RCVS

“Her Majesty the Queen and All That”

Maurice Kirk — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:11:56 GMT

"Her Majesty the Queen and All That" [HM Partnership]

Bob Lomas is absolutely right. The Queen has betrayed the nation, whether from cowardice or self-interest, I know not. Allowing the nation to be Shanghaied into Europe is not the only way in which she has violated her Coronation Oath. In that oath she swore "To Deliver Justice with Mercy", but in so many cases (acting through her judiciary) she has failed to deliver either. I expound on that statement later, but first mention the 'contrary argument',
which is ALSO 'right';
Albert Burgess says, "... attacking the Queen is counter productive, ... the average man and woman in the street thinks she is wonderful and we need Mr and Mrs Average to help us win this fight but we will not get them if we attack the Queen".
Could someone brighter than me tell how these two valid arguments can be resolved?

Anne Palmer suggests that judges might be our saviours.
Some will say that I exaggerate in saying that the judiciary is totally corrupt, from top to bottom. Granted, there are many who try to do the right thing much of the time, but the REAL test comes when one of the rotten apples among them is under threat: - they close ranks to protect each other!
Nowhere is this more noticeable than in the European Court of Human Rights. Britain being the main European victor in WW II, British lawyers, led by Sir David Maxwell Fyffe QC (later Lord Chancellor Kilmuir) were given the job of drafting the Convention. They purported to follow the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights, but the small print inserted made it very different!  In particular, it was drafted to ensure that British judges were never called to account - nor have they been.
I end by repeating something that worries me greatly: All those who want us out of Europe talk as though all our problems stem from Europe, & will end if we leave. Taking that stance, they are turning a blind eye to the fact that Britain is ALREADY a ruthless, lawless, murderous & merciless '1984' Police State. Leaving Europe will not alter that.

.
Norman Scarth.

24^th Dec from Maurice Kirk

The Queen

Our current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, has, I suspect, very little say in the way our HM courts are currently administered.

Ever since William and Mary, circa 1700 and the ending for good the ‘Absolute Monarch' system, if ever ‘devil worship' and ‘deceit' have been needed, as judicial cornerstones for our successive governments to do their bidding, then I am sure it was never knowingly ratified by Her Majesty.

I am no academic, of course and base my view on a limited education but see, unlike the vast majority of the electorate, time and time again, what actually goes on in our courts and especially behind closed doors. I for one will never ever trust a UK judge who swears his or her allegiance to the HM Partnership or any branch of the media that continues to wax eloquent, without facts, on the merits of such a clearly obscene system, driven by avarice.

It is therefore quite counterproductive implicating The Queen, just now, to try and sway in our direction the far too small a ‘thinking/interested section' of the general public even if Her Majesty is in league with HM Partnership. Her Majesty has far too many positive and admirable attributes, for which I am grateful, to bring her personally into what we are currently so successfully exposing. Later, perhaps, when I see hard evidence.

It is far too big a step to implicate the Royal Family when we have so much hard evidence already ‘Jo Public' can understand. It is so simple. There are far too many accountable to no one for their conduct in court, except to Their Maker , ‘failed disclosure' of evidence by the Executive and their agents is rife and my own miserable failure, for example, the inability to obtain either independent, competent or trustworthy legal representation to fight the evil little ‘bastards'.

We have been fortunate to have such a good queen for so long. Let us not spoil things now, while we are winning.

Cyber space will prevail even if I don't.

Maurice 2

http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/

24^th Dec from Norman Scarth

Thank you Maurice for giving me the opportunity to bring MY 'light from under the bushel'. .

You mention, "what actually goes on in our courts and especially behind closed doors".
My single-handed success in the European Court of Human Rights brought a vital change in British law, incorporated into the 1998 Human Rights Act (confirmed by letter dated 1st Sept.1998 from Geoffrey Hoon MP, then Lord Chancellor Irvine's spokesman in the House of Commons).
ALL hearings, including those 'In Chambers' are "open to the public, other than in exceptional circumstances" (which must be stated).
Yes, they will still hold hearings behind closed doors when there are no 'exceptional circumstances'.
You must challenge them by reminding them of the ECtHR ruling in 'Scarth v UK, 33745/96'.
That ruling is much hated by lawyers & judges, & I am hated for it, as evidenced by the sadistic, seriously criminal & potentially lethal treatment meted out to me since.

Norman Scarth.

24^th Dec from Bob Lomas

Maurice Kirk it seems lives in the same world of fiction as Captain Kirk. Mr Kirk writes below:

"We have been fortunate to have such a good queen for so long. Let us not spoil things now, while we are winning."

Is Mr Kirk naive or a Europhile? In 1972 Elizabeth II broke her coronation oath to her people and agreed to surrender the sovereignty of the nation to the Roman Catholic based and Vatican driven Franco German Axis, is that being a good Queen? Since then the Queen has signed a succession of treaties surrendering this nation's independence, finalising the deal be signing up to the Lisbon Treaty. Is that what being a good Queen is all about? Does Mr Kirk not understand that our Monarch is supposed to be the Governor of the nation, our Sovereign Head of State, the defender of our laws, Constitution and Religion?

Perhaps like Elizabeth II Mr Kirk does not believe in our Constitution and Religion. On the other hand if he does he may find this report interesting.

As for winning, well, maybe he does live in his own world of make-believe.

Elizabeth II and the Roman Catholic Church.

1951 Princess Elizabeth visited the Pope.

1951 The Reich re-emerged as the Europäische Gemeinschaft für Kohle und Stahl

(European Coal and Steel Community.)

1953 June 2^nd The Queen's Coronation Oath : ""I Elizabeth do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant."

The Archbishop of Canterbury asked Elizabeth II "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reform Religion established by law?" The Queen answered: "The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God."

1961 May 5th Queen Elizabeth visited the Pope. The Queen wore black and the veil in recognition of her heresy in the eyes of the Roman Church, thus acknowledging her acceptance of the primacy of the Roman Church. To accept such primacy, which implies jurisdiction, in Rome is to imply that that primacy also applies here in England. Such recognition breaks Article 37 of the 39 Articles of Religion of The Anglican Reformed Church of England which states that "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England". The Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

1961 August 9th Her Majesty's Prime Minister Harold Macmillian applied for negotiations for EEC entry.

The European economic Community.

The Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinshafts. (Originally drawn up in 1942)

1972 January 22nd The Queen commanded her plenipotentiaries Heath, Hurd and Rippon to sign up to the Treaty of Rome. The Queen undoubtedly fully understood that, as there was no provision under the terms of the Treaty for a Constitutional Monarchy within the EU, she would be surrendering the sovereign supremacy of her office to the sovereign supremacy of the European Community. That by so doing, she would be breaking her Coronation Oath to her people which is her contract with them for their governance. That she would be stripping herself of her Sovereignty in Parliament thus destroying the authority of Parliament itself as the national legislating body in Great Britain. That she would also be breaking article 37 of the 39 of the Articles of Religion of the Anglican Reformed Church of England, and dismissing herself as Governor of that Church. She would thus expose the Anglican Reformed Church to the covert insurgencies of dedicated British papists. The Queen must have been aware that the European Community was predominately of the Roman Catholic religion, that it was founded by Jesuits, and had adopted as its emblem the Halo of the Madonna, an idolatrous Roman Catholic symbol to those of the Protestant Church of England, thus breaking the Second of the Ten Commandments.

1972 October 17th The Queen gave her Royal Assent to the European Communities Act 1972.

1980 October 17th The Queen visited the Pope, she wore black and the veil, and kissed the Papal ring, a gesture of her subordination to the office of the Pope and his jurisdiction over her; and by so doing the Queen forfeited the allegiance of the British people. She could not have done this had she still been our Sovereign Monarch and Governor of the Protestant Reformed Church of England.

1982 The Queen invited the Pope to visit the United Kingdom, she also invited the Pope to celebrate mass in Canterbury Cathedral, the Mother Church of the Church of England, which the Duke of Norfolk, the leading RC peer, and the Earl of March were commanded to organise. Gold and platinum plaques were struck by the Royal Mint to celebrate the occasion, bearing the heads of the Queen and the Pope, thus ensuring that even if the Queen did not attend the mass in person, she would be present in image. Ultimately the event was abandoned when certain clerics of the Church of England protested that the it would break church law.

1980s/90s. Coin of the Realm. There are Gibraltan 20 pence coins in circulation which on one side depict the Queen's head, on the other an image of the Madonna and Child, both crowned and seated on a throne, bearing the inscription: "Our Lady of Europe". These coins must have been minted at the Royal Mint. The Queen must have given her approval both of their design and for their production, despite the image being in violation of the second Commandment, and idolatrous in the eyes of Protestants and the Anglican Reformed Church, of which the Queen is Governor.

1992 February 7th The Queen commanded her plenipotentiaries Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude to sign up to the Maastricht Treaty thus making her a citizen of the EU. No one can be both citizen and Sovereign at the same time. Her EU citizenship was confirmed by the then Prime Minister John Major. Had the Queen still been Sovereign Monarch, Major would have been committing perjury and treason. He has never been impeached for his statement. At about this time the Queen sent the Stone of Scone back to Scotland, on the advice of John Major, an action suggesting the Queen's recognition that there would be no further Coronations of our kings or queens in our country. She has broken the Succession to the Throne of the United Kingdom.

(Coronation Service June 2nd. 1953: )

"I Elizabeth do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant."

November the 30th. 1995 marked the day Her Majesty the Queen attended a Service of Commemoration at Westminster Cathedral to mark the Centenary of the building of this spiritual centre of Roman Catholicism in Britain. In doing so Her Majesty belied the declaration above as well as her Coronation Oath. Her attendance was intended to underline ecumenical reconciliation and unity. In fact it symbolizes the continuing retreat of the Protestant identity of our nation and anticipates the removal of the Act of Settlement and the resulting constitutional redundancy of the Monarchy. Here is another event in the ecumenical process that, step by step, is pulling up the historic roots of the Protestant throne.

1999. 12th May. The Pope was recognised as the overall authority in the Christian world by an Anglican and Roman Catholic commission, made up of Anglican and Roman Catholic Bishops, including the Bishop of Canterbury. The Anglican Bishops involved acted in breach of their oaths of allegiance to the Crown, and Article 37 of the 39 Articles of Religion.

As Governor of the Anglican Reformed Church the Queen must have given her approval to the participation by the Anglican Bishops in this commission.

1999. May. The Queen made Cardinal Hume a member of the Order of Merit, an honour she has never bestowed on any Archbishop of Canterbury.

2000 October 17th The Queen visited the Pope in Rome. Again she wore black and the veil, and kissed the Papal Ring in an act of subjugation. In 2004 the Queen commanded her plenipotentiaries Blair and Straw to sign up on her behalf to the EU constitutional treaty.

Note:

The Protestant part of the Coronation Oath, detested by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, has also been changed over time. Prior to 1910, it read: ‘To maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law'. George III was subjected to a strong attack on the ‘Protestant Oath'. He rebutted it with these famous words: "Where is the power on earth to absolve me from the observance of every sentence of that Oath, particularly the one requiring me to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion? Was not my family seated on the Throne for that express purpose, and shall I be the first to suffer it to be undermined, perhaps overturned? No, No, I had rather beg my bread from door to door throughout Europe, than consent to any such measure. I can give up my crown and retire from power. I can quit my palace and live in a cottage. I can lay my head on a block and lose my life, but I cannot break my Oath. If I violate that Oath, I am no longer legal Sovereign in this country".

King Edward VII died on Friday, 6th May 1910. The following Monday, the Times published part of a letter from Irish Nationalist MP W.H.E. Redmond, to the Prime Minister, demanding that he take such steps as may be necessary to relieve the new King from the obligation.

Bob Lomas. The Magna Carta Society.

24^th Dec from Maurice Kellett (Maurice 1)

Queen Elizabeth II is a criminal without any shadow of doubt about this fact. The Judicial Oath that all UK judges and magistrates swear only to Queen Elizabeth II is a fraud of massive proportions. It has no meaning except to deceive the people. We in the UK have indeed a criminal as our Head of State. Commonwealth Countries should also be made aware of this fact. Her Mafia which include judges and police officers are real. Its time for we the people to have a say in the way that criminals rule us in the UK.

Queen Elizabeth II is also in breach of her Coronation Oath of 1953. Yes we do indeed have a criminal as our Head of State. The Royal Prerogative says Queen Elizabeth II is immune from crime. Who has ruled that? a criminal is a criminal regardless of their position.

I know the horror of what the Crown employed Mafia have carried out against me and against many other of its victims. Enough is enough. Queen Elizabeth must be brought to trial for treason against the UK people. Nothing else will serve justice being done. Those who carry out such trial must of course be truly independent.

The word independent is a dirty word to the UK establishment. We the people must change this situation one way or another.

Maurice Kellett.

25^th Dec from Suzon

Dear Maurice, you got the date wrong. It all goes back (at least) to 1066. The Queen and her consort are both direct descendants of William the Conquerer.

Have a lovely Christmas and (I hope) a miraculous new year.

In common cause,

Suzon

John Smith MP 16th Nov 08 Response from Ministry of Justice and HM Treasury Solicitor

Maurice Kirk — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:45:18 GMT

As predicted..purely verbiage and more 'treacle treatment' from HM Departments

John Smith MP Esq.,

House of Commons, Westminster.

12^th December 2008 Your ref: K/2002

Dear Mr Smith,

Abuse of Process Application-Cardiff County Court 25^th November 2008

Maurice Kirk v South Wales Police, RCVS & HM Home Secretary

Thankyou for your 26^th Nov letter and the predictable reply from the HM Ministry of Justice.

No mention of its own department's conduct, you notice, admitted in Cardiff court on 31^st October 2008, that there has been an ongoing interference for 5 years, without my knowledge, in my court case against both the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and their complainant, the South Wales Police.

No mention on the South Wales Police revealing confidential files to the RCVS. See enclosed leaked internal memo, Treasury Solicitor 23^rd July 2003. At least 28 tabs are indicated with direct communications with the RCVS and South Wales Police withheld also by the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre.

To suggest I again complain to a string of other quasi government departments when HM Ministry of Justice know full well I have already exhausted those avenues, before tackling my Parliamentary representative is an insult to both your and my intelligence.

I enclose a hurriedly prepared ‘flyer' yesterday circulated around Whitehall from 1967 Route Master red double-decker bus with loud hailers and equally aggrieved citizens who have no intention of tolerating the state of our UK judicial system for much longer. Violent demonstrations are not so far off.

1. My paid for Abuse of Process Application has been expunged from the draft Court Order of 25^th November, drawn up by the South Wales Police's solicitor. Surprise, surprise!
2. The matter of clandestine HM internal memos, some supplied to you, between HM Ministry of Justice departments, attempting to have me certified as a vexatious litigant, continue to be withheld, contrary to Section 32 of Freedom of Information Act 2000.
3. HM Attorney General's unlawful disruption to by court cases remains unlawful with failed disclosure under the Data Protection Act 1966. Home Office 5^th Dec 2008 letter, refusing disclosure, is exactly where I started 10 years ago in my first Abuse of Process Application.

Could you now repeat your request on the above issues in the light of this new information?

Yours sincerely,

Maurice J Kirk BVSc copy to http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/ & http://www.wacl.org.uk/

Dolmans, Solicitors, Cardiff 13^th Dec 08

Kirk v South Wale Police 5 Actions of Harassment CF6141159-MC65, CF101741, CF2041417, CF07345, 8CF02

Abuse of Process Application

Pre Action Protocol

Dear Sir,

I am in receipt of your 8^th December 08 letter as I receive from John Smith MP, HM Ministry of Justice and HM Treasury Solicitor's Office, all referring to my complaint of Abuse of Process . I have been slow to realise this endemic disease of deceit in our courts around England and Wales driven by avarice.

All of you swear allegiance, one way or another, to the HM Partnership in prehistoric guise of ‘Her Majesty's Prerogative'. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons further enjoy immunity, to be being brought to account, by their much coveted 1967 Royal Charter ordering any presiding judge to give them or their agents favouritism whether plaintiff or defendant.

I am currently drafting a court action against your client, Chief Officer Barbara Wilding, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Ministry of Justice over the manner in which your client conspired with college lawyers to have my name removed from the veterinary register. The HM Treasury Solicitor has, after five years of clandestine activity, now admitted all my defendants were pre warned for that time in that HM Attorney General has had a team of lawyers ‘burning the midnight oil' to have me certified as a ‘vexatious litigant'. Many court files, both ‘dead' and ‘active' from around the UK, are now missing.

I am to be ‘certified' but for one purpose, to prevent disclosure, which is why the RCVS continue to refuse to put me back on the veterinary register. They know, as a member of the profession, I have further legal right to make them disclose their contemporaneous notes of the enquiry of me in 2001, who they interviewed and why? The RCVS currently enjoy the Data Protection Act 1966 Information Commissioner's ‘purported' view that your client, the South Wales Police, as complainant, was a ‘client' of the college. Therefore all investigation material, identification of witnesses etc, is ‘privileged'.

His Honour Judge Chambers QC, you say, indicated my Abuse of Process Application is now ‘live' after ten years but nothing appears in your draught Order to that effect. My application, to make disclosure of the HM Partnership's manipulating of these 16 year running court actions, is buried. It stinks doesn't it?

Yours faithfully,

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

Copies t: John Smith MP, Ministry of Justice, RCVS, http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/

Enclosed: HM Treasury Solicitor & Cardiff County Court leaked Internal Memos

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons 6th Refusal to Allow Maurice Kirk BVSc to Practice Veterinary Surgery

Maurice Kirk — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:59:33 GMT

And once again the goal posts appear to move ...see Down Load

Royal Courts of Justice 16th June 2008 Transcript Maurice Kirk v RCVS , First Defendant & 'Royal Prerogative', Second Defendant

Maurice Kirk — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:43:02 GMT

A damned good read, it has been suggested.

Hansard revealing the Current State of the UK Legal Profession

Maurice Kirk — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:29:12 GMT

It was frightening for me, having spent 30 years complaining to the relevant so called governing bodies in charge of policing the legal profession, that it has all been a complete waste of time.

I have watched expensively employed lawyers cheat, lie and give false promises, steel my family's hard earned funds, even have Crown Prosecuion lawyers in the witness box in Cardiff Crown Court conducting themselves in a manner proving complicity, therefore immunity, with our judicial system when I have been lied to by countless HM departments that all are accountable to no one, other than Their Maker.

A deliberate deception by repeated 'lawyer dominated' governments. No wonder nothing was done about the criminal conduct of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, South Wales Crown Prosecution Service and private lawyers like BobbettsMackan of Bristol fraudulent conduct and Wendy Hopkin of Cardiff 's gross incompetence. No wonder, each time I exposed a conspiracy and perjury in Welsh courts the 'authorities' did not lift a finger.

The Under Secretary's excuse that now, 'all is OK', is absolute nonsense for many of the criminal actions by the above lawyers are being compounded as I write. The original complaints, being deemed out of date and to be buried by yet another newly formed organisation also purported to investigate the wide spread deciet in our courts, judges being at the heart of it, is the very reason for this web site to warn others of my stupidity.

This Hansard extract indicates the lack of will there has been in our own Members of Parliament with no one coming clean to the electorate.

It has taken a brave Liberal to stick his head above the parapet to start the ball rolling........

[Just recieved this e-mail the facts of which need to go before the RCVS again while my 6th application to practice veterinary surgery is being considered]

RCVS

Belgravia House,

Horseferry Road

London

25^th July 2008

BREACHES of the FRAUD ACT

Dear President of the RCVS and Chairman of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee

I enclose a Cambridge Law Academic's e-mail to the organisor following our successful meeting with Dr Vincent Cable MP at the House of Commons, this week, followed within minutes as a debate on the floor on the continuing practice of crooked lawyers having HM immunity to prosecution.

Please forward this information to the FULL Committee

Further details yet to be published on http://www.wacl.org.uk/ & http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/

yours truly

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

Dear Suzon,

I am forwarding your succinct utterances to the RCVS, for what good it will do!

Thank you

Maurice 2

From: UKfairhearing@aol.com [mailto:UKfairhearing@aol.com]
Sent: 25 July 2008 10:56
To: maurice@kirkflyingvet.com
Subject: Re: Thank you 22 Demonstration

Hello Maurice, below is a message I just sent to Shieda. You will understand it better than most.
Cheers,
Suzon

Dear Shieda,

Thanks for the link to the debate which I have just read. What we have is a monarchy hiding behind a mask of democracy. Solicitors are officers of the court (royal courts) and their code of conduct is in conflict with their Crown immunity and (especially given their memo of understanding with the police) unenforceable.

Everything is decided at the top and in favour of the monarchy's supporters.

In common cause,
Suzon

RCVS appears to Encapsulate Privy Council Order on All UK Professions

Maurice Kirk — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:26:29 GMT

Paragraph 33 of Kirk v RCVS 19th Jan 2004 Privy Council Judgment indicates this must also apply to other professions.

PC judgment is now compounded by being included in the Dec 2007 RCVS Guidance to forthcoming disciplinary committees. Drawn up, incidentally and passed by many already implicated in Maurice's multiple refusals for re instatement and several having sat on the original committee to have him struck off.

The latest RCVS admission, printed, is that the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act appears in breach of the Human Rights Act.

Maurice's 6th Application, currently before only one person of the RCVS college council, now given this new power, it appears, by Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, is to refuse an applicant even a hearing before the disciplinary committee. If Maurice requests for 'disclosure' of vital evidence, currently withheld by repeated committees, often with similar jury members or Chairman over the past 6 years, classing those witness statements as 'privileged' evidence, as it was collected from his own clients by RCVS lawyers, when much of it was not, thereby making my clients their clients, then Maurice runs the risk of raising 'an irrelevant issue'. The same RCVS chairman described it last year as such and so refused a hearing.

RCVS 6th Application & 'Abuse of Process' Appl re South Wales Police

Maurice Kirk — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:08:27 GMT

A court document summarising the apparent erosion of our civil liberties in the UK with any remaining concept of a jury in police harassment case now being quietly swept under the carpet. Please study this document and others to be published shortly on http://www.wacl.org.uk/

Lodged today with the £75 court fee

RCVS

London

7^th July 2008

To whom it may concern,

6^TH APPLICATION TO PRACTICE VETERINARY SURGERY

Pre litigation Protocol

Irrespective of any apparent ‘Royal Prerogative' immunity any unnecessary delay in listing my application for hearing may be construed by the appropriate court as a breach of the 1998 Human Rights Act and ECHR Articles 6 & 13.

Please confirm receipt of my 4^th July 2008 6th Application to ‘practice veterinary surgery' identical , unless you can persuade me to the contrary, to my previous 5^th application of July 2007 which was first listed for a hearing but then removed by the chairman of the disciplinary committee ‘without legal advice' and sitting without the committee.

If it is now admitted ‘legal advice' was given to Ms Bruce, this information received by an ‘interested party', then do not the rules now allow me access to ‘matters arising' that appear to some contrary to the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act?

Will it not allow her to strike off anyone now without the need of the committee?

I am in London on the 17^th July meeting the Civil Aviation Authority and need to visit the Chancery division of the RCJ and House of Lords on similar issues, incidentally, so a date either side would be appreciated having regard for the fact I have been unable to practice now for over four and a half years forcing my wife to sell up the South Wales veterinary practice.

Yours truly,

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

Copy to http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/

Abuse of Process & Mr Justice Andrew Collins

Maurice Kirk — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:37:53 GMT

Naivety, ignorance and blind faith Maurice once had in the 'British Judicial System' can be blamed squarely on his attitude towards authority, public school and professional education and an upbringing in a hard working and loving family with respect for others around them. It was an era when honesty in the law courts was paramount and statute law meant just that.

Now just too many gangsters dominate our avenues for legal redress in the UK driven usually by 'greed', 'devil worship' or their unquenchable thirst for 'power'.

The attached, ignored 'Statement of Case' court document, summarises just some of the antics of key players in Maurice's case, those entrusted to administer law but all immune to criminal prosecution.

HM Attorney General Intervenes in RCVS Judicial Review at the RCJ, London16th June 2008

Maurice Kirk — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:00:25 GMT

On Magna Carta Day!

RCVS Royal Charter appears to give Immunity to Prosecution for Someone?

Maurice Kirk — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:26:33 GMT

On Magna Carta Day, of all days !

Rule. 20.7 of The Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Practitioners (Disciplinary Committee) (Procedure and Evidence) Rules Order of Council 2004?

Maurice Kirk — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:40:43 GMT

Austin-American Statesman 30th April 2008 Press Cutting

Maurice Kirk — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:55:59 GMT

Never arrested or charged!

Western Mail Wales 30th April 2008 Press Cutting

Maurice Kirk — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:40:38 GMT

Doing time in Texas

Pilot Faces Deportation Western Morning News 9th May 2008

Maurice Kirk — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:10:25 GMT

RCVS Argument to Oppose 16th June 2008 Judicial Review Application to Practice Veterinary Surgery

Maurice Kirk — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:28:52 GMT

Ever since Queen Victoria first sealed the first Veterinary Surgeons Act in 1844 has any other veterinary surgeon ever been subjected to such demands for reinstatement?