcefully that if he had been called earlier, he could have done a lot more and he also referred to taxpayers' money being wasted."</b></p> <p><b>"I recall PC John telling them (at the scene) that Mr Kirk's manner was nothing personal towards them but probably caused by Mr Kirk's hatred of the police."</b></p> <p><b>"As he went he stumbled on the pebbles. I was afraid he was going to drop the dog."</b></p> <p><b>"It was, however, quite hard to keep up with him."</b></p> <p><b>"I saw Mr Kirk, when he got to his car, opened the front passenger door and threw the injured dog onto the front passenger seat."</b></p> <p><b>"After Mr Kirk had thrown the injured dog into the car he was approached by a woman who was holding another (smaller) dog. I saw him take the smaller dog from the woman and throw it also onto the front passenger seat, onto the injured dog." </b></p> <p><b>"After Mr Kirk had succeeded in closing the boot of the car, he got into the driver's seat, started up the engine and reversed with sufficient speed that I and the other public had to jump out of the way."</b></p> <p>A passing Cardiff Magistrate and her retired Head Teacher sister, also Ms Williams, gave a completely different account to that of either police officer. They, I now know, were deliberately dissuaded from the RCVS trial by the prosecution. The RCVS, instead, falsified the ladies' evidence using typed witness statements, purported to be theirs, prepared by Penningtons, Solicitors, deliberately withholding the forgeries until just before trial, far too late for me to trace and interview them. All relevant prosecution evidence gathered, false or otherwise, should have been surrendered 21 days before trial.</p> <p>The Magistrate and sister on the Barry beach had written a ‘contemporaneous note', I found out, again far too late, long after I was struck off and only obtained from the RCVS by instigating the 1966 Data Protection Act Application in the Spring of 2003. The RCVS had already ignored, the January 2003 Privy Council's Order or ‘undertakings' to disclose witness evidence.</p> <p>The contemporaneous note, similar to <b>Exhibit 2 [4th January 2005 Williams letter to RCVS]</b>, was stating similar to her letter, <b>"there was no doubt in my mind that Mr Kirk's concern for the well being of the dog was evident and paramount</b>" but this, in italics, was deliberately omitted from their statements given to me by the RCVS during the 2002 trial.</p> <p>[Alison Foster QC had considered with Penningtons and the in house college lawyers whether to remove this part of the ladies two statements and risk attempting to obtain the ladies' confidence by having them sign the typed up forgeries. Hudson was left to palm them off as copies of original statements approved by both ladies..</p> <p>The Williams' confirmed I lay the dog carefully on the seat, neither dog put in the boot. They confirmed on how I was pretty ‘short' with them when they delayed me by asking if I could write down their names and addresses, they being involved with the 2<sup>nd</sup> stray<sup> </sup>(not injured) dog. They confirmed I suggested they give details to the police as I had more urgent matters to attend to! </p> <p>From the beach I left speedily with the dogs, one receiving immediate intravenous and heat therapy with further medication from the nurses later at my veterinary hospital, just one hospital of only four registered in the whole of Wales, opened by your good predecessor.</p> <p><b>What I also did not know in 2002 was that there was little left of the prosecution material that was originally before the Preliminary Investigation Committee to have caused the ordering of this disciplinary hearing in the first place</b>.</p> <p>A Felicity Norton, freelance for ITV, had gathered a small ‘Armada' of complainants, [Exhibit 3] some relating to me, hoping to do a documentary on '24 hour emergency cover' with the outcome of my trial. The college continues to refuse to elucidate just what happened to these witnesses, the other veterinary surgeons complained of or documented evidence and film footage gathered by the RCVS case workers, including Nicola Tucker, Miss P Butler and many others, originally for the June 2001 Preliminary Investigation Committee. They knew just where safe evidence is usually found, hence the importance of production of contemporaneous notes taken, when first confronting a potential witness.</p> <p>I should have ‘smelled a rat' or more, for that matter, before I was confronted by that room full of prosecution lawyers and a QC prancing around in Captain Drake's britches, all gathered just for a simple disciplinary proceedings estimated for two, maybe three days.</p> <p>In the ‘good old days' a lovely, greatly respected solicitor for the college did the lot, well, almost all on his own, a Mr James Watt of Hempsons, Solicitors.  But ‘money no object' is the RCVS motto, nowadays, now it is overrun by lawyers determined to rig a lucrative conviction. </p> <p align="center">Not unlike my experiences, Mr Smith, with the Cardiff HM Crown Prosecution Service, they losing some five Crown Court battles and countless Magistrate hearings, driven by avarice or as Mr Justice Andrew Collins would say in the 2003 HM Attorney General's internal memo, "totally without merit".</p> <p>I am still attempting an <b>Extended Civil Restraint Order</b> High Court Application on the Cardiff CPS to be certified as a ‘<b>vexatious litigant'</b> but still cannot, for some reason, find a lawyer willing to assist. Eighty odd solicitors, ‘specialising' in police harassment cases have already refused to sue the South Wales Police, on my behalf, so finding one to take on ‘<b>HM'</b> is likely to be somewhat remote. </p> <p>In 2001 the RCVS's main, remaining, prosecution witness, Ms Felicity Norton, other than the South Wales Police, was now refusing to stand cross examination on the allegation I had broken ‘client confidentiality', <b>‘legal professional privilege</b>' in another name!</p> <p>The RCVS therefore proceeded to ‘beef up' all they had left and so served on me, even after proceedings had started, the two forged statements, purportedly by the Ms Williams, deliberately omitting the evidence,<b> "there was no doubt in my mind that Mr Kirk's concern for the well being of the dog was evident and paramount" </b>or disclosing the ladies' hand written record or even the contemporaneous notes later, we were told, ‘all interviewed by a partner of Penningtons, Geoffrey Hudson'. Just more ‘porky pies' due to<b> ‘HM'</b> immunity, while neither that despicable Law Society and equally avaricious and devious organisation, The Bar Council, have refused to lift a finger to properly investigate such widespread criminal conduct reliant upon ‘<b>HM <a href="">Memorandum of Understanding</a>' </b>between themselves and the police.</p> <p>At the Nov 2006 hearing, my 3<sup>rd</sup> Reinstatement Application, the RCVS pleaded, for the first time, <b>‘legal professional privilege'</b> to hide the favourable evidence. The new RCVS barrister, a Miss Fenella Morris, as did her predecessor, also of 39 Essex Street, also waxed eloquent to maintain that level of voracity we have come to expect, in her line of work, especially if she was to keep her RCVS and Penningtons' lucrative retainers. </p> <p>During that hearing, my McKenzie Friend, Patrick Cullinane Esq. and I finally established how Penningtons had managed to block my ‘character witnesses', yet again, from attending court.</p> <p>I had told the RCVS court, that November, an ‘in house' lawyer at the Royal Courts of Justice, Administrative Court, could arrange for Mr Justice Andrew Collins, the manager, to lift his Extended Civil Restraint Order, originally obtained by the college on 27th January 2006 to stop ‘disclosure' applications for evidence needed for any reinstatement application, like right now. The ECRO needed lifting so that Cardiff County Court could issue the necessary witness summonses in order for me to obtain ‘relevant character witnesses' with their attendance.</p> <p>BUT Penningtons had telephoned His Honour Judge Higginbottom, without my knowing and persuaded the judge to block the essential witness summonses being issued knowing Mr Brian Jennings would do the very same thing, when I repeated the application before the Disciplinary Committee. It had been earlier established, but only by my taking the RCVS to the Court of Appeal, that Brian Jennings, no lawyer or veterinary surgeon, had the power to issue or cancel witness summonses, the guy who struck me off. Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, in June 2008, now on ‘Appeal' at the Court of Appeal, appeared to rule Jennings and any other Chairman can now list or de-list an applicant  for a reinstatement hearing, Contrary to 2004 Statute 1680, for the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act.</p> <p>The judge from Wales also appeared to support the contentious issue, if the Court of Appeal upholds the judgment, that any Chairman, in the future, of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee, sitting alone, without legal advice, can now remove the name of a member of the profession from the veterinary register without a public hearing or even before the full committee. There is no statute law to support this unless, which is possible, I am slowly losing my marbles.</p> <p>[Guernsey did just this with me, back in the 80s, frantically bringing in ‘knee jerk' legislation to prevent my housing British workers, the backbone of the summer work force for their tourist industry. They even took me to court on the issue of my being dressed in my smart Nazi uniform. It will be a bitter ‘sweetie' for me, if the outcome is the very same as it has now done to that miserable HM dependant territory, the responsibility of your government. </p> <p>Brian Jennings' was privy, of course, to the original, now defunct facts that were before the June 2001 Preliminary Investigation Committee and why retention of witnesses and evidence by him and the Registrar must be maintained, whatever the cost, even if it includes the good name of my wife's, late father and uncle's profession.  </p> <p>One has to admire these freemasons, sometimes with their unchecked influence in our society having oozed their way now into all facets of the British judicial system and without a single shot fired. Maybe, President Bush should have directed his energies in that direction as well for the equally dangerous and foreseeable danger, his forerunner, having been my school boy hero with Military Cross, the Honourable Member for Wolverhampton West.   </p> <p><b>What the RCVS will not ‘come clean' about is that their own case workers interviewed most witnesses and not one of them was a lawyer pleading but now openly ‘legal professional privilege' to flaunt statute law.  </b></p> <p>It did not end there, far from it. The Gregson couple, my own clients, see <b>Exibit 10</b>, had made statements also that I never saw, and to make sure I could not interview them, the RCVS forged false but fictitious addresses, so the Gregsons could not be identified as my own clients! The police, when contacted for help, refused to cooperate when they already had the correct address in the policeman's notebook on the beach. After I was struck off, I traced the Gregsons and the Williams sisters and with their alarm caused the RCVS to write still further distorted false information, in January 2005, Deputy Registrar, a Mr Brian Hockey, lawyer treating us as if we had all ‘just crawled out from under a stone'.</p> <p>[I paid Mr Hockey an unofficial visit much earlier in any of these proceedings against me because I could not establish the reasons for all this onslaught. I had warned him of what was to come, if he did not ‘get off my back', we both knowing the police harassment and 21 false imprisonments in Guernsey originated in Taunton, Somerset, in the mid 70s following the ignominious Crown Court trial, where I offered no evidence, surrounding the apparent loss of the Chief Superintendant's notebook, he just happening to be Grand Master of some local devil worshipping cult].  </p> <p>If the freemasons ever allow proper disclosure from the RCVS, Mr Smith, you will find barrister, Miss Morris, had yet another one of her ‘brief' misunderstandings, she repeated at seven court appearances, arguing ‘legal professional privilege' when, as I have said, it was the lay staff of the college and Barry police that mainly took the statements around your constituency of the Vale of Glamorgan, while Geoffrey Hudson had his ‘cozy chat' and cup of tea with Barbara Wilding's predecessors in your police station.</p> <p>[Barbara Wilding is aware of my CPR Part 31 disclosure Application on this matter of confidential police files being shown to a third party, without my or other witnesses' consent, so hence the reason for her current preparation of a sworn affidavit to be stating, "I have no knowledge of any of the incidents raised by Mr Kirk."]</p> <p>At the 2002 hearing the Disciplinary Committee ruled I was to be suspended for 6 months for, especially, my ‘reluctance to disclose' the medical treatment for the dog(s) on the beach and later treatment in my Veterinary Hospital.</p> <p>The court record confirms for you to read, <b>if you can get me one</b>, Sir John Wood QC, had already refused ‘disclosure' of my medical records despite threats at me, if I did not  disclose, from Brian Jennings, the Chairman, still ringing in the public gallery's ears and noted, incidentally, by a journalist veterinary surgeon extrordinaire.</p> <p>The lawyers watched the ‘Punch and Judy show' with amusement, as they thought the last nail in my coffin was finally being hammered down. </p> <p>Wood, Jennings, the whole Disciplinary Committee and umpteen lawyers present knew or should have known, the original reason for having the hearing from the PI Committee being just this, my breach of, to borrow Fenella's excuse, ‘<b>legal professional privilege'</b>.</p> <p>But<b> ‘the medical records were the property of my client'</b>, the college's client, for withheld disclosure purposes, in this bizarre case, the original complainants, the South Wales Police.</p> <p>Was I expected to spell it out to them and run the risk of alienation? Was it for me to raise the issue of ‘qualified' or ‘absolute' privilege preventing evidence to go before the court and if the police were, now confirmed by Barrister Ms Morris, clients of the college lawyers, where is the proof of contract set down by the Law Society and when did money change hands, who paid whom and exactly for what?</p> <p>Delivering the RCVS's court verdict and ‘brief reasons' I reminded, for the tape, in the presence of Sir John Wood that he had ordered the court the medical records could not be disclosed. I never established exactly why, but as the Poet Laureate said in circa 1700</p> <p>"There is a pleasure sure in being mad that none but mad men know."</p> <p>Pure Enid Blyton stuff, if was not so very serious for one and five other equally culpable lawyers in court all laughing, all the way to the bank, the very same lawyers that are now refusing to say what all this has cost, to date, for the hard working veterinary surgeons out in the field.</p> <p>So much, Mr Smith, for ‘<b>HM' immunity,</b> don't you think, with our ever expanding legal trade dependant on ‘<b>HM Partnership'</b> and the ‘<b><a href="">Memorandum of Understanding between Chiefs of Police and the Law Society</a>'?</b></p> <p>At the 19<sup>th</sup> January 2004 Privy Council Appeal, my wife in attendance (to kick me in the shins, if I started to repeat myself or be frank, in utter frustration) I asked again for the failed disclosure, there being no investigation notes at all having been released relating to the charges  and as predicted, Alison Foster QC lied yet again and is indicated in the extract of their Lordships deliberations earlier, [Exhibit 15]  careful not to embarrass a fellow ‘colleague' with the truth.</p> <p>There is only one truth, a fact I, at least, find easy to understand. </p> <p>Now that was not all, Mr Smith. Before the six or seven PC trials were over, statements by local veterinary surgeons, relating to my debacle with the college, were still hidden somewhere in the shelves of Gutter Street. </p> <p>One veterinary surgeon, John James, who was late in being investigated [The prosecuting Borough Council, counsel, did not know Mr James also had a veterinary surgery in Llantwit Major until the trial had started!] as to the cause of ‘clinical waste left in a black bag in Llantwit Major', Charge B, Mr James apparently falsifying a ‘veterinary certificate' to the prosecution signing that neither he nor his staff had dropped the bag. He was let completely off the hook by the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council and there is not breach of the Race Relations Act?</p> <p><b>Even on the County Council prosecution</b> ‘<b>findings', that the batch numbers on two empty cat vaccine bottles matched his Centaur Services delivery</b> <b>note, then</b> <b>if that isn't racist then what is?</b></p> <p>Once the RCVS realised all they had left to throw at me, once Ms Felicity Norton's film set entourage were found to be erroneous, unreliable and only in it for the cash, no action was taken even for the falsification of the veterinary certificate, many others have been struck off for.</p> <p>At my Privy Council Appeal I reminded their Lordships nearly all professional people were struck off for one or more of three main reasons:</p> <ol><li>Dishonesty</li><li>Use or Misuse of drugs</li><li>Interfering with their clients/patients.</li></ol> <p>I had been in Wales now ten years and not one of these allegations had featured in the prosecution's case.</p> <p>In reply to Lord Hoffman's question, "why the ‘trivial motoring convictions" had been included the QC could only say, "Due to Mr Kirk's disrespect for authority"</p> <p>I had said, at an earlier hearing "The law is only as good as the integrity of those entrusted to administer it". This hearing produced a judgment stating unequivocal ‘hope' by their lordships that I be re instated within twelve months, the earliest the law would allow.</p> <p>I did not know at the Downing Street Appeal that the RCVS had entered the local South Wales Police station and had examined confidential police files, contrary to Home Office Regulations, 45/1987, frantic to add to their dwindling list of charges against me. The RCVS had to trace anything that the two local veterinary surgeons had not already informed the about from news paper articles. This led to hasty errors, incorporating all the ‘trivial' motoring convictions and incorrect information from the over eager police later to be in error on the charge sheet before the Disciplinary Committee. I could only correct the court record by having defence witnesses.</p> <p>One example of a conviction they were given had no facts at all, ‘circumstances surrounding a conviction' and over ten years old, a direct breach of duty and would have been quashed before any other Legal Advisor, I had experienced in the past but nobody appeared to ‘give a dam,' even to this day.</p> <p>The original cause of the RCVS Preliminary Investigation Committee's decision to prosecute had been primarily about similar incidents of emergency as for ‘The dogs over a cliff' when no other veterinary surgeon was ‘available'. I was blamed, apparently of ‘revealing client confidentiality' of all things to Felicity Norton's program when clearly she had given consent as had Ms Wall, ‘her' dog actually having gone over a cliff. This I had told the RCVS, when seeking advice on the day before filming commenced. Felicity Norton was the ring leader but Sir John Wood QC and later Mr Justice Sullivan at the Court, blocked her evidence once one of them had been tipped off, should she take to the witness box as my witness. All this can be proved.</p> <p>Is  it beginning to stink, Mr Smith?   .</p> <p>So, some time in late 2001, RCVS lawyers withdrew the charges that had originally caused the Preliminary Investigation Committee to order a trial but only obtained by a majority vote.</p> <p>So who was about to stop this ‘gravy train' rolling? Just the lawyers? Apparently there is no set procedure to stop the Disciplinary hearing, once it is listed. Frightening, isn't it, when playing with somebody's livelihood?  They were living off my then colleagues' hard earned income.</p> <p>Believe me, Mr Smith, I know much more about all but am trying to keep this as brief a summary as possible and I need some in reserve when I sue Penningtons and others for criminal conduct in the criminal court.</p> <p><b>Charge B</b></p> <p>The RCVS relied on information from both the Welsh police and courts to obtain a conviction.</p> <p>At least three ‘Certificates of Conviction' before the original RCVS jury were false and they damned well knew it, following Hudson's visit to your local police station to examine confidential police files. The Preliminary Investigation Committee did not have those certificates before them in June 2001, they relying on the contemporaneous notes of their own case workers, denied me, to direct my case go to trial before the Disciplinary Committee.</p> <ul><li>One certificate stated my licence was ‘endorsed' when it was not.</li></ul><ul><li>Another certificate stated I had confessed to the crime when there had been a Crown Court trial the verdict of which is still ardently contested. (very small bag of ‘clinical waste' found in a public place)</li></ul><ul><li>Another certificate, the Welsh Authorities now confirm was false, the details withheld by Barabara Wilding for the police, Penningtons for the RCVS and now HM Treasury Solicitor for the HM Attorney General, all having refused to ‘disclose', respective enquiry records as to just who is behind this fervent expensive intrigue? </li></ul><ul><li>Another conviction court record to prejudice the RCVS jury, before it was withdrawn under dubious and still unexplained circumstances, when they knew the police confirmed, in the London civil action for my damages, admitted the CPS did not even oppose my Appeal, the circumstances being pathetic and after a night in a Paddington Green Police Station cell the lady Stipendiary dismissed another related charge incorporating the very same police witnesses.</li></ul> <p><b>HM started their enquiry,</b> interviewing defendants in my civil litigation (RCVS and South Wales Police), without me knowing, as far back at least as 2002, rounding up over 100 court files, with my name on, from Cardiff court alone! The team of HM lawyers, in Whitewall, have now lost many of them [Exhibit 18] with the HM Treasury solicitor, while recently in court fighting a false imprisonment judgment in my faviour, for the Home Secretary, admitting the investigation as my being certified as <b>a vexatious litigant </b>as being still ongoing<b>!</b> Another conviction court record to prejudice the RCVS jury, before it was withdrawn under dubious and still unexplained circumstances, when the police confirmed, in the civil action for my damages, admitted the CPS did not even oppose my Appeal!</p> <p><b>We know when the RCVS started their enquiry</b>.</p> <p><b>The South Wales Police enquiry</b> is voluminous and started the very minute I set foot in Barry, in 91, as correspondence with the Guernsey Authorities portray. You will recall I had to escape Guernsey 24/7 surveillance, 2 year continuous telephone tap in the boot of a car in the dead of night, for my rubber boat for England and freedom. My life had been threatened by one of their leading freemasons if I did not leave. I had, until recently, believed the devil worshipping cabal, found in each town, to be just another club for self gratification, no different to any golf club.</p> <p>I believe the cost of all this sits squarely on the shoulders of my parliamentary representative.</p> <p>Why is everyone with ‘<b>HM'</b> immune to prosecution and public reprimand, despite flaunting countless Judges Orders in both Crown and County Court, Privy Council ‘Undertakings' and ‘Assurances' in Downing Street, Learned Legal Assessor ‘advices', in too many RCVS courts to list and when statute law indicates these defendants, in my 52<sup>nd?</sup> Judicial Review Application, ALL culpable of criminal conduct against my family and I, must disclose relevant evidence? </p> <p>I was, as said, refused any ‘defence witnesses of fact', by the RCVS and definitely not any police present at these, just listed above or in court to witness the original 13 incidents cited. </p> <p>The Registrar of the RCVS, Ms Jayne Herne and her ‘van load of hostile Barry Police', rustled up mid trial <b>{Exhibit 7],</b> on the excuse to give evidence for me, would you believe, had been carefully selected by Alison Foster QC, for the prosecution, despite to Court of Appeal Orders to the contrary. No defence witness must be available to have witnessed the ‘circumstances surrounding each police incident' [Contrary to1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act] thereby not allowing me to prove the conviction certificates were false.</p><p>This RCVS case started with 13 convictions with 2 ‘well aired' with police lies to prejudice the jury before withdrawing them near the end of the prosecution's case, my being refused a new jury, of course, as it was a permanent one and there was no other. Not that it would have helped me much when someone whispered the whole proceedings are flawed being contrary to the 1998 Human Rights Act, toothless without Article 1 of the European Convention, the very purpose by Jack Straw et al for getting it printed.</p> <p>[Article 1 of the 1948 Convention makes HM Government responsible for the behavior we all experience in our courts which is why Jack Straw had the paragraph expunged for the 2<sup>nd</sup> October1998 launch while I was unlawfully detained, for the night in London's notorious Brixton prison with 13 prisoners, no less, for a few hours in the Dickensian cell, circa 1840's, measuring 14 feet by 7 feet  and consisting of 2,235 standard London Brick Company red bricks, plus or minus a few. And for what purpose? To undergo ‘psycho analysis', Stalin style. This procedure was later refused, fortunately, maybe, by the prison doctor.].</p> <p>That day the RCVS had had a case worker' in disguise, in the back of Horseferry Road magistrates court for days and would not acknowledge me when I asked for help, the RCVS building being only adjacent. That may indicate the long term agenda of some in the RCVS, dating back to the early 80's, where, at least, proceedings were honourably conducted so much so as to humble even me!</p> <p>Mr Smith, no veterinary surgeon has ever been taken to court on such charges dubious or not. The previous Legal Assessor, Phillip Cox QC, back in the 80s advised similar charges against me had nothing whatever to do with either my competence or my duties as a veterinary surgeon in society.</p> <p>A worrying comment that their Lordships put into the 19<sup>th</sup> January Judgment indicated a veterinary surgeon, meaning any professional person not actually working, had different responsibilities in society to anyone else and I had been in breach of them. </p> <p><b>I believe this as a direct abuse of my basic human rights [see 1948 ECHR Convention] even though I am in some sympathy being of an age when I also remember society to which their Lordships referred. </b></p> <p>But just who allowed our country to pander to visitors' foibles to drag our society down so quick?</p> <p>It may not surprise you to know the current RCVS have hurriedly incorporated the PC comment, a gross infringement of a professional person's human rights, into current legislation and by doing so further alienated many, including my wife, in the veterinary profession.</p> <p>Barry Magistrates, in January 2007, even expunged another conviction from that original list before the committee, as having ‘never occurred' but despite the Privy Council  stating, in June 2004, I had been  struck off for the<b> cumulative effect</b> of the charges (11 or 13?) it is interesting the RCVS repeatedly emphasise, at my annual receipt of Royal Courts of Justice abuse, I was struck off for <b>each</b> of the convictions, each ‘rendering me unfit to practice veterinary medicine'.</p> <p>That is just not what is interpreted by so many who have managed to get access to the official transcript and read the final judgment. I am still at loss, today, to understand their original judgment or even their final draft. I defy you to understand the original transcript versions of the RCVS judgment.</p> <p>One such  conviction, rendering me unfit to practice, was ‘No Order', having won all other criminal allegations, for example, was for ‘crossing a single white line' at 4 mph at St Athan to avoid a wobbling aged cyclist in a disordered ‘fun run' of some eighty cyclists. A fitting dog across my lap and a cat with a broken leg in the back en route to the Veterinary Hospital and I was confronted by an officious police officer whose evidence was so discounted at yet another Crown Court hearing I ,as usual, was awarded not a penny costs. Racist, Mr Smith?</p> <p>Another example was for ‘personally delivering my valid motor insurance to the wrong police station'. 35 times the South Wales Police had tried to make me repeat just that.<b> </b>The law does not even oblige you to attend a police station, one can send by post.</p> <p>Interestingly, the RCVS lawyers quietly withheld details of a substantive conviction with not a mention of my prison sentence it carried in Cardiff Crown Court but instead relied on trivial motoring and dubious public order convictions to have me struck off.</p> <p>Even in that jailed conviction the jury wrote notes to the judge complaining of the Barry police ‘perverting the course of justice', signaling the answers while a colleague was under cross examination and yes, that is just one of about a hundred outstanding police incidents they are currently refusing to disclose about for civil damages now entering its eighteenth year with Barbara Wilding pleading ignorance as she writes her sworn affidavit.</p> <p><b>Remember, I tendered to Barbara Wilding but a sample of 40 odd ‘occurrence numbered police recorded incidents' about a year ago and have had no response what so ever  to that letter from the South Wales Police for CPR part 31 disclosure</b>.</p> <p>Can you help me on that outstanding matter, it being a regular Vale constituent problem?.</p> <p>Barbara Wilding, <b>ordered</b> to sign a now long overdue a sworn affidavit on disclosure, by the management judge, His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC, following my application under <b>Abuse of Process</b> procedures, Lord Justice Thomas, yet another Welshman, handpicked just to hush all this up, having refused to entertain my application for a jury against The South Wales Police or an Abuse of Process enquiry at the Court of Appeal, refusing me legal representation in passing, clearly further supports the view of many that I am subjected to blatant racial discrimination. </p> <p>This routine conduct, all financed by the uninformed general public, is due to ‘<b>HM'</b> immunity.</p> <p>All these people are ultimately responsible to someone and when the time comes I will allow proper investigators to examine my library of tapes of court cases, as irregular as they may be, but alongside the 100 odd leaver arch files recording my cases in the stench of South Wales courts you will see the HM Crown Prosecution Service are just as culpable for all these court cases to have progressed so far.. </p> <p>It has been suggested I use my trusty old 1917 Lewis machine gun on the vermin but I have had half my life ruined in the gutter with them already and a bit of spilt blood will achieve little unless I find the ring leaders at home.</p> <p><b><u>The Exhibits</u></b></p> <p><b>1. Last paragraph of 1967 RCVS Royal Charter</b></p> <p>This indicates bias but was not accepted by Mr Justice Lloyd Jones and the RCVS at the Royal Courts of Justice in June 2008 during my failed 5<sup>th</sup> failed attempt to be restored to the veterinary register now being stifled at the Court of Appeal</p> <p><b>2. Magistrate Ms Williams 4<sup>th</sup> January 2005 letter to RCVS</b></p> <p><b>3.   20<sup>th</sup> June 2001 RCVS Preliminary Investigation Minute.</b></p> <p>The purpose of the committee is to investigate complaint against a veterinary surgeon. You will note six were Council members and the other four were all there to submit evidence of their own choosing. None of those ‘in attendance', in possession of the contemporaneous notes and signed witness statements replied to my letters for the details relating to purported complaints by  Ms Wall, Ms Felicity Norton or  Mr Collins or anybody else if there were any?</p> <p>None of the above named complainants were called by the RCVS at 2002  trial nor was I aware of their relevance or allowed to have Ms Felicity Norton and Mrs Wall as defence witnesses. </p> <p>Incidentally, the then President of the College, Mr Roger Eddy, also sat in my trial, for less than one hour and reported back to both the profession and media to say that I had had a "fair trial".</p> <p>He and others present are identified in the 1<sup>st</sup> June Statutory Instrument 2004 no. 1680, Schedule of the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act along with Mr Galloway, Chief Clerk to the Privy Council who has repeatedly refused my Humble Petitions to go before Queen in Council now this new evidence has been uncovered. The new Registrar of the Privy Council's Judicial Committee went even further by returning my recorded post Applications unopened and refusing to indicate instructed her to do same.<b></b></p><p><a href=""><b>4. Exhibit 2001 RCVS Committee Minute.</b></a></p><b>5. </b><b>Exhibit. Spring 2001 RCVS Committee Minute</b> <p>This minute identifies Pennington, Solicitors, for the College personally travelling to South Wales ‘to take statements' to control evidence obtained to have bias and to allow contemporaneous record of evidence to be undisclosed as if under ‘legal professional privilege'. ‘Absolute' or ‘qualified' under CPR and criminal law, in respect of RCVS procedure under the 66 Act dictates, the material should have been declared, if not disclosed, in order that it could be challenged. There are Just too many bent judges in on the act for a judicial redress now so hence my intention ‘to put the hounds on you', in the nicest way possible, you being my family's last resort!</p> <p><b>6. Exhibit.  6 Nov 2006 RCVS Extract.</b></p> <p>First RCVS admission that there is withheld evidence based on ‘<b>legal professional privilege'</b> and that the two year enquiry created paperwork. These transcript extracts are self explanatory with the RCVS barrister using this excuse to not disclose  contemporaneous evidence like interview note books.  </p> <p>Exhibit 6 is yet another RCVS created fairy tale designed to fool the Privy Council and High court unless it is a mistake, as with Foster before Lord Hutton [ Exhibit 15]  and was another ‘brief misunderstanding' between client and paymaster? Just lacking the musical score for a successful Whitehall Farce? </p> <p><a href=""><b></b></a><b><a>7. Exhibit. Further Nov 2006 RCVS documents</a> </b></p><b>8. Exhibit.   A fascinating clip of the 2002 Transcript </b> <p>An example throughout of with Alison Foster QC clearly talking with ‘forked tongue' while withholding vital eye  witnesses that should have gone before the jury.<b>  </b>Foster should have gone to jail.</p> <p>She clearly lied about the circumstances as to why the Gregsons were withheld from the hearing following, I found out years later, their telephone to the RCVS refusing to attend once they understood the ‘out of context'  evidence and the prosecution's real  agenda.</p> <p><a href=""><b>9. Exhibit.   Jan 2002 Trial Extract</b></a></p><a href=""><b>10. Exhibit.   26<sup>th</sup> Jan 2006 Statement of Mr Gregson</b></a><br /><br /><b>11. Exhibit.  RCVS 2002 Trial Extract</b> <p>RCVS Disciplinary Committee refuses record of the enquiry! This has caused 8 years of ruin.</p> <p><b>12. Exhibit. RCVS Re instatement Application </b></p> <p>A random sample of the gibberish and inaccuracy to which an HM organisation will stoop, attempting to obliterate cold facts.</p> <ol><li>It was not 12 charges,</li><li>"You cannot look behind the convictions". The 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act clearly states the ‘circumstances surrounding the incident' should be before the court.</li><li>"Strasberg and there was no result". </li></ol> <p>Ms K Reid has ruled, sitting alone no doubt, we go back 27years, ruled, without committee or legal advice, before writing the European Court of Human Rights will not entertain any further applications relating to the RCVS.  Oh, surprise, the Privy Council Chief Clerk, K Galloway, shortly after writes almost the same worded letter that Her Majesty's Privy Council will not entertain any further Humble Petitions relating to HM RCVS.</p> <p>And you discount freemasons to be at the bottom of all this, Mr Smith?</p> <p><b>13. Exhibit.  6<sup>th</sup> Nov 2006 RCVS Re-instatement Application</b></p> <p>This random sample is self explanatory to those on the same planet.</p> <p>Remember, Mr Smith, lawyers were  banned from Parliament by Henry Seventh in 1487 and it remained that way for nearly five  hundred years until sufficient money changed hands. </p> <p>You will read, in line C, The permanent Chairman, with a vote when I was the struck off and a vote for many of my subsequent failed applications, over the  past five years, for re instatement, stated, <b>" The Legal Assessor says you are not entitled to know that, Mr Kirk"</b></p> <p>So when did that conversation go on, in the privacy of  the gentleman's loo where so much time was taken up in legal discussion, in the adjournment, often when  I was just getting to crucial part of cross examination to interest the Criminal Cases Review Board?</p> <p><b>14. Exhibit. Humble Petition to Her Majesty, dated 20<sup>th</sup> December 2002, for Disclosure</b><b> </b></p> <p><b>15. Exhibit.  Privy Council, Lord Hutton, January 2003 Extract on ‘Humble Petition' for Disclosure</b></p> <p>Quote from court record "As far as she is aware (the girl in britches), on her instructions, the college has made full disclosure of all relevant documents and she instances, for example the letters of complaint which were sent by various persons to the college about Mr Kirk".</p> <p>Well, there you have it, Mr Smith, from gentleman in charge, later, of a government enquiry revealing similar dubious conduct by those in positions of privilege.</p> <p>No such letters  featured in the shambolic 2002 RCVS rigged trial, other than the one from Barry police station asking to have me  struck off so which letters, pray, does his Lordship refer? </p> <p><b>16. Exhibit.  23<sup>rd</sup> June 2003 HM Treasury Solicitor Minute </b></p> <p>Left with you at our House of Commons  meeting with the two  page ‘flow chart' of HM Departments, RCVS and South Wales Police, my 9 year old daughter prepared,  to indicate  ‘web they weave, when first they set out to deceive', misquote from north of the border.</p> <p><b>17. Exhibit Cardiff Court email to HM Solicitors</b></p> <p><b>18. Exhibit. One of many photographs</b></p> <p>Taken as proof, from inside Cardiff court building, of the only remaining  two boxes of my South Wales Police damages Claim stored in Cardiff Court, the other three boxes being God knows where, but we can guess, having my furnished a signed court letter to that effect.  I have been denied any audit trial of the HM Treasury Solicitor's interference and serious disruption with the due process of law.</p><img src="" width="1" height="1">ExhibitsRCVSRoyal College of Veterinary SurgeonsEXTRACT 1967 ROYAL CHARTER, 25 Sep 2010 20:19:00 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:1595SabineKMcNeill0<p><b>EXTRACT 1967 ROYAL CHARTER</b></p> <p>And We do hereby, for Us, Our Heirs and Successors further grant unto the College that these Our Letters, or the enrolment or exemplification thereof, shall be in all things valid and effectual in law according to the true intent and meaning thereof and shall be taken, construed and adjudged in the most favourable and beneficial sense for the best advantage of the College as well in Our Courts of Record as elsewhere by all Judges, Justices, Officers, Ministers and other subjects whatsoever of Us, Our Heirs and Successors, any non-recital or other omission or thing to the contrary notwithstanding.</p> <p>IN WITNESS whereof We have cause these Our Letters to be made Patent.</p> <p>WITNESS Ourself at Westminster the nineteenth day of October and in the sixteenth year of Our Reign.</p> <p>BY WARRANT UNDER THE QUEEN'S SIGN MANUAL</p> <p>That is why the RCVS can refuse my right, every ten months to a hearing with no HM judge lifting a finger knowing full well it is contrary to statute law.</p> <p>The 2004 law states the RCVS cannot refuse me a hearing but 'HM Partnership' has other ideas!</p><img src="" width="1" height="1">RCVSroyal charterRoyal College of Veterinary SurgeonsStatutory Instrument: Restoration of Names to the Register after Removal, 25 Sep 2010 20:15:00 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:1594SabineKMcNeill0<p><b>EXTRACT</b></p> <p>Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 1680 </p> <p><b>The Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Practitioners (Disciplinary Committee) (Procedure and Evidence) Rules Order of Council 2004</b></p><p align="center"><b>Restoration of Names after Removal</b></p> <p>     <b>20.</b> <b><i>Procedure</i></b><br /><br />     <b>20.1</b> An application to the Committee under section 18 of the Act, for the restoration of a name to the register or the early removal of a suspension of registration, shall be made in writing to the Clerk and shall set out the grounds for the application.<br /><br />     <b>20.2</b> The applicant may submit with his application any documentary evidence which he wishes to have drawn to the attention of the Committee in support of his application, including references.<br /><br />     <b>20.3</b> On receipt of an application to which this Rule applies, the application shall be listed for hearing within 3 months.<br /><br />     <b>20.4</b> The Clerk shall provide a copy of the application and supporting documentary evidence to the Solicitor.<br /><br />     <b>20.5</b> The Chairman and the Solicitor may invite the applicant to provide any further evidence, including evidence concerning the applicant's identity, character and conduct since his name was removed from the register.<br /><br />     <b>20.6</b> At the hearing of an application to which this Rule applies - </p> <p>(a) The applicant shall be entitled to address the Committee, and to adduce evidence and make submissions, in support of the application;<br /><br />(b) The Solicitor shall be entitled to address the Committee, and to adduce evidence and make submissions, in opposition to the application.</p> <p>     <b>20.7</b> Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Rule, and to Part VI of these Rules, the procedure of the Committee in connection with the application shall be such as they may determine.<br /><br />My following letter of July 2007 in reply to RCVS has, effectively, banned me for life. No other applicant has been subjected to these conditions. <br /></p><img src="" width="1" height="1">ProcedureRCVSJuly 2007: Application to be Restored to the Veterinary Register, 25 Sep 2010 20:08:00 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:1593SabineKMcNeill0<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;text-align:justify;"><span></span></p><span></span>Clerk to<b> </b>the Disciplinary Committee<br />Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons<br />Horseferry Road<br />London SW1P 2AF <p>31<sup>st</sup> July 2007                            </p> <p><b>Application to be restored to the Veterinary Register</b></p> <p>Dear Madam, </p> <p>Further to our meeting today with my seeking legal clarification regarding the forthcoming hearing, I am in reply to your letter of the 30<sup>th</sup> July 2007. </p> <p>As I am unable to refer to previous hearings, I apply for reinstatement on the content of this letter alone in this, my 5th application, to practice veterinary surgery.</p> <p>Should the committee require a reply regarding the list of questions [Disciplinary Committee 7<sup>th</sup> November 2005] they are as follows:</p> <p><b>Answer 1</b>.</p> <p>The assurances given by the solicitor remain. </p> <p><b>Answer 2.</b></p> <p>By fulfilling the assurances as well as I possibly can.</p> <p><b>Answer 3.</b></p> <p>Yes, accepting the basic human rights to which a professional man (and everyone) is entitled.</p> <p><b>Answer 4.</b></p> <p>6 years record compiled by your client, the South Wales Police, is sufficient proof. I continue to try and uphold my civic responsibilities within the community, while the United Kingdom remains a signatory to the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. If further proof is required, I reluctantly draw the committee's attention to the fact that some convictions, previously before the 2002 disciplinary hearing, have now been found to have been erroneous. </p> <p><b>Answer 5.</b></p> <p>I fully intend to conduct myself in accordance with the ‘RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct'. I reserve my basic human right to freedom of speech. </p> <p><b>Answer 6.</b></p> <p>As answer 5 (see above).</p> <p><b>Answer 7.</b></p> <p>It has always been my intention to embark again on appropriate CPD courses. While in practice I attended (and greatly enjoyed) CPD. This was generally in excess of the minimum annual CPD encouraged by the college. I relish the opportunity to participate again. Since my removal from the register, I have continued to read veterinary literature and discuss both aspects of veterinary surgery and medicine with former colleagues. I understand my professional expertise has never been in question and refer to their Lordships' Judgment of the 19<sup>th</sup> January 2004. </p> <p><b>Answer 8.</b></p><p>Again, I refer to their Lordships' Judgment. </p> <p>Yours faithfully, </p> <p> </p> <p>Maurice Kirk BVSc</p> <p>Barry Animal Health Centre, South Wales CF628AZ</p> <p>Violent public demonstrations outside the Royal College, law courts, House of Commons and maybe Buckingham Palace are forecast for later this year without notice. Demonstrations at your local courts are about to commence.</p><img src="" width="1" height="1">RCVSRoyal College of Veterinary SurgeonsAugust 2007: Complaint to Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), 25 Sep 2010 20:03:00 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:1592SabineKMcNeill0 <p>Tim Ashton Esq.<br />Independent Police Complaints Commission<br />90 High Holborn <br />London WC1V 6BH                                                                  IPCC Ref  2007/010564</p> <p>             <b><br /></b></p> <p align="center"><b>South Wales</b><b> Police and Metropolitan Police</b></p> <p>Dear Sir,</p> <p>Further to your e-mail of 1<sup>st</sup> August 2007 I will first attempt a summary:</p> <ul><li>1. On the 19<sup>th</sup> January 2004 before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) were Respondents in my Appeal from being removed from the veterinary register on the 29<sup>th</sup> May 2002.</li><li>2. The RCVS had produced evidence by forging witness statements and presenting them to me as if originals.</li><li>3. The RCVS falsified witness addresses in order that I could not find them.</li><li>4. The RCVS withheld identities of favourable witnesses, interviewed by their lay staff, including all contemporaneous statements of all witnesses contacted. </li><li>5. The RCVS, in 2002, falsified information by way of plain verbiage relying on the decisions of a mentally ill, retired High Court judge, Sir John, deliberately given the position of Legal Advisor to the RCVS hearing. His decision was relied upon at the Court of Appeal to prevent me from having any witnesses of fact, also contrary to law, relating to their ‘charges' (11 minor convictions, 5 of which were motoring). </li><li>6. The RCVS relied upon these convictions to have me struck off on the pretext, told by their lying barrister, Alison Foster QC, to the Downing Street entourage, because I had ‘disrespect for authority'.</li><li>7. The RCVS obtained policemen to attend the hearing, overnight, on the pretext they were defence witnesses when the Court of Appeal had already ordered none of them were allowed. </li><li>8. In October 2006, for the first time, the RCVS admitted being in the possession of favourable statements for me, but they had not been disclosed as they were ‘believed' to be ‘privileged' [qualified] between their client, the South Wales Police and their Penningtons, Solicitors, Cannon Street, London.</li><li>9. Similar statements were withheld from me, even from my own veterinary clients, when the vast RCVS investigation team had descended upon South Wales.</li><li>10. The RCVS were disclosed police confidential records of my dealings with the police, the complainants in 2001 to have me struck off.</li><li>11. Police records available but not all revealed, contained unlawful conduct by a small handful, to begin with, of police driven only by vengeance following their loss of 130 prosecutions based on harassment.</li><li>12. Police caused around 16 false imprisonments. </li><li>13. No veterinary surgeon has ever or will ever again, been subjected to such sustained unlawful conduct for such trumped up nonsense.</li><li>14. Penningtons, acting for an honourable profession, conspired to pervert the course of justice from day one.</li><li>15. Penningtons even attempted to introduce the usual ingredients to have someone struck off, namely, DISHONESTY and/or MISUSE OF DRUGS and/or DRUNKENESS and/or MALPRACTICE but failed on the lot. </li><li>16. As you are only too well aware, these lawyers relied on the ‘Memorandum of Understanding between Chiefs of Police and the Law Society' to guarantee them immunity to prosecution</li></ul> <p>You refer to my numerous detailed complaints in the past about the South Wales Police shuffled and binned by the Police Complaints Authority.</p> <p>They were a total waste of time and were there for political purpose only.</p> <p>Just why the IPCC is different and not there just to hoodwink the general public into believing there is an ‘effective remedy' only you know?</p> <p>The current scale of unlawfulness in the judiciary will never be reduced by the IPCC.</p> <p>I will throw you just 2 complaints for starters:   </p> <p><b>Complaint A)</b> relates to the above 16 marked paragraphs.</p> <p>Both the Metropolitan and South Wales Police have refused to properly investigate or request ‘further and better particulars'.</p> <p>I have received no replies from the Metropolitan Police at all.</p> <p>The recorded delivery letter of complaint to Cannon Street Police Station was returned, marked ‘unknown'!</p> <p>On the 6<sup>th</sup> October2006, other police stations in London, Scotland Yard and Paddington, were visited and both refused to even write anything down with one referring me back to the RCVS court!  </p> <p>That same complaint was forwarded to the South Wales Police who have responded receipt and no more.</p> <p><b>Complaint B)</b>   This is a complaint of Abuse of Process part of which is set out in my letter of complaint of the 27<sup>th</sup> July 2007 delivered to the Barry, South Wales, police station. Their reply of 7<sup>th</sup> August 2007 indicates no action will be taken. Am I expected to be surprised?</p> <p>All dates of my communications and police identifications can be supplied by them by South Wales Police ref   CJ/KE/32/M1.119/2007 of 7<sup>th</sup> Aug 2007 letter from  Bridgend HQ.</p> <p>I will not be holding my breath.</p> <p>Yours sincerely,   </p><p> </p> Maurice Kirk BVSc,    Barry Animal Health Centre CF62 8 AZ <img src="" width="1" height="1">Independent Police Complaints CommissionIPCCCurrent Trial News on LEGAL BATTLES blog as from today, 17 Sep 2010 11:17:00 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:1539SabineKMcNeill0<p><b>With a view to unravelling</b> the complexity of Maurice's cases, reports about his current trial in Cardiff County Court have been moved to <a href="">Legal Battles</a> with, so far, these posts: </p><p><a href="">Today: Before Trial Day 7: Letter to HM Treasury Solicitor</a></p><p><a href="">Trial Day 6: But hear this...<br /></a></p><p><a href="">Trial Day 5</a> </p><p><a href="">Day 4: Questioning the authenticity of three medical reports</a> </p><p><a href="">Trial Day 3: Draft Order Presented by Claimant Maurice</a>  </p><p><a href="">Before Trial Day 3 - adjourned to 11am Monday 13th Sept</a>  </p><a href="">Before Trial Day 2</a> <br /><br /><a href="">Sep 7, 2010: Trial Day 1: Key Witnesses fail to answer subpoenas</a><br /><p> </p><img src="" width="1" height="1">Cardiff County CourtMAPPAsouth wales policetrialChief Constable, Peter Vaughan, Ignores Court Order to Disclose FTAC/MAPPA Covert Surveillance, 12 Sep 2010 23:22:00 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:1394Maurice Kirk22<p><b>On Friday 17th September</b> the court is likely to hear that police, in law, are immune to prosecution and the matter will lead to a £800,000 bill for Maurice, NO, now £1,200,000! <br /><br />All  invited for tomorrow's 'fireworks' (proceedings) Cardiff County Court 11am - Maurice is buying the lunch.<br /><a href=""><br />Before Trial Day 7</a><br /><br /><a href="">Trial Day 6: But hear this.....</a><br /></p><p><a href="">Trial Day 5</a></p><p><a href="">Day 4: Questioning the authenticity of three medical reports<br /></a></p><p><a href="">Trial Day 3: Draft Order Presented by Claimant Maurice</a>   <span></span><span></span></p><p><a href="">Before Trial Day 3 - adjourned to 11am Monday 13th Sept</a>  </p><p><a href="">Before Trial Day 2</a> </p><p><a href="">Sep 7, 2010: Trial Day 1: Key Witnesses fail to answer subpoenas</a> <br /></p><img src="" width="1" height="1">HM PartnershipMalfeasancesouth wales policeRCVS seek Civil Restraint Order to Block Disclosure, 14 Jun 2009 07:09:00 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:934Maurice Kirk0<p><b>HM Attorney General </b>refuses to be represented at the hearing, while South Wales Police appear silent on the matter as co-defendant, all ignoring the fact statute law states the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons must convene a court within the statutory period laid down. Their continuing refusal is unlawful.</p> <p>There is also the small matter of failed disclosure and falsification of favourable evidence by the RCVS, still outstanding while my 5th Application (2007), "to Practice Veterinary Surgery", is currently lodged with the Court of Appeal after June 2008 RCJ Administrative Court hearing before Lloyd Jones J</p> <p>1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act Orders a judge to give favouritism to the college and its agents.</p> <p>Utter fairy tales or conspiracy to pervert justice?</p> <p>MJK 14th June 2009</p> <p><a href=""></a> </p> <p>(Further and better details on blogs and most recent downloads and gallery)</p> <p> </p><img src="" width="1" height="1">MalfeasanceRCVSroyal chartersouth wales policevexatious litigantMP Malfeasance?, 23 Apr 2009 02:10:00 GMTc7306cf9-8c9b-4f2c-8f21-f8b2637dc339:888Maurice Kirk0 <p>This entry contains the following documents: </p><p><b>23 April, 2009: Letter to John Smith MP </b></p><p><b>19 March 2009: Email from Martyn Jones MP who is a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons</b></p><p><b>7 April 2009: Maurice's response to Martyn Jones MP</b></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>John Smith MP, Labour Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales, UK.<br />House of Commons<br />Westminster</p> <p>23<sup>nd</sup> April 2009              Your Ref k/20</p> <p><b>ABUSE of PROCESS</b></p> <p><b>South Wales Police, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons & Welsh Assembly</b></p> <p> </p> <p>Dear Mr Smith,</p> <p>Further to our constructive meeting on 21st I feel my complaints be narrowed, for the time being, to:</p> <ul> <li>1. HM Attorney General's seven year investigation into having me certified as a vexatious litigant.</li> <li>2. South Wales Police destruction of police records/revealing erroneous police records, contrary to Home Office Regulations, 45/1987 to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and others.</li> <li>3. Direct interference by MPs and AMs to have my name removed from the veterinary register using erroneous information. (My 6<sup>th</sup> March 2009 to you as a sample of some of their conduct)</li></ul> <p> </p> <p><b><u>Ministry of Justice and MP Malfeasance</u></b><b> </b></p> <p><b>HM Attorney General's seven year investigation re having me certified as a vexatious litigant</b></p> <p>Bridgett Prentice MP 25<sup>th</sup> March letter to you, referring to me, on behalf of the Ministry of Justice, is not just insulting it is a deliberate act to protect the scandal surrounding a team of lawyers in some dingy back alley of Whitehall, all frantic to gain Brownie points if one of them can get me certified as a ‘vexatious litigant' and block both South Wales Police and Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons disclosure of public records.<b></b></p> <p>Contrary to your indication it is your responsibility to ask why the following is going on?</p> <ul> <li>a. 7 years of tax payers' expense for what? What is the sinister reason behind all this?</li> <li>b. RCVS failed disclosure of evidence from my very own Barry clients on your patch, why?</li> <li>c. I left you on Tuesday to visit the Judicial Committee Offices of the Privy Council, Downing Street....oh, what a joke. None appeared to know to whom I complain for the Clerk of the Privy Council refusing to put my Humble Petition, about one member of RCVS refusing my application to practice, even going before their court or to go before the Privy Council while their Registrar simply refuses it in the recorded post!</li> <li>d. The 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act clearly indicates, backed by your colleague, Martyn Jones MP in his 19<sup>th</sup> March 2009 letter, below, that the Privy Council have the power to intervene if abuse is occasioned by the current lot in the college, all enjoying immunity to criminal prosecution due to 1844 /1966 Royal Charters.</li></ul> <p>The PC cannot not if they do not know about it, can they, Mr Smith?</p> <p>Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 1680 </p> <p><b>The Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Practitioners (Disciplinary Committee) (Procedure and Evidence) Rules Order of Council 2004</b> </p> <p>EXTRACT</p> <p>     <b>20.2</b> The applicant may submit with his application any documentary evidence which he wishes to have drawn to the attention of the Committee in support of his application, including references.<br /><br />     <b>20.3</b> On receipt of an application to which this Rule applies, the application shall be listed for hearing within 3 months.<br /></p><p><b>Mr David McClean MP just happened to be the other Member of Parliament lay member of the RCVS jury due to sit in a few weeks. </b></p> <p><b>David McClean MP's</b> warning to the RCVS was that my case, "<b>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".</b> The Court of Appeal has sat on it for nearly a year!</p> <p>____________________________________________________________________________ <br /></p><p>[Internal RCVS mail information on MP/AM pressure obtained under the Data Protection Act]</p> <p>19<sup>th</sup> March 2009</p> <p>Dear Mr Kirk,</p> <p>As a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and more importantly a member of the Disciplinary Committee, I cannot possibly get involved in any correspondence relating to any past or future involvement you may have with the Disciplinary Committee.</p> <p>Any actions of the Disciplinary Committee are subject to appeal by the Privy Council and therefore this would be your resort if you have any concerns over the administration of discipline by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. </p> <p>Yours sincerely, </p><p>Martyn Jones MP </p> <p>______________________________________________________________________________ <br /></p><p>Martyn Jones MP<br />House of Commons<br />London</p> <p>7<sup>th</sup> April 2009</p> <p><b>Malfeasance and Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons</b></p> <p>Dear Sir,</p> <p>Thank you for your 19<sup>th</sup> March 2009 indication that all I need do is to apply to the Privy Council.</p> <p>Both the Registrar to the Judicial Committee and Chief Clerk to the Privy Council have refused to lodge any of my applications before the Privy Council contrary to statute law.</p> <p>Similarly, the chairman to the RCVS disciplinary committee, sitting alone, refuses my application to go before the RCVS court, again contrary to the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act and 2004 rules.</p> <p>I wish to visit your constituency with the battle bus to see if you will take me seriously but in the first instance, seek an appointment with you at the House of Commons to serve the evidence.</p> <p>Yours faithfully,</p> <p>Maurice J Kirk BVSc</p> <p>Copy to John Smith MP, Registrar to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons & <a href=""></a>  </p> <p> </p> <p>Mr Smith, one member of the RCVS has just again refused to put my application to practice before the court. These are matters for a criminal court not our civil, money grubbing nonsense.</p> <p>Just what are you prepared to do about the conduct of Bridget Prentice MP and her ‘Ministry of Justice', David McClean MP, Martyn Jones MP and Ms Randerson AM before many of us take the law into our own hands here in the Vale of Glamorgan?</p> <p>Yours sincerely,</p> <p> </p> <p>Maurice J Kirk BVSc</p> <p>Copy to <a href=""></a> </p> <p>NONE OF THIS CONTENT CLASHES WITH CURRENT JUDICIAL PROCESS</p> <p><br /></p><img src="" width="1" height="1">MalfeasanceRCVS