Search results matching tags 'Caswell Clinic' and 'HM Court Service'

7th June 13 Royal Courts of Justice Hearing Right to Tape Record and Call Defendant as Witness

Maurice — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:26:00 GMT

AN E-MAIL WITH NO RESPONSE

FAO Mr Justice Morgan

6^th June 2013 12.02pm

FAO Hearings Cardiff County Court                       BS614159

22nd & 23rd May2013 Claimant Position Statements Ruling

Further to my visit to the court to collect the 'by Tuesday' ruling, promised at the last day of the hearing, l have telephoned today about the Claimant being able to refer to it in RCJ on 7th June 13 as the alternative, possibly, to Barbara Wilding being the subject of the proceedings as past Chief Constable.

Her 'oh so dodgy' 25th Feb 2009 sworn affidavit was written with malice aforethought and proved in court following 99 witnesses's evidence.

There is no need for the Defendant's legal team
to attend as the tape recording issue is not for them.

If the outstanding ruling is substituted for Mr Justice Morgan to consider then compromise as to which witnesses should still be allowed to give evidence could be settled between parties NOW

Without that ruling causes me to remain in some difficulties for tomorrow's RCJ application

Please forward to RCJ as I still cannot find the RCJ ref number or e-mail.

Thankyou

28 May 2013   Further ruling on second list of witnesses whom Mr Kirk wishes to call.

On 29 April 2013, at a time when the Defendant were shortly to call their last witness, Mr Kirk delivered a written list of 44 witnesses whom he wished to call. On 1^st May 2013 I delivered a written ruling identifying which witnesses he was to be permitted to call. I did so pursuant to the responsibility upon the court to control the evidence by giving directions, and actively to case manage the case, under CPR 32.1 and CPR 1.4. In that written ruling it I set out the nature of the present proceedings; the Orders which have been made previously, setting out in particular the dates by which witness statements, or witness summaries, had been required to be served; the background from 2008 to date in respect of preparation of the present trial insofar as it permitted or impeded Mr Kirk’s ability to prepare evidence and secure witness statements or summaries; and the principles by which the court is governed in respect of the calling of witnesses. I adopt that in full for the purpose of the present ruling and I do not repeat it here.

Since then, Mr Kirk has given evidence over several days and has called 13 witnesses. By a Position Statement dated 22^nd May 2013 Mr Kirk served a further written list of some 19 named witnesses he would wish to call. I stated on 24 May that I would again give ruling in writing. This is (i) for clarity as to my reasons and (ii) for ease of access to a record of the ruling. I understand that a hearing is listed for Friday 7 June 2013 to consider permission to appeal (and/or appeal itself) against my ruling of 1 May 2013. I will in this ruling list the witnesses individually in this ruling, as I did in the last, by number and name in Mr Kirk’s list but preceded by a letter “B”, to avoid confusion, assuming that the present ruling may also be the subject of application for permission to appeal.

B1.       Ex-Inspector Coliandris. This is a former police officer. In these proceedings the Defendant gave an undertaking to call or tender any witness in respect of whom a witness statement had been lodged, so long as that was a presently serving officer and thus within the control of the Defendant; but expressly did not give that undertaking in respect of any witness who was no longer a serving police officer. I was told that Mr Coliandris was reluctant to attend court because of his state of health. I am aware that he wrote to the court himself seeking to inform the court confidentially of his state of health and his reservations, but stating that he did not want these details to be made known to Mr Kirk. I declined to read his representations so long as he wished the content of his communications to be kept from one of the parties and I so informed them. In the event Mr Coliandris was not called and the Defendant did not seek to tender his evidence, whether live or under the Civil Evidence Act.

Mr Kirk does not articulate the nature of the evidence which he believes Mr Coliandris could give. On the face of his witness statement Mr Coliandris is not a direct witness to any fact or incident in issue. He appears to have looked into complaint by Mr Kirk, without identifying relevant material evidence. If so, then this appears to be a witness whom Mr Kirk wishes to call blind, in the hope of either fishing for evidence in support of his case or simply cross-examining the witness in support of the same exercise. I have also sought to be alert to the possibility that a witness might be able to assist, as to the matters in issue, if he is referred to in documents before the court; but I have identified no such reference.

Accordingly I rule against permission to call this witness.

B2.       Ex Chief Inspector Trigg. This is in fact a renewed application – in respect of witness 15 in the ruling of 1 May 2013. No new material is advanced. The same considerations apply. Accordingly I still rule against permission to call Mr Trigg.

B3.      Mr Brian Genner. This is a witness who has given evidence in relation to the events of 6 June 1995. Mr Anthony Gafael and his girlfriend Alison Genner the daughter of this witness were excluded that day from their flat, an incident which led to prosecution of Mr Kirk, and in respect of which Mr Kirk complains that police officers forced entry through a roller shutter door to Mr Kirk’s premises. There are discrepancies between the account in the witness statement for these proceedings of Sergeant Roe (as he was in 1995) and others, including Mr Genner, as to when Roe was present or what he did. In the case of Mr Roe, Mr Kirk produced after Mr Roe’s evidence a statement of the time from Sergeant Roe which appeared clearly inconsistent with what Mr Roe had told me. I therefore permitted Mr Roe, exceptionally, to be recalled for further cross-examination. The inconsistencies have been explored in cross-examination by Mr Kirk and in questions from myself.

Mr Kirk seeks that Mr Genner be recalled also. However the evidence of Mr Genner has been given. The evidence of Anthony Gafael has now been given. If there is material in the evidence of Mr Genner (or Mr Gafael) on which Mr Kirk seeks to rely, or inconsistencies in the evidence between witnesses on which he seeks to rely, that is available in closing submissions and will be for me to consider as in any other case. Unlike Mr Roe, there is no earlier inconsistent written statement of Mr Genner relied upon (which in any event, if it had been available, ought to have been put to him), nor other proper reason for him to be recalled.

B4.       Mr Roe. He has been recalled once (see above). It would be wholly exceptional for a witness to be recalled for a second time. I have now heard evidence from Mr Gafael. However Mr Kirk identifies nothing new which would justify, and I have failed to identify anything in the evidence of Mr Gafael which would justify, recalling Mr Roe.

B5.       Ex Chief Inspector Colin Jones. Mr Kirk states that he is a “key player”. A chief reason for Mr Kirk’s interest is that at one of Mr Kirk’s appeals in the Crown Court a police officer attended as an observer, when he was seen to be nodding towards a police officer PC Rewbridge during the giving of her evidence. According to Mr Kirk, when asked to explain himself, the police officer said he was attending on instruction from Chief Inspector Colin Jones. Inferentially, Mr Kirk believes that Mr Colin Jones is, or may be, one of the senior police officers whom he passionately believes to have conspired to hound him.

As with a number of police officers whom Mr Kirk wished to call in his list of 29 April 2013, (i) there is no statement from the proposed witness (ii) it is wholly unlikely that the witness will give a statement, and (iii) there is no direct evidence of connection of the witness with the specific matters in issue in these proceedings. I consider that the real wish of Mr Kirk is to cross-examine the witness in the hope that something might turn up; but that there is no discernible prospect that such an exercise would assist the court.

B6.       Inspector Andrew Rice. Mr Kirk has submitted on a great number of occasions that Mr Rice should be recalled. Evidence has been given by a Mr Alexander-Ebbs that he attended Aust Service Station to give a witness statement, in respect of an assault he alleged against Mr Kirk, at a meeting attended by a number of persons including Mr Rice, where he was encouraged to “sex up” his account. However Mr Alexander-Ebbs was present in person at this court on 21^st February 2013 during the continued evidence of Mr Rice; gave a witness statement on that day making the allegations against Mr Rice; and these allegations were put to Mr Rice. Otherwise, Mr Kirk assets that Mr Rice must have been aware fo covert surveillance of Mr Kirk; and/or he now wonders whether it was Mr Rice whom he sought to “arrest” outside the magistrates’ court (rather than a Sergeant Hill) when handing over a file which Mr Kirk thought might contain important real evidence. In my respectful judgment there is, (and there continues to be), no justification for the recall of Mr Rice.

B7.       Inspector Steve Parry. This is in fact a renewed application – in respect of witness 43 in the ruling of 1 May 2013. No new material is advanced. The same considerations apply. Accordingly I still rule against permission to call Mr Parry.

B8.       Jonathan Clayton.   I made ruling in respect of Mr Clayton on 1 May 2013. No witness statement or witness summary has been served in respect of him. He is said to be relevant to the incident of 4 July 1999, but it is not said that he was a direct witness to any of the events of that day. If anything, there is less reason now for him to be called, in that Mr Kirk’s witness Susan Jenkins has given evidence of what is required of those flying from one airport and air traffic control zone to another; and Mr Aishe has given evidence of the closeness of the police helicopter to Mr Kirk’s aircraft I discern no sufficient or good reason for him to be called.

B9.      Ex Chief Constable Barbara Wilding. This is another renewed application – in respect of witness 2 in the ruling of 1 May 2013. Mr Kirk identifies nothing new. The same considerations apply now as did then. Accordingly I still rule against permission to call this witness.

B10.     Ex Special Constable Frank O’Brien. The position statement itself articulates no cause for him to be called. Orally, Mr Kirk said he was an important witness because he gave evidence which “caused the case [against Mr Kirk] to collapse”. I did not find it easy to follow what this evidence was supposed to be. It seemed to be that an HORT1 form was said by the police officers to have been served upon Mr Kirk, yet no document was ever traced, nor an audit trial provided for such a document, hence the case against Mr Kirk failed. However, to the extent that this is right, Mr Kirk may in any event rely upon it.

This is an incident of May 1995. in which Mr Kirk shows particular interest, in that Special Constable Deren Martin says that she served him with an HORT1 form; and has given evidence that she made enquiries with the police in Guernsey (in pursuit of whether Mr Kirk’s vehicle was or was not exempt from vehicle excise licence), being told that there was warrant for his arrest outstanding. This fuels Mr Kirk’s suspicion and belief that he was the subject of harassment by police in Wales because of his past travails with Guernsey police.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that Mr O’Brian is a paradigm case of a proposed witness from whom there is no witness statement or summary, no reason to suppose that the witness (if he can be found) will give a statement, no indication whether he would remember whether another officer served an HORT1 firm on Mr Kirk on a day 18 years ago, SC Deren Martin being the officer in the case, and one whom Mr Kirk hopes to cross-examine despite him being called as his own witness, in the hope that something might turn up. Accordingly I decline to give permission for this witness to be called.

B11.     Ex SC Ridley. Mr Kirk tells me, (if I have succeeded in following him correctly), that Mr Ridley was the investigating officer for the same incident as resulted in police photographs being taken of his vehicle (as was done for SC Deren Martin for the May 1995 incident). Similar considerations apply as with SC O’Brien. So far as I can see, this is fishing in the dark. In default of witness statement, or the beginnings of a witness summary, I cannot justify permission to call the witness.

B12.    Mrs Diana Graham. Mr Kirk asks for a “foreign witness summons”. This witness lives in France. The Claimant’s Witness Bundle includes at page 91-123 a statement, not in proper form, by this witness with associated documents. The bulk of the statement relates to the proceedings which followed the Vale of Glamorgan Show incident of August 1998, (Action 3, “2”). This is one of the claims struck out by my rulings of November 2010. Accordingly that which relates to it is not now material.

Much of the rest relates to how Mr Kirk was dealt with on occasions in court, by magistrates (and occasionally by judges, including judges in the Divisional Court), some of it clearly recording what Mr Kirk said to her and some although much less clearly being personal observation on the part of Mrs Graham. I informed the parties that I would read this statement and discard all that related to the Vale of Glamorgan Show. I do not envisage that Mrs Graham could assist me significantly further by giving evidence orally and, as I have made clear on a number of occasions, it is not permissible to call a witness in the hope that she might add something further which is not contained either in a witness statement or witness summary. Not least, if there were anything material for Mrs Graham to add, the time has long passed when such material was required to be lodged with the court. I will treat the statement as admitted in evidence, but I will make no further order.

B13.     Mr Gafael. He has now been called, since I directed steps for bailiff service of Notice to show Cause which secured his attendance on 24 May 2013.

B14.     G. Thomas. Without agreeing the content of the statement, the Defendant is content that the statement be read.   The same applies to a Mr Kirke (as to maintenance of tyres on vehicles of Mr Kirk), whom Mr Kirk raised orally on 23 May 2103 as a potential witness.

B15.    Nigel Thomas. This is in fact a renewed application – in respect of witness 30 in the ruling of 1 May 2013. No statement has been produced. No new material is advanced and the same considerations apply as before. I rule against deferment of conclusion of the evidence in order for him to be searched for and thus against permission to call Mr Thomas.

B17.     Mrs Kirstie Kirk. In the event she has been called.

B18.     Mrs G Jones. This appears not to be pursued by Mr Kirk.

B19.     Mrs J Hanson. Mr Kirk told me that he had ‘lost her statement’. In fact there is a letter from her at page 168 (Claimant’s Witness Bundle) which raises complaint about disturbance from his wayward tenants. Mr Kirk and Barry police officer witnesses whom I have heard agree the problems with alcoholism, and bad behaviour on the part of his tenants, in particular a Mr Paul Stringer and a Mr Burns. Oral evidence from Mrs Hanson, not found or available to date, is not reasonably necessary for me to deal justly with the matters in issue.

With the exception of one witness, there is no other witness whom Mr Kirk wishes to call. That exception is B16, a Michael Murphy. The Defendant made clear a considerable time ago that that it objected to reception of the evidence without the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. No witness summons was served in respect of this witness. Mr Kirk told me on Friday 24 May that he had expected the witness to be present voluntarily that day. However there was, and has been since, no communication to the court from the witness.

It is understandable that the Defendant should object to his short statement being admitted without the opportunity to cross-examine him. The statement is one compiled by Mr Kirk in September 2010, with an added signature of the witness, and in manuscript the words “content below relating to me is true to the best of belife(sic)”. It describes him as a scrap dealer previously reported for stealing a veterinary practice car back in 1996 (presumably Mr Kirk’s veterinary practice); and the police are said to have told the witness on the one hand “I want you to take it back immediately to Penarth police station, where I will later inform Kirk it has been traced” and on the other hand one of the police is said to have jumped into the scrap dealer’s cab and himself to have driven it to Penarth: the two clearly conflict. On the other hand the statement reads that the police told him “We hate Kirk’s guts” and that the policeman said he would “have the greatest of pleasure in booking Kirk when he comes to collect it and drives it away without tax, MOT or insurance”.

The failure to appear without explanation, to support the statement such as I have described it, is not a prepossessing basis to ask for the court to appoint another day of hearing. If all, or even some, of Mr Kirk’s complaints of police harassment and bad faith are upheld, on the other evidence I have heard over some 49 days, the evidence of the scrap dealer suspected of stealing the practice car in 1996 will be peripheral; if few, or none are upheld it will be improbable that the evidence of Mr Murphy would tilt the balance on any of them. The court has gone to what I consider to be extreme lengths, in order to accommodate genuine difficulties to Mr Kirk in preparing his case, and those which are of his own making; and has granted great latitude to him in calling witnesses despite failure to serve statements in the form and by the dates stipulated. Applying the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and proportionately, I do not consider it reasonably necessary that the court should appoint another day for hearing of evidence in the case of this witness.

28 May 2013.                                      His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn, QC

Appellants’ Skeleton Argument for Mr Justice Morgan              BS416159

(Late due to the Appellant waiting for the written rulings of his last applications before Cardiff County Court in time to appeal at Royal Courts of Justice and without it am unable to adequately comment on the Respondent’s skeleton argument with errors and huge assumptions)

There are but three issues for His Lordship to consider,

1)    the right for the Claimant to have the Defendant(s) give evidence in the light of the apparent criminal intent born out both in evidence and contained within the paragraphs of the Chief Constable’s 25^th February 2009 sworn affidavit in another attempt to avoid disclosure of relevant evidence under his/her control since 1992 to date

2)    the right for the Claimant to have senior police officers, identified both before and during the trial, to give evidence or to be recalled, with or without witness statements, concerning their apparent course of conduct to both prejudice the Claimant’s health and his basic right to bring a claim for civil damages in the first place

3)    for the Claimant or his legal representatives to only tape record evidence given on oath, under the strict supervision of the court and/or to be supplied with an audible copy of court proceedings as is allowed all over the world nowadays, including in England.

Witnesses

The Claimant’s right to call both a competent and compellable witness when, by law, a witness is ‘anybody’s property’ and especially, as in this case of these first three of nine Actions for damages against the South Wales Police, one Defendant, as the example, has been identified as signing her own 2009 affidavit (attached) knowing or ought to have known it to be riddled with lies and supports the Appellant’s argument that the Defendant has carried out a course of conduct tantamount to both unusual and extreme bullying with criminal intent.

Analysis of 25^th February 2009 Barbara Wilding Affidavit:

18.   para 8.23

Another traffic incident and a Barry court case was born out in evidence making her denial there ever was one another of her lies to bury the truth of a clear conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The lengths to which key players, mostly senior police officers, have been protected in these civil proceedings, is scandalous.

19.   para 8.26 as per paragraph 13

20.   para 8.13

The incident when my Guernsey registered BMW motorcycle was stolen while her covert surveillance police were at the scene, my Barry veterinary Hospital, when the theft took place, makes her denial the police removed the number plate, on recovery, just one more of her lies.

2^nd Action

23.   para 5.1

The incident of her officers falsifying Barry magistrates evidence by trying to ‘frame me’ for someone else’s speeding offence was proved in court with the subsequent arrest of the lawyer and seizure of the Crown Prosecution Service’s file makes her denial there ever was an incident or a court case one more of her lies.

The fact that Dolmans, solicitors, admit CPS prosecutor, Stan Soffa, did not wish to be called as her defence witness beggars belief and anyway, who’s counting the incidents committed by the police?

27. to 29   para 10.1

First arrested for the theft of a car I had already reported as stolen, they having confiscated it and deliberately not told me where it was, just like with my Guernsey registered BMW motorcycle and Honda van, secondly, stopped for speeding and faulty exhaust and then, ten or so minutes later, stopped on some fabrication, to breathalyse, embarrassingly overlooked by the previous officers.

3^rd Action

32.

Her throw away comment of ‘antiquity’ being her excuse of failed disclosure is both insulting and typically arrogant. From 1993 onwards my English solicitors, me or my secretaries would follow up each incident with requests for either disclosure or to preserve their records.

Adrian Oliver drafted her document being a party to the fanciful plan to prejudice these civil proceedings by arresting me for trading in machine guns, carrying a mandatory ten year prison term. Caswell Clinic convened my MAPPA level 3 hearings to have me further incarcerated in Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Prison but only using their rogue NHS (Wales) psychiatrist promised GMC protection for whatever he said in a Welsh court room.

These following 22^nd and 23^rd May13 Position Statements were subject to appeal to the High Court but have not been adjudicated upon in time, at the Cardiff County Court, for this 7^th June 2013 Royal Courts of Justice Hearing

That coupled with his Lordship’s Order suggesting that this Claimant ‘may or may not be appealing earlier rulings’ over witnesses causes the court to be reminded that this hearing ought to be adjourned for all the reasons set out in the Appellant’s 28^th May Application (attached at the bottom)

22^nd May 13 Claimant Position Statement

1.      The Claimant asks His Honour to consider whether it is fitting that the Defendant be asked to more formally clarify their position on some points that at first may seem unrelated but have a common theme of legal argument around :-

a.       Whether the Claimant should be allowed to amend any of his Claims ‘out of time’.

b.      Be allowed the issue of exemplary and/or aggravated damages to be considered.

c.       Will the Defendants ever stop ‘actually harassing’ the Claimant as for example of in recent times by police using and sending to other police forces information to lead other police forces and other public sector departments to view the Claimant prejudicially by leading them to believe that the Claimant is delusional.

d.      By the Defendant disseminating information to say the Claimant is delusional either that means what they say is untrue and the Defendant refuse to stop harassing the Claimant and may affect the level of damages

e.       Or if what the Defendant disseminates is true then being delusional is a condition which allows the Claimant to be eligible to amend the Claims before the court that are ‘out of time’ by the time limitation period.

2.      The Claimant raises the issues from reading page 198 point 13.40 and related sections of A Practical Approach to Civil Procedure by Stuart Sime, twelfth edition (2009) that says that Judicial reasoning can be that Claims can usually be amended but that an amendment is treated as a new claim and cannot be brought out of time. However page 101 gives explanation on point 7.40 that a Claim (and therefore an amendment to a Claim) can be brought ‘out of time’ if the Claimant had a mental disability at the time the new Claim accrued.

3.      As the Defendant, in recent years, persistently disseminates information about the Claimant, as being delusional, then that means the Claimant may apply to the Court to amend the Claims that accrued when he was delusional.

4.      If the information, disseminated by the Defendant, is not true then that may be relevant exemplary and aggravated damages and even amount to defamation.

5.      If the information that the Defendant disseminates about the Claimant, being delusional, is untrue then the Claimant asks that a statement is made as to when the Defendant will stop disseminating this untrue defamatory information and how it will go about achieving that as well as the Defendants withdrawing what they have sent to many other public bodies, including the Metropolitan Police, the Guernsey police, the French police and even government departments in the royal courts of Justice and Whitehall from around 2002 and onwards when applications were made that the Claimant be registered a Vexatious Litigant and as a MAPPA level 3 victim.

6.      If, on the other hand, the information they disseminate about the Claimant is true then that requires the Defendant to say as from what date he is delusional or with a mental disability as the Claimant can be allowed by the Court to amend any claim that accrued from that date when he first had a mental disability.

7.      As we are aware much by the Claimant is in writing and so if the Defendant gives detail as to the Claimant being delusional, for just one moment, then an independent expert can be used to trace back the detail from that moment identified by the Defendant to where the indication of delusional in writings first emerged.

8.      A critical detail is that the Defendant actually disseminates information to say that the Claimant is delusional for ‘thinking he is harassed by police’.

9.      The Claimant complains to police, at least, as from 20^th June 1993, when the Claimant was in unlawful custody, up an including to today’s Position Statement

10. Given the Defendant disseminates information that the Claimant is delusional, for thinking he is harassed by police, please would the Defendant clarify at what point the Claimant was first displaying being delusional, by complaining he was harassed by police, so that the Claimant can apply to amend his Claims that accrued on or after that date.

11. If the Claimant was not delusional about being harassed by police, yet wrote and complained that he was harassed by police from say, 20^th June 1993, following information given to the Defendant by the Guernsey Police, at what point will the Defendant ensure the Claimant is no longer harassed by police, such as the Defendant stopping disseminating false and malicious information about the Claimant and will the Defendant comment on the obvious reluctance of the Defendant to stop harassing the Claimant in the context of exemplary and/or aggravated damages

A)      Witnesses outstanding in 1-3 Actions

1.       Ex Inspector Colliandris (medical argument irrelevant)

2.       Ex Chief Inspector Sean (Shawn) Trigg (key player)

3.       Ex Brian Jenner (Recall re Break in Cardiff Vet Surgery)

4.        Ex Chief Inspector Insp Robert Nelson Roe (Recall re Break in Cardiff Vet Surgery)

5.        Ex Chief Inspector Collin Jones (key player)

6.        Inspector Andrew Rice (Recall re 1^st Action 8.23 & CP Ebbs/Alexander)

7.        Inspector Steve Parry (Penal order on Defendant)

8.        Jonathan Clayton Air Traffic Controller (Dangerous flying/Penal Order)

9.        Ex Chief Constable Barbara Wilding (Defendant)

10.      Ex Special Constable Frank O’Brian (Penal Order on Defendant)

11.      Ex Special Constable Ridley (Penal Order on Defendant)

12.       Mrs Diana Graham (Foreign Witness Summons)

13.       A Gafael (re break-in Cardiff Vet surgery/Penal Order)

14.       G Thomas (stolen BMW m/c/ Penal order)

15.       ‘Yosser’ Nigel Thomas (stolen BMW m/c)

16.       Michael Murphy (Defendant’s destruction of Claimant’s vehicles)

17.      Mrs K Kirk

18.      Mrs G Jones

19.      Mrs J Hanson

B)       Application for Jury Trials for:

a)     4^th Action police bullying/ malicious pros, false imprisonments

b)    5^th Action Machine gun Case/malicious pros, false imprisonments

c)     6^th Action Forensic Psychiatrist/NHS (Wales) False Medical Records

           d)     7^th Action police bullying/ malicious pros, false imprisonments

     e)     8^th Action police bullying/ malicious pros, false imprisonments

C)    Claimant’s Fitness to Continue?

D)   Previous ‘struck out’ incidents in 1-3 Actions to be re instated

E)     Current Civil Proceedings (post Woolf/ Human Rights Act)

F) HM Crown Prosecution Service continues to ignore disclosure applications from Claimant, his solicitor or from his barrister re:

              i) Refusal to disclose evidence to clarify NHS psychiatric records at Caswell Clinic, Glanrhyd Hospital, Bridgend

             ii)  Refusal to disclose July 2012 evidence re doctor's statement that caused Claimant imprisoned

            iii) Refusal to disclose depositions re above withdrawn indictment of 'harassment'

          iv) Refusal to disclose depositions re one Lewis machine gun indictment and subsequent acquittal

           v) Refusal to supply Claimant with copy of his own MG11 victim statement re above outstanding issues

            vi) Refusal to supply Claimant with date he was first deemed to have a mental disability

G)     Interim payment for costs and damage

Maurice J Kirk BVSc                                                                  22^nd May 2013

(23^rd May 13 Position Statement mislaid and to follow)

Private Tape Recording, ‘Litigants in Person’ to be awarded legal costs and the Crushing of Family Court Cartels

The future of our UK court administration, if not already a night mare, is a pretty grim one right now with the lack of funding for expertise and the extra work caused by the withdrawal of legal aid.

One’s inability to find a truly independent lawyer these days with ever mounting unexplained costs incurred, should you be so lucky, is why this Claimant is adding to the problem by having to act alone.

Also, if this Claimant’s current Cardiff court action is typical of a ‘litigant in person’ floundering around in a quagmire of both regulation and custom with fast aging faculties barely keeping his head above water, then what is the future of our law courts when many more are forced to do the same?

In order for ‘litigants in person’ to achieve anything from the clear futility of it all then to further break down lucrative and unfair cartels, as currently practiced in the UK courts, is what each must strive to do and share any information from one’s mistakes.

This Claimant suggests we remain vigilant in what is to be ultimately achieved, the significant reform of a grossly outdated money driven judiciary and not to allow our own court cases to over shadow this primary objective, the clinching of that man made concept, some call ‘justice’ for all parties.

In The High Court Royal Courts of Justice                                                     BS614159

Before Mr Justice Morgan

Maurice Kirk v Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary

Appellant’s Application to Adjourn of 7^th June 13 High Court Hearing

Further to the 14^th May 2013 High Court Order of the Honourable Mr Justice Morgan the Appellant applies for an appropriate adjournment in order to:

12. Obtain the official transcript as he was unable to tape record for his own use within the case in preparation for subsequent appeal(s)

13. obtain clarification as to which of the outstanding witnesses, identified in his 22^nd and 23^rd May 13 Position Statements to the Crown Court judge and

14. in the light of the enclosed further statement of A G Gafael and The Defendant’s February 2009 sworn Affidavit and

15. concerning the proposed 28^th May 13 ruling , by His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC, due to be handed down today and

16. For appellant to obtain fee exemption in order to complete his prosecution and subsequent appeal(s)

AND

17. The Appellant asks the court to consider whether it is fitting that the Defendant be asked to more formally clarify their position on some points that at first may seem unrelated but have a common theme of legal argument around :-

f.        Whether the Appellant should be allowed to amend any of his Claims ‘out of time’.

g.       Be allowed the issue of exemplary and/or aggravated damages to be considered.

h.       Will the Defendants ever stop ‘actually harassing’ the Appellant as for example of in recent times by police using and sending to other police forces information to lead other police forces and other public sector departments to view the Appellant prejudicially by leading them to believe that the Appellant is delusional.

i.         By the Defendant disseminating information to say the Appellant is delusional either that means what they say is untrue and the Defendant refuse to stop harassing the Appellant and may affect the level of damages

j.        Or if what the Defendant disseminates is true then being delusional is a condition which allows the Appellant to be eligible to amend the Claims before the court that are ‘out of time’ by the time limitation period.

18. The Appellant raises the issues from reading page 198 point 13.40 and related sections of A Practical Approach to Civil Procedure by Stuart Sime, twelfth edition (2009) that says that Judicial reasoning can be that Claims can usually be amended but that an amendment is treated as a new claim and cannot be brought out of time. However page 101 gives explanation on point 7.40 that a Claim (and therefore an amendment to a Claim) can be brought ‘out of time’ if The Appellant had a mental disability at the time the new Claim accrued.

19. As the Defendant, in recent years, persistently disseminates information about the Appellant, as being delusional, then that means the Appellant may apply to the Court to amend the Claims that accrued when he was delusional.

20. If the information, disseminated by the Defendant, is not true then that may be relevant exemplary and aggravated damages and even amount to defamation.

21. If the information that the Defendant disseminates about the Appellant, being delusional, is untrue then the Appellant asks that a statement is made as to when the Defendant will stop disseminating this untrue defamatory information and how it will go about achieving that as well as the Defendants withdrawing what they have sent to many other public bodies, including the Metropolitan Police, the Guernsey police, the French police and even government departments in the royal courts of Justice and Whitehall from around 2002 and onwards when applications were made that the Appellant be registered a Vexatious Litigant and as a MAPPA level 3 victim.

22. If, on the other hand, the information they disseminate about the Appellant is true then that requires the Defendant to say as from what date he is delusional or with a mental disability as the Appellant can be allowed by the Court to amend any claim that accrued from that date when he first had a mental disability.

23. As we are aware much by the Claimant is in writing and so if the Defendant gives detail as to the Appellant being delusional, for just one moment, then an independent expert can be used to trace back the detail from that moment identified by the Defendant to where the indication of delusional in writings first emerged.

24. A critical detail is that the Defendant actually disseminates information to say that the appellant is delusional for ‘thinking he is harassed by police’.

25. The Appellant complains to police, at least, as from 20^th June 1993, when the appellant was in unlawful custody, up an including to today’s Position Statement.

26. Given the Defendant disseminates information that the Appellant is delusional, for thinking he is harassed by police, please would the Defendant clarify at what point the Appellant was first displaying being delusional, by complaining he was harassed by police, so that the Appellant can apply to amend his Claims that accrued on or after that date.

27. If the Appellant was not delusional about being harassed by police, yet wrote and complained that he was harassed by police from say, 20^th June 1993, following information given to the Defendant by the Guernsey Police, at what point will the Defendant ensure the appellant is no longer harassed by police, such as the Defendant stopping disseminating false and malicious information about the Appellant and will the Defendant comment on the obvious reluctance of the Defendant to stop harassing the Appellant in the context of exemplary and/or aggravated damages

A)      Witnesses outstanding in 1-3 Action

1.       Ex Inspector Colliandris (medical argument irrelevant)

2.       Ex Chief Inspector Sean (Shawn) Trigg (key player)

3.       Ex Brian Jenner (Recall re Break in Cardiff Vet Surgery)

4.        Ex Chief Inspector Insp Robert Nelson Roe (Recall re Break in Cardiff Vet Surgery)

5.        Ex Chief Inspector Collin Jones (key player)

6.        Inspector Andrew Rice (Recall re 1^st Action 8.23 & CP Ebbs/Alexander)

7.        Inspector Steve Parry (Penal order on Defendant)

8.        Jonathan Clayton Air Traffic Controller (Dangerous flying/Penal Order)

9.        Ex Chief Constable Barbara Wilding (Defendant)

10.      Ex Special Constable Frank O’Brian (Penal Order on Defendant)

11.      Ex Special Constable Ridley (Penal Order on Defendant)

12.       Mrs Diana Graham (Foreign Witness Summons)

13.       A Gafael (re break-in Cardiff Vet surgery/Penal Order)

14.       G Thomas (stolen BMW m/c/ Penal order)

15.       ‘Yosser’ Nigel Thomas (stolen BMW m/c)

16.       Michael Murphy (Defendant’s destruction of Claimant’s vehicles)

19.      Mrs J Hanson

B)    Application for Jury Trials for:

a)     4^th Action police bullying/ malicious pros, false imprisonments

b)    5^th Action Machine gun Case/malicious pros, false imprisonments

c)     6^th Action Forensic Psychiatrist/NHS (Wales) incorrect Medical Records

     d)     7^th Action police bullying/ malicious pros, false imprisonments

     e)     8^th Action police bullying/ malicious pros, false imprisonments

C)    Claimant’s Fitness to Continue?

D)   Previous ‘struck out’ incidents in 1-3 Actions to be re instated

E)     Current Civil Proceedings (post Woolf/ Human Rights Act)

F) HM Crown Prosecution Service continues to ignore disclosure applications from Claimant, his solicitor or from his barrister re:

              i) Refusal to disclose evidence to clarify NHS psychiatric records at Caswell Clinic, Glanrhyd Hospital, Bridgend

             ii)  Refusal to disclose July 2012 evidence re doctor's statement that caused Claimant imprisoned

            iii) Refusal to disclose depositions re above withdrawn indictment of 'harassment'

          iv) Refusal to disclose depositions re one Lewis machine gun indictment and subsequent acquittal

           v) Refusal to supply Claimant with copy of his own MG11 victim statement re above outstanding issues

            vi) Refusal to supply Claimant with date he was first deemed to have a mental disability

G)     Interim payment for costs and damage

Maurice J Kirk BVSc                                                                28^th May 2013

PILOT MAGAZINE....previous pages at bottom of previous blogs

Pilot Mag April 2002 MJK Profile_0001 (4).pdf

Lord Leveson Mr Justices Mitting & Males REFUSE Maurice's Applic for NHS (Wales) Falsified MAPPA Psychiatric Reports to be CORRECTED OR CLARIFIED

Maurice — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:56:00 GMT

JUDGMENT

14th March 2013 Criminal Court of Appeal, whilst sitting in Cardiff, refused Maurice Kirk both legal representation and clarificationion as to whether he had 'significant brain damage’ and 'possible' cancer reported to 2009 Cardiff Crown Court, by a South Wales police psychiatrist, whilst recommending his victim be incarcerated in Ashworth High Security Prison for the doctor’s own safety, from an interested third party, an elderly Norman Scarth Esq.

That makes 14 UK judges, now, protecting NHS (Wales) and South Wales Police policy and damned the danger to the general public, to allow servicer of the 'Gulag card' on anyone who dares threaten their

pensions

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2013-03-14a.147843.h&s=speaker%3A11420#g147843.q0

Maurice's very simple submission, today, stating, at the out set he only wanted his psychiatric reports corrected or clarified.

They had already had the refusal drafted months ago

Maurice asked for an ajournment for legal representation but was refused.

Maurice asked it be adjourned owing to a JR application was outstanding about the circus of District Judge John Charles circus on 1st December 2011....Maurice was refused

Their Lordships already had this document from me, knocked up at 6am on the day, served on them for Cyberr space world wide ECHR and CCRC

Please note today's court judgment is a stark warning to others in Wales of what has been going on re the practice of false psychiatric reports understood by no one, not even the writer.

This judgment means trouble

Criminal Court of Appeal ref: 201203241 D2

At Cardiff Crown Court ref: CO/3970/2012 &CO/6357/2012

1CF 03546

Regina v Maurice John Kirk

Application to Appeal

SUMMARY

The trial was unsafe because:

The jury was denied the defence evidence

Extract taken from 4^th May 2012 Cardiff Crown Court hearing at approx. 10.45am

JUDGE CURRAN: Do you intend give evidence?

MR KIRK: It depends on whether you let me get my legal papers that are down stairs.

JUDGE CURRAN: Mr Kirk, I am not going to let you get at what you call your legal papers.

(The Appellant was not allowed to be present or allowed to call any defence witnesses)

The jury was misdirected

Jury note(s) to the learned judge they received a response, in the forced absence of the Appellant, that there was ‘no evidence’ from both the custody manager and court clerk’s contemporaneous notes and CCTV footage stored from GEOamey Custody Services cameras positioned both in the Appellant’s cell and in the long custody suite corridor or from the HM court’s controlled cameras at both exit of the custody suite and building.

LEE BARKER, the custody suite manager said, both on oath and in his witness statement, that he ‘served’ the ‘restraining order’ in the cell after he had to first unlocked the cell door.

MICHAEL WILLIAMS said, both on oath and in his witness statement, that he saw served on the Appellant the ‘restraining order’ whilst the Appellant was on crutches in the corridor returning from the toilets. Potential weapons, such as crutches, are not allowed in that area.

CCTV cameras recorded the part hand written ‘restraining order’ remained in BARKER’S hand , whilst in the cell and recorded the Appellant literately being dragged out and thrown out of the suite by no less than five angry custody officers who then threw his crutches onto his head as he lay on the floor of the public corridor. The camera at the exit of the building recorded defence witnesses, called to give evidence, seeing the Appellant both in hand cuffs and in a wheel chair.

The jury was subjected to a ‘An Abuse of Process’

The psychiatrist subjected the Appellant to the NHS (Wales) zero tolerance policy thereby seriously prejudicing current civil litigation from 20 years of persistent police bullying by

a) Causing the Appellant to be registered, in Barry police station, on 8^th June 2009, a MAPPA level 3 victim, to be one of the 5% most dangerous so registered and then

b) On the 22^nd June 2009 caused the Appellant to be arrested and remanded in custody on dreamed up fire arms charges over a WWI antique Lewis machine gun and then

c) had the Appellant, on 7^th august 2009, sectioned under the 1983 Mental Health Act, without even examining his own patient and then

d) without the appropriate qualifications and contrary to others with appropriate qualifications, recommended to a Crown Court, on 2^nd December 2009, that the Appellant be further incarcerated into Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Prison for the doctor’s own safety (see para39 of 19^th October 2009 psychiatric report) and then

e) The psychiatrist wrote that the Appellant had ‘significant brain damage’ with the court being told, in the forced absence of the Appellant, that he possibly had cancer’

f) The Appellant has NEVER been supplied with the evidence, clarification or retraction of such nonsense despite this Appellant’s last application before this very same Criminal Court of Appeal for that very same purpose

g) The mischief by Dr Tegwyn Mel Williams continues

Last July he signed a ‘victim’ statement that the Appellant had harassed him at his home with his wife, Dr Janis Hillier, also of Caswell Clinic, to such an extent that they are now both on ‘extended sick leave’. The lies continued in that he also stated police had to be called to the scene but with Appellant’s subsequent imprisonment ending by all charges being dropped.

4 Section 1 (3) of 1997 Harassment Act provides a DefenceThe Appellant was not allowed at the1^st December 2010 summary hearing, while facing ‘harassment’ allegations of the police doctor, at its subsequent 1^st March 2013 appeal or even at the 4^th May 2013 jury trial to put a legal argument that the police doctor had knowingly committed crime, due to police black mail and therefore the Appellant was permitted

a) that it was pursued for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime

b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment

c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable

Maurice J Kirk BVSc 14^th March 2013

SO WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJU6U8OdPUc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x4G0vYqzTc

At my age the evilness from UK courts' cartel is but small beer.

I broadcast a taste of last time I was in front of Their Lordships, in the Royal Courts of Justice, on another futile appeal, having served yet another prison sentance caused by Dr Tegwyn Williams, re a Cardiff judge daring to suggest, ney insult my intellegence, that he would order and obtain, bloody liar, for the NHS (Wales) to produce the evidence I was to be sent to Ashworth ipp as a public hazard.

Who filmed this, quite without my knowing and definitely without my approval , I do not know but had I known I would not of been so subservient......and the rest.

Dr Tewgwyn Wlliams black mailed by police to recommend to His Honour Judge Neil Bidder QC that I be incarcerated in Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Prison 'for his own safety'!..... see paragraph 39

4th Williams Psych Reprt 19 10 9.pdf

9 12 1 medical Kemp.pdf

Dr Tegwyn Williams' wrong doing?

The Appellant believes Dr Tegwyn Williams is an unaccountable Clinical Director who can call on NHS lawyers and NHS chiefs to cover up his wrongdoing. It is in papers, that were not before the Courts in this case, that Dr Tegwyn Williams is that unaccountable that he calls on the support of the Chief of local NHS and Welsh NHS to use police to stop complaints about him going to the General Medical Council

Dr TW to help his associates (some local police) in a civil dispute, Sectioned the Appellant, without first assessing him, when the Appellant was not a patient of those kinds of services.

Dr TW then entirely made up that the Appellant had significant irreversible brain damage and made application to indefinitely Section the appellant to High Security Hospital. He failed in his attempted to indefinitely Section as no other medical doctor would support him.

The point is that Dr Tegwyn Williams is not medically qualified to interpret brain scans, as that is the job of the neuro-radiologist who has training and qualifications so to do. Dr Tegwyn Williams does not use or invite anyone who was medically qualified.

The Clinic team wrote in the team assessment from the three monthly Sections at the Caswell Clinic, that they wanted to build a relationship with the Appellant as an outpatient and draw him in.

But each time the Appellant would attend Caswell clinic Dr Tegwyn Williams would arrange that Police were called to arrest him.

In the end, to prevent the General Medical Council acting on what Dr Tegwyn Williams does wrong, he brought zero tolerance prosecutions by claiming, in short, that lawful accurate comments that were not defamatory, made him feel harassed.

Changes in law and interpretations.

Does it matter that what the Appellant says is accurate and not defamatory and now changes in the law (reform of public order Section 5) also means that an insult is no longer meant to be harassment ?

Also Courts have decided to recognise playful or eccentric comments as not malicious and with the example of a jovial threat to blow up the airport as meaning to be light hearted.

That light hearted meaning is very relevant to the Appellant as his ‘Wanted posters’, were clearly meant to be light hearted comment from a man well now as a harmless eccentric.

Where is the proportionality in wanting to imprison a 67 year old man for making accurate, reasonable, eccentric, light hearted but entirely justified and necessary comment ?

Stafford NHS scandal, the Need for Freedom of Expression and Appellant’s course of conduct and alleged Breach, can stop suffering and worse.

Mr Jeremy Hunt, the Coalition Health Minister encourages the need for people to be able to speak out when things go wrong in the NHS and that no gagging Orders should exist on NHS conduct. Especially as around 1200 people needlessly died at Stafford as there was no where to complain and little way to speak out

There are said to be at least fifteen other hospital Trust like Stafford.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and “incompatibility”

The Appellant would be raises whether the Criminal Court of Appeal would grant permission for an application to ague “incompatibility” on how the Act is not compatible with Human and Fundamental Rights and that Parliament could not have known the effect that it’s legislation would have.

As we are aware it is for the Higher Courts to declare incompatibility and for Parliament to remove that incompatibility, if it so wishes.

It is said that the ‘course of conduct’ in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is unique to the UK. No other country has it. Other countries make do with stalking laws and other like measures. One reason why all other countries do not use ‘a course of conduct’ as a criminal offence is that it is said that this kind of law is open to too many problems and abuse.

One of the four cornerstones of EU law is that a person must be able to tell that their conduct would be a criminal offence. The UK law interprets that as would know with advice of a lawyer.

Yet full time Judges decide on if a course of conduct amount to harassment in ways that the best lawyers in the UK cannot predict how Judges will interpret what amounts to harassment in for example the zero tolerance, white collar, neighbour or family disputes. The appellant believes that means that the Protection from Harassment Act is clearly not compatible with EU law, and that is but one example.

With the Malicious Communications Act 2003, a new stalking law and various other measures and that the Harassment Act is know to be so widely over used and miss used, many call for the 1997 Act to fade away, in favour of expanding the scope of other laws

Maurice John Kirk BVSc

12 March 2013

My 64 page statement completed as police helicopter hovered over head as armed police surrounded the matrimonial home (see blog below of home and aerodrome up for auction due to a broken marriage) with frightend wife citing this incident, in divorce papers, due to Operation Orchid, to snatch our then 10 year old daughter at the same time as my hand cuffs clicked on.

Who will be next to suffer under power crazy South Wales Police Hierarchy?

09 06 19 64 pages of Witness Statement of Maurice John Kirkl.pdf

Maurice Kirk v Dr T W Williams.docx

11 03 10 Dr T W position statement (1).pdf

GMC.pdf

Glamorgan Gem 30th Sept 10.pdf

10 09 06 SWP_Claimant_interim_Skeleton.pdf

TO stop this trial from starting Dolmans, solicitors advised Barbara Wilding and MAPPA meetings in Caswell Clinic, would you believe, on how to instigate her Metropolitan Police intorduced tactic of a 'shoot to kill' policy but first she had had to get me registered MAPPA level 3, using Dr Williams, in order for it to be a 'lawful kill'

the 22nd June 09 police raid , using well over twenty, some armed, police officers, and helicopter, under Operation Chalice' to surround our home was co-ordinjated with anotter pack of police officers , under Operation Orchid' in order to snatch our daughter.....telling my wife I was so dangerous a threat to her and the general public our Genevieve was to be 'taken into care'. Kirstie had other ideas.

http://kirkflyingvet.com/photos/aircaraft_and_airshows/South-Wales-Airfield-FOR-SALE.aspx

10 12 7 MJK MAPPA Executive Summary.pdf

To stop this on going trial , currently in Cardiff County Court, for police now proven police criminal conduct and harassment damages, from ever reaching cross examination stage, first it was 'my possession of a machine gun 'fiasco and then the State playing this fabricated medical 'findings', their 'Gulag Card', as seventeen years of police harassment, so far and HM assisted 'treacle treatment; whough Cardiff's iniquitous law courts had failed to block the true state of both our law courts , prisons and police forces, right across The Principality.

09 09 03 MG Trans Redacted.pdf

Their Lordships, together with the documentary evidence that Dr Tegwyn Mel Williams knowingly falsified, in the presence of South Wales Police officers, his Sect 9 countersigned witness statements, to obtain my false imprisonment, are to consider the 'ramifications' of the enclosed transcript from part of 4th May 12 'Breach of Restraining Order' conviction hearing, now the subject of their deliberations.

The transcript clearly indicates, just as in the 2010 'machine gun' scandalous jury tria, l was refused even my legal papers and personal court exhibits even in thew court room!

On 4th May2012 His Honour Judge Curran QC, whilst I was forced to be absent due to requiring urgent medical attention, had refused me Dr Williams or any others, named, to be either my 'character witness' or as a 'witness of fact'.

On 1st December 2011 District Judge John Charles had done exactly the same, in my absence, when he convict me for 'harassment' of Dr Williams following the publishing of further falsifed documents by Dr Tegwyn Williams, namely, my series of NHS (Wales) Caswell Clinic psychiatric reports culminating, on 2nd December 2009, at Cardiff Crown Court, that I be further sectioned under the 1983 Mental Health Act, due to 'significant brain damage' and 'possible cancer', in Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Prison.

Closer scutiny of my Casswel Clinic, Bridgend, medical records, discloses, as in his October 2009 psychiatric report, his other and most pressing reason as to why I had to be moved to Broadmoor or Ashworth was because of 'veiled' threats , he told me, of 'reprisals' by an old gentleman by the name of Norman Scarth!

T20120090 - Kirk - proc from 10.40 - 12.26 - 04.05.12.pdf

Experts in the field confirm there was no sign of relevant brain damage BEFORE Williams even writes the report without appropriate qualifications.

On 7th August 09, when he wrote his first released psychiatric report, [previous others only for MAPPA South Wales Police meetings], as His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC stated, when refusing, recently, to 'strike out' my one million pound damages claim against NHS (Wales), without evening examining his patient!

09 09 01radiologist scans report.pd

09 09 30 INTERIM PSYCHIATRIC REPORT Oct1 2009 REDACTED.pdf

09 12 02 Transcript Crn Crt REDACTED.pdf

09 12 17 Court Hearing to Extend IPP.pdf

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/03/20/the-supreme-court-on-harassment-purpose-and-rationality/#more-17700

You may like to Google 'The Real Maurice Kirk' and come to the County Court tomorrow and Crown court on Thursday

ps My birthday is on Tuesday

Quiz Time:

What does a Duchess, a dairy maid and a cow have in common

clue:

It was most unlikely my father fought on the D-Day Beaches

Answer:

Work it out for yourself

my e-mail is maurice@kirkflyingvet.com

Subject:

Signing up to 'I, Patrick Cullinane, will demonstrate outside the Royal Courts of In-Justice for FOUR days, starting Tue 1st October 2013, to RESTORE the Rule of Law and banish the Rule of JUDGES from the Kangaroo Courts in the UK' at PledgeBank.com

Please click on the link below to confirm your signature on the
pledge at the bottom of this email.

http://www.pledgebank.com/L/BVyQLvFuTJTaBt79hA

The pledge was created by Patrick Cullinane and reads:

'I will I, Patrick Cullinane, will demonstrate outside the
Royal Courts of In-Justice for FOUR days, starting Tue 1st
October 2013, to RESTORE the Rule of Law and banish the Rule of
JUDGES from the Kangaroo Courts in the UK but only if 150 other
people from the UK will do the same. We the People in the UK
have been denied our GUARANTEED RIGHTS to due-process via the
Common Law Trial by Jury, which is the Law of the Land.'

Yours,
the PledgeBank.com team

ends

Keith Vaz MP & Welsh Judiciary Fudge NHS Control over their own Doctors to Block GMC Investigation

Maurice — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:14:00 GMT

MY BRIEF EXPLANATION FOR WELSH AUTHORITIES NHS & MAPPA EXTREME CONDUCT

Associated videos to this epic 'Flight to Australia', 'without a map', suffering 'significant brain damage' and suspect brain tumour, led to the unlawful sectioning, under the 1983 Mental Health Act, of the pilot, 'trading in machine guns', by several NHS (Wales) employees, all guarrenteed imunity to prosecution by MAPPA and eleven Cardiff Crown Court judges, sum up the plans by the Welsh Authorities for YOU or any anyone else who dares challenge the 'New World Order'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2yLlBunsrc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JVFh-AoHiU

12 12 31 CPS Dicken re RCJ Appeal.pdf

12 12 31 IPCC Vaz.pdf

This early 'draft'was handed to my Mackenzie Friend in the 3rd May12 jury trial from wicked CPS barrister David Garath Evans who continues to produce the written over 'draft' by the eaqually wicked Judge John Charles in front of a host of my helpers in the public gallery

11 12 01 RO CPS Draft REDACTED.pdf

12 12 21 CPS Dicken RO.pdf

12 10 21 Restraining Order WitnessStatement REDACTED.doc

12 07 13 CARDIFF POLICE STATEMENT.doc,

The point is that neither the police Caswell Clinic psychiatrist nor psychologist Professor Wood are medically qualified to interpret a CT brain scan as that is the role of the neuro-radiologist who has training and qualifications so to do.

All the neuro radiologists that examined the scans contradict the psychiatrist’s findings but still he went ahead and applied that I be sectioned IPP to Ashworth, ‘imprisonment for public protection’ with the full support of MAPPA

On 2^nd December 2009 in Cardiff Crown Court the prosecution, police psychiatrist and court of were all in receipt of my privately funded specialist report faxed the day before. Only achievedm incidentally, by the quick thinking Walter Sweeney, ex MP for the Vale of Glamorgan and his lovely wife, Nuala, a leading consultant radioligist in South East Yorkshire.

No one would allow it to be referred to as seen on the transcript overlooked to be destroyed at the time.

9 12 1 medical Kemp.pdf

09 12 02 Transcript Crn Crt REDACTED.pdf

http://kirkflyingvet.com/photos/legal/_A300_100_2C00_000-Machine-Gun-Reward.aspx quickly repainted by police but failed to fool the jury

Machine Gun Indictment.pdf Carrying a Mandatory 10 year prison sentance and by now the South Wales Police had painted the machine gun a different colour to try and fool the jury

Likewise, someone stupidly forgot to 'corrupt' the tape before transcription....a common game for distorting the truth to fool the public

09 12 17 Court Hearing to Extend IPP.pdf

However, there is the built in provision in the Act that you cannot be prosecuted 'for a course of conduct' when attempting 'to prevent or detect (further ) crime'.....the very purpose of distributed WANTED posters. A further procaution was taken to get no less than severn police officers to examine the posters for adverse comment whilst they were being distributed. Of course I was refused any of them as witnesses

The CPS, on 1st December, produced various drafts of a 'Restraining Order' producing the following but still not disclosing the one now needed, of course, for the Criminal Court of Appeal, very shortly, the part hand written draft brought waved under my nose, in my cell, by that GEOamey guard, the lying little Lee Barker who's statement completely contradicted that of the only other tamed witness in a corridoe of six eager on lookers!

THE 1997 HARASSMENT ACT is a typically knee jerk written piece of legislation, of the Blair era, now being abused just to lock up those exposing the crimes going on daily in our welsh law courts.

Anticipating the continuing conduct of the Welsh courts, to protect their very own NHS's conduct in a similar manner to the way they had so far protected their police force, irrespective of the facts, I quietly lobbed into their cess pit of deceipt, rather like a Mills bomb into the mill pool for trout, a petty debt £840 claim for bus fares and time wasted, travelling backwards and forwards countless times to Caswell Clinic, when originally promised my medical records used on 2nd December 09 to have me sent to Ashworth. That claim, as predicted, to prevent the doctor having the risk of committing perjury, was settled out of court to the cost to the tax payer well in excess of £20,000.

There then followed the substantive claims before the final one due on 30th January 2013 at the hearingr to consolidate with the eight or so police claims:

10 06 07 One Million Pound Claim against NHS (Wales)_only R.pdf

12 12 04 SWP High Court Consolidation Application - REDACTED.doc

WHY IS THIS MAN 'ON THE SICK' BUT REPRESENTED BY MORGAN COLE WHO ACT FOR NHS (WALES)?

it stinks, doesn't it?

http://mauricejohnkirk.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/ipcc-receives-631-corruption-allegation-complaints-about-welsh-police-forces/

LATEST NHS & POLICE RESPONSE (Crime Reference number 62126415504 reported 16.45 hrs 28th Dec 2012)

12 12 13 NHS Rebuttal Restraining Order Variation_0001.pdf

12 12 30 MJK NHS reponse to 13th letter.doc

At my 20^th December 2012 magistrate’s application, to be able to see my South Wales doctor, this 13^th December Morgan Cole document was, without me knowing, already with both District Judge Bodfan Jenkins and CPS Mr Dicken, the latter summoned to represent Her Majesty.

All four parties, the NHS, the protected rogue doctor, scheming judge and bewildered CPS ALL blocked the progress of the case by pre arranging yet another adjournment, a game they have played now for over a year…...anything to cover up the truth.

Like wise, Bodfan Jenkins, an old hand at perverting the course of justice, held back the clerk of the court’s notes of the May 12 ‘shooting walking stick’ hearing following my repeated attempts to have my totally legal property returned by the police following their 2009 ‘machine gun’ house raid fiasco.

The case was adjourned, far too embarrassing for a public arena. My medical care will have wait until their conclusion at 22^nd January hearing!!!…….. come, witness and inhale their stench

The ‘walking stick shot gun case lingers on a ‘case stated’ application forcing the same judge to release the court’s notes indicating it had statements from both police and my then wife , none of which I knew about during the 2010 ‘machine gun’ jury trial, indicating a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

So what? The South Wales Police are past masters at distorting the truth.

Letter to GMC:

I emphasize that in writing my psychiatric reports Dr ******** was unduly influenced by the South Wales Police to report that I was suffering mental health problems resulting from ‘significant’ brain damage and that in coming to such a conclusion Dr ******** deliberately ignored reports from properly qualified radiologists stating that my brain scan was normal for a man of my age.

Instead the doctor sought out the advice of a clinical psychologist researcher who was not qualified to interpret such scans (and who was not made aware of the radiologists reports) and then moved beyond even this advice to tell numerous courts on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that I had suspected brain cancer.

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

enclosed

09 08 28 SPECT & MRI Scans.pdf

None of these named three Caswell Clinic and Princess of Wales doctors were allowed in any of my Harassment or Restraining Order hearing

Caswell Clinic Medical Records Leak REDACTED rcds

Caswell Clinic Medical Records Leak REDACTED.pdf

BRISTOL RADIO INTERVIEW

http://bcfm.org.uk/category/shows/dialect-radio

[DOWNLOAD & skip first 4min 30 sec of this 14th Dec 12 Broadcast]

NEXT Bristol Broadcast shortly.......if not 'pulled'

None of these named three Caswell Clinic and Princess of Wales doctors were allowed in any of my Harassment or Restraining Order hearings

09 12 02 Transcript Crn Crt REDACTED.pdf

09 09 30 INTERIM PSYCHIATRIC REPORT Oct1 2009 REDACTED.pdf

10 10 17 GMC Wales complaint REDACTED.doc

12 09 19 GMC Briefing REDACTED.pdf

09 09 03 MG Trans Redacted.pdf

11 01 05 GMC close to Mr Kirk.doc

http://www.gmc-uk.org/concerns/making_a_complaint/3841.asp

03 07 23 HM Attorney General Steps In.pdf

As the Cardiff Cabal dictate the instructions to your own lawyer's and whose turn it is to win, in the stench of their courts, this further futile jesture may amuse or annoy the occasional reader?

Hearing date 30th January 2013

12 12 04 SWP High Court Consolidation Application REDACTED.doc

The three month trial, for first three of eight or nine Actions against the South Wales Police, starts on 18th February all based on police being allowed to refuse to disclose their records and identity of all witnesses at each of the forty odd incidents of police bullying.

I started this retaliation 20 years ago in Bristolbut then transferred to Wales where the first thing the little bast**ds did was to refuse me a jury.

Each time the trial was listed, ever since, the same bunch of evil Welsh had me locked me up, for months at a time, on a string of fabricated charges dependant, of course, on a string of very corrupt judges in both Cardiff Crown and magistrates courts and wicked forensic psychiatrist

SCHEDULE SWP FINAL.pdf

and a wee missive from down under.......

Dear Fellow Freedom Fighters,

PANACEA is "an answer or solution for all problems or difficulties ... via Latin from Greek panakeia healing everything, from pan all + akēs remedy".and that's certainly the case for all our problems and injustices here in Australia (& Old South Wales) where we are regarded as Slaves by the Thieves and Traitors, ie: the Banks and Judges, who rule our country because of our ignorance of MAGNA CARTA and gutlessness to fight the evil-doers.When MAGNA CARTA says: "No free man shall be taken indeed imprisoned, or exiled or outlawed, or dispossessed or destroyed in any way, nor shall we pass over him nor send over him unless by the lawful judgment of his equals which is the law of the land", and the Thieves and Traitors continue to steal and kill and destroy unimpeded, then Hosea 4: 6 is 100% correct by saying "People are destroyed for the lack of knowledge".Thomas Jefferson said, "If the people do not know how to govern themselves, then educate them"..... which brings me to the attachment annexed hereto and called "COURTS ARE GOVERNMENT".Robert Balgarnie of Inverell, told me years ago, "We're living in a 5-star prison" and "Nothing is going to change because we're no hurting enough, yet".Educating the People of Australia is a difficult task .. especially against all the lies and propaganda the Thieves and Traitors churn out.It's going to take M-O-N-E-Y........ BIG M-O-N-E-Y.Does anyone know of a PHILANTHROPIC PATRIOT ....... anyone?????If there is such a MAN or WOMAN, perhaps they might like to read the "AIMS and OBJECTIVES" of the AUSTRALIAN COMMON LAW PARTY at http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/pdf/ACLP%20Constitution001.pdf saying: “3.1 To ensure that the Commonwealth of Australia remains a Common Law Jurisdiction with Sovereignty belonging to the Australian People who will always be able to exercise their inalienable Right to Trial by Jury in Australian Courts for the administration of Justice, the advancement of Truth, the effective implementation of Democracy and the preservation of Liberty. 3.2 To seek the teaching of the fundamental principles of Common Law throughout the schools and universities of Australia that Common Law is indeed the Law of the People, by the People and for the People. 3.3 To ensure that Grand Juries operate for the investigation of serious offences and of the maladministration of government and the finding of true Bills of Indictment to go to Petit Juries who will judge the facts and the laws presented to them in those particular actions and that Grand and Petit Juries be unimpeded in their inquisitorial role and the full execution of their authority to question and call for witnesses and to determine the admissibility of evidence.3.4 To endorse and support candidates for election to all levels of government in Australia in order to achieve the above Aims and Objectives.”Politicians are either ego-trippers or stooges for the "vested interest groups" (to put it politely).... and our Parliaments are definitely not acting in our best interests, in the spirit of "For we are young and free".Therefore, there is an URGENT and DESPERATE NEED to put these characters in their place. Unless we can firmly establish DEMOCRACY OVER BUREAUCRACY, ie: the PEOPLE having SOVEREIGNTY, then we really are NOTHING but SLAVES and we commit our CHILDREN to that ever-worsening state. Yours sincerely,John Wilson.Chairman, Australian Common Law Party. PS: SUPPORT & FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS: Firstly, there’s no better way to pitch in than to join the Party. There are no Membership Fees. See: http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/html/aclp.html Secondly, spread the word that the AUSTRALIAN COMMON LAW PARTY is now upon the scene. The word is: solutions to all our problems lie within ourselves. Thirdly, send donations to the BENDIGO BANK, 198 Macquarie Street, Parramatta, NSW 2150, Australia, where our account is: Account name: AUSTRALIAN COMMON LAW PARTY. BSB: 633-000 and Account number: 143521896. For overseas deposits SWIFT No./Code: BENDAU 3B.

http://victims-unite.net/our-cases-as-stories/violent-physical-attacks/maurice-kirk/

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lnmrn/2012/12/28/the-horokane-hour-hosted-by-dr-len-

Michael Docherty's US interview on 'Harassment Act' remakably 'deja vu'!!!!!

Cardiff County Court Hearing re Doctor 30^th January 2013

There is an outstanding civil damages claim surrounding police operation, ‘Operation Chalice’ and a ‘machine gun’ I once owned attached to my aircraft. The armed police raid, backed by helicopter, on the marital home on 22^nd June 2009, marked the date of our marital separation. Witnesses present are reluctant to disclose any information always needed. That includes witness identification, copy of all statements taken and substance of all conversations and how and when the house search was carried out etc My daughter was again at risk, under police code name ‘Operation Orchid’, to ‘snatch her by Social Services. It is MAPPA and a rogue forensic psychiatrist that caused, if you wish to believe a word of it, added reasons given and accepted in court, as to why I was not to be released for nearly eight months and in return sectioned under the 1983 Mental Health Act.

Cardiff Magistrates Court Proceedings Buried

The case relates to a purported ‘shooting walking stick shot gun’ obtained by the police, nearly a year later, from the marital home, during my January 2010 ‘machine gun’ trial at Cardiff but with no witness statements taken. None of this information came to my notice until three years later and only by my court applications to make the police disclose relevant evidence.

Application to Vary Restraining Order continues 22nd January 2013.....as farcical as the previous nonsense

MEAN WHILE THIS IS IGNORED

IPCC Refs 2099/0116588 & 2012/001471

Cardiff Wales

CF3 5EA

5th November 2012

Dear Sir,

Re More South Wales Police Bullying

Further to my ongoing complaint please note the latest complaints, enclosed, of at least several more examples of criminal conduct being occasioned:

South Wales Police cross to England to influence a witness that has caused my name being removed from the veterinary register and receive a criminal conviction.

Enclosed website blog with one 27th Oct 12 statement agreed and signed by Christopher Paul ALEXANDER originally MR EBBS and witnessed by several people.

. 2nd Nov 2010 conviction of common assault fabricated to use to oppose bail over a two year period only for it to be then withdrawn police never ever having intended to fight my appeal as the two year use of successfully opposing my bail had served its purpose..

Enclosed as a summary from my current website blog simply to indicate the extreme length Cardiff judges are now actively supporting their own police force’s criminal conduct

False imprisonment re 2^nd allegation of Breach of a Restraining Order from approx 21st Sept 2012 imprisonment for nearly 3 months on evidence later withdrawn as the police knew full well my action to fax a pre action protocol draft witness summons to Caswell Clinic was lawful.

My request for the MAPPA fabricated withheld medical evidence, used by police, CPS and rogue doctor, to apply for my transfer to Ashworth Psychiatric prison on 2nd Dec 2009, requires immediate disclosure in order I may apply to be put back on the veterinary register and for me to be eligible to update my professional flying licences.

Please do not allow this new evidence slow down you outstanding investigations of 'shoot to kill policy, 'machine gun' malicious prosecution and the falsification and maladministration of my being registered a MAPPA level 3 victim. Just when will you instruct an outside police force?

Maurice J Kirk BVSc