{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang2057{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Calibri;}} {\*\generator Msftedit;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\sa200\sl276\slmult1\lang9\f0\fs20 Clerk to the Court\par Cardiff civil Justice Centre\par 11th October 2010\par Dear Sir,\par \b Maurice Kirk v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons 9CF04551\b0\par Further to previous, unanswered applications, Ist page only of each enclosed, namely 19th and 28th September 10, respectively, copies of which have been sent to both court and the RCVS, The Claimant asks His Honour for a set aside of the 24th September 2010 Judgement of Maurice Kirk v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons 9CF04551.\par There are reasons below to request a set aside where the Claimant\rquote s livelihood is at stake, and the Claimant asks for fairness and opportunity to protect his rights. \par The Claimant believes the Court has proper authority to deal with these issues around fairness and proportionality of the Royal College in denying the Claimant his livelihood, and the Claimant believes it is appropriate for you to excise your jurisdiction.\par \par \b 1) Medical Reasons to set aside\b0\par The grounds for set aside are firstly that the Claimant was unable to respond to the Court for medical reasons, being overwhelmed by a cluster of very complex cases and bombarded by legal argument from a number of legal teams while very ill, with high levels of pain, and on strong medication. The Claimant has three medical reports all of which have been recently accepted by His Honour Seys Llewellyn QC and magistrates. To help this Court by being brief the Claimant asks that the medical reports can be perused in cases BS614159, CF101741 and CF204141 currently lodged with the same court as are the videos referred to below.\par \par \b 2) Merit of this case also linked to developments in other cases\b0\par In short, as regards to the Royal College it is where the Claimant believes he was not been dealt with fairly and proportionately in the light of his allegations of not just harassment by some police officers but that these particular officers, intended to try to harm and ruin the Claimant, by affecting status at the Royal College. Progress in proving these claims is now occurring before His Honour Seys Llewellyn QC where preliminary Judgement is expected shortly after 15 October:\par a) Because the case is so \ldblquote unusual\rdblquote by so many incidents (where certain Police interfere by action \b or omission\b0 in the Claimant rights) to mean no relevant case law has been provided by the Defendant, the Chief Constable of South Wales Police, to, as yet, explain any legal reason why the case brought by the Claimant against the conduct of some Police Officers cannot proceed in toto, with the 4th Action, 7CF07345, included.\par b) Closely relevant to the claim against the Royal College, the incidents and convictions the Royal College relied on, are being challenged in the case listed before Her Majesty's Privy Council Judicial Committe and on going, currently before His Honour Seys Llewellyn QC, under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 9B 232, that allow opportunity to prove innocence, when previously convicted. \par c) The Claimant's claims of wrong doing by Police and that they manufactured evidence is considerably strengthened by the transcript of Senior Crown Prosecutor Jackie Seal refusing to answer His Honour Judge Gaskell QC when she was in the witness box, so allowing present and future Courts (& Royal College) to assume that \ldblquote no comment\rdblquote by a senior HM crown prosecutor, means some kind of very serious wrong doing has occurred regards potentially malicious police prosecutions, that quite directly led to unfair and misguided intervention by the Royal College. \par d) CCTV Video of Police affording only seven seconds by the car to be violent towards the Claimant, smashing the window and dragging him out, while he was peacefully sat in it in a stationary queue of traffic in a Cardiff Street, to allow the belief that the Claimant was the victim of an attack at the Cowbridge Show, efor example and other such related incidents, as opposed to the Royal College wrongly taking a view that the Claimant was acting inappropriately,so much so as to be struck off the veterinary register. \par e) Of all allegations against the Claimant the only criminal prosecution complaints and witnesses are the Defendant (Police) or the Defendant\rquote s associates, including the senior HM crown prosecutor (as above).\par \b \par 3) Proportionality. Onus on the state, and interference in (ending) Claimant\rquote s Business and Livelihood is to be proportionate\b0\par f) The Claimant believes there is an onus on the state to protect his rights so that any interference in (ending) Claimant\rquote s Business and Livelihood is to be proportionate. Opportunity exists for the Court and Royal College to revisit issues and given the evidence of malice and dishonesty by some Police and along with reason to view proceedings at the Royal College as unfair, - consider whether Decisions by the Royal College, since 29th May 2001, were proportionate.\par The Claimant asks the Court sets aside the 24th September 2010 Order so as to consider original issues along with all of the above and the issue of proportionality.\par Thankyou \par Maurice J Kirk BVSc\par 11th October 2010 Copy to RCVS and Dolmans, for South Wales Police, by e-mail\par }